The NCAA has lost its mind (but you knew that already)
The NCAA rules committee is considering tougher penalties for taunting...
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3899874
How consistently would this ever be called (if implemented). Anyone? Anyone? And oh, the potential for corruption!
UPDATE: Just so ya know, the article linked above has been updated to include a whole variety of stuff. When the story was first posted today, it was almost SOLELY about proposed penalties for taunting.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^
Celebrating excessively should NEVER negate a play that scores points. I'd rather they suspend players for a game for excessive celebration rather than change the outcome of games.
The biggest celebrations come toward the end of the game, when it's all on the line. This is a scary proposal.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:43 PM ^
So, you'd rather have them affect the entire course of the next game rather than one part of the current game?
February 11th, 2009 at 4:50 PM ^
if the act is truly egregious. I'm not sure what would qualify, though. Everything leading up to the point of celebration (i.e., the play that scored points) should be left alone.
I get that they want additional deterrence here, I just think it should focus on future consequences. Personally, I don't think the rule should be changed at all.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:05 PM ^
I think this is the key line from the article:
If the rule was eventually changed, players who begin taunting opponents before reaching the end zone could have those touchdowns called back.
I think that right now, all celebration penalties are dead ball, assessed on the kickoff. The only change would be with celebrations/taunts that occur before the play is over/points are scored. Similar to how points are taken off the board if a holding penalty is called during the play. So the players would just have to wait until they reach the end zone to act like idiots, and it'll be the same 15 yard penalty as usual.
Not that I think this is a good idea, but it's not like the refs would be able to take the points off the board if a team gets a little too excited in the end zone after a big score.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:14 PM ^
thanks for bringing it up.
I would still apply my main point though - whether or not he taunted, he would still score. So we shouldn't take points off the board. Instead go with some future penalty if it is really necessary (I still say it isn't).
February 11th, 2009 at 4:52 PM ^
I really don't like this. That Washington game last year makes this seem like it could go VERY wrong.
I'm of the opinion of letting guys celebrate so long as they don't direct it towards the opponent.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^
Agreed. Celebration, diving into the endzone, etc. should be fine. There's a reason the definitions for "celebration" and "taunting" aren't the same. The NCAA needs a dictionary.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:54 PM ^
Who is wronged by any type of celebration? Obviously, if you're in someone's face, it has the possibility of instigating something. In my opinion, this is the difference between taunting and celebrating. If, however, you are celebrating (and not taunting) there is no victim.
Players, teams, coaches, etc. will all be judged on their actions. If some player is being a douche, or a whole team is being douche-y, then this will be obvious to those watching. Athletic directors will be wary of their brand becoming associated with unbecoming behavior and will act accordingly.
Again, I make a distinction between celebrating and taunting.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^
more at "taunting", than "celebrating":
"If the rule was eventually changed, players who begin taunting opponents before reaching the end zone could have those touchdowns called back."
February 11th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^
SPORTS ARE NOT MEANT TO BE FUN! DO NOT OFFEND THE DELICATE SENSIBILITIES OF THE SOCCER MOM IN ROW 50! YOU THERE, DON'T BE HAPPY YOU SCORED A TOUCHDOWN!
February 11th, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^
NO NO NO NO NONONONONONONONONONO AAAAANNNNNDDDDD NOOOOO!!!!
This would be the *~gayest~* thing that the NCAA has ever done or could ever do.
Seriously, NCAA, how about instead of trying to take the fun out of sports, and creating more situations wherein referees can make game altering calls based on rules that must be interpreted subjectively, fucking crack down on all of the bullshit that goes on!!
Simple. No? OJ Mayo, said he took money, do shit about it. Instead on penalizing Reggie Bush for doing a flip into the endzone, how about you do something about the fact that his family was given 250 grand.
You guys have your heads so far up your asses worrying about stupid worthless shit like taunting that you're missing te big picture. Oversigning, treating kids like disposable commodities. Do something about it!
Jesus Christ
I'm already on my way to Oregon to sort this out with Bellotti....
February 11th, 2009 at 10:25 PM ^
I thought this was already covered on this board. Calling something gay is offensive, immature, and soooo 2008. Don't do it. Really.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:51 PM ^
Thanks, marlon. One never knows when a poster on this board might actually BE gay. Kudos, dude.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:58 PM ^
Being gay is gay.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^
How is taunting a guy when you're about to score a TD fun? It's classless. It's tasteless. It's stupid. If one of my players did that, I'd bench him immediately. There's no room for it in the game.
And by the way, doesn't it seem a little strange to be upset about the NCAA paying attention to "stupid worthless shit" when you're sitting at your computer reading an article about a proposed rule that hasn't even been ratified yet?
February 11th, 2009 at 11:10 PM ^
I'm also from the Barry Sanders school of quietly handing the ball over to a ref and wandering away, but each person is different. Celebration and taunting are two completely different things though.
Frankly, I think they should bring back the team celebrations. It's acknowledging that the team as a whole contributed to the score. Plus there are so many great team celebrations, the gun, the grenade, the snapshot, duck duck goose. I could go on...
February 11th, 2009 at 11:46 PM ^
1. When did I ever say it was ok to taunt a player to his face in the above post?
Oh wait, I didn't, but you keep beating down that straw man.
2. One of my uncles, who I hold in authority over you (sorry) told me he looked for two things in a player. The first thing was that he was an "asshole", and the second thing was that he was a "butt kicker". Now, why is my uncle's opinion important to me? He was considered to be one the best scouts in the NFL for 20+ years was an All-American right tackle for Michigan and played on back to back undefeated teams ('47 and '48). Now, obviously you can take his opinion with a grain of salt, but I knew the guy and trusted him (God rest his soul).
3. I happen to agree with my uncle. I want guys who are not going to be afraid to make plays. Now they don't necessarily have to be an asshole off the field, but I want guys who are going to play to whistle and then a little extra.
Take Jake Long for example, Long is notorious for his nastiness, continuing to shove a guy on the ground after a play, pinning him down keeping his ass there and letting him know that he beat him. It's still taunting, just no one pays any attention to the big "ugglies" when they do it, but that's what I like out of my players.
I'm guessing you don't pull your big O linemen for following through on their blocks and pancaking a guy into the ground even after the ball is nowhere in the area. An O Linemen is taunting by holding the guy down even though the play is no longer even close to his area, pushing him down like bitch I planted you in the ground and you ain't getting back up. A running back/wideout taunts by saying look at how I burned you now I'm going to spike the ball. Now, you can nitpick and nuance this all you want, it's the same thing.
4. OMFG the second half of your post is beyond assinine. You sir, deserve a medal for "most worthless comment ever". It would be like me saying, "Magnus I've noticed that you post a lot on this blog, as in 'get a life a lot', you also write your 'pink slips' diary journal as if your opinion has any influence over who plays or who doesn't, lol no one cares. I've also noticed that you love to shit on people and incite things. Get a life, stop posting on the internets."
I would never say that, and it would be stupid of me to say that because I then insult myself, due to the fact that it proves I have noticed all of your posts and would mean that by my own account, I too would need to get a life. It would be retarded-funny in that it is ironic, and would also succeed in making me look like a huge ass, so I personally would never do such a thing.
Also +1 to the guy who caught the gayness thing and called it so 2008.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:41 AM ^
1. "Seriously, NCAA, how about instead of trying to take the fun out of sports, and creating more situations wherein referees can make game altering calls based on rules that must be interpreted subjectively, fucking crack down on all of the bullshit that goes on!!"
I guess that's where it looked like you said it was okay, since you said the rule was trying to take "the fun out of sports."
2 and 3. I don't care about your uncle. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Just because he scouted that way doesn't mean that's the way every player should be. Barry Sanders wasn't an asshole, and he seemed to do okay for himself. And there's a difference between being an asshole/playing through the whistle and taunting a guy by wagging your finger in his face.
4. My point with the comment about spending your time on worthless shit was actually just kind of a joke. I just think it's funny when people post on message boards that other people need to worry about more important things. It's not that it wasn't a valid point. But thanks for letting this devolve into ad hominem attacks. Those are always fun, aren't they?
In summary, chill the fuck out.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^
Haha, who says I'm angry? I enjoy talking about sports, but I never get mad about it, because there's really nothing to get mad about. You give your opinion, I give mine, we disagree. It happens, and its what makes sports so fun and blogs like this so enjoyable. Also, point 4 was also a joke, hardy har har.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:08 PM ^
Don't take points off of the board. Ban the player who commits the penalty from participating in his team's next offensive or defensive series.
This is what they should do for those worthless off setting unsportsmanlike conduct penalties too.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:12 PM ^
with TheLastProphet...penalize cheaters first.
Just like the NCAA did to us with Webber, Traylor, Taylor, Bullock, etc. If it can happen to Michigan show your balls and bring the hammer down on USC.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:23 PM ^
Just so everyone is clear though I'm not trying to bash USC here, those were just the first two examples that I was able to come up with off the top of my head.
I'm angry about this because it is essentially a waste of time and resources.
Everyone knows that recruiting violations run rampant in basketball, and instead of trying to target and address the wide-spread corruption within NCAA hoops they choose to focus their attention on kids waving their arms around screaming "YEEEAAAHHH SUCK IT I SCORED" after a touchdown?
Worth and Less.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:36 PM ^
I'm pretty sure showing your balls would be a penalty under the new rule.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:25 PM ^
if USC can fit into the shoe let them wear it.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^
Granted, this is the NCAA football rules committee, which has no bearing on basketball but, come on NCAA, MAKE PLAYS!
February 11th, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^
The only penalty for celebration should be if the players/coaches/fans use cheap champagne. That's inexcusable.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:29 PM ^
Ya just gotta wonder.... who on earth at the NCAA comes up with these things? With taunting, it's not like anyone gets hurt. Maybe a little bruised ego, but come on! REALLLLLY???
If might not be so terribly against it if I thought for one minute it could (or would) be called consistently across the board. But that's a pretty impossible task, hence the stupidity of such a rule. But please.... all the trash talk that goes on amongst rivals, and you're gonna take points away because a scoring player pointed at the guy who missed him? That is going so far beyond what is reasonable.
Even excessive celebration penalties get abused (by the refs calling them, I mean). You're telling me that come November when Tate hooks up with Martavious for the game-winner against OSU, that 100K+ of us get to scream our heads off, while the team is supposed to just walk off the field?? WTF? Ok, maybe I'm a little overboard here, but you get the point.
After seeing this article, I was only convinced of one thing. The NCAA is bored, so they pulled out the crack pipes and thought of ways they could further fuck up college football.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:30 PM ^
I don't get the problem with celebrating. They can do cartwheels into the endzone from the 20 if they want to for all I care... What's the big deal?
February 11th, 2009 at 5:38 PM ^
The only rationale I can see for penalizing for excessive celebration is that it delays the game. I think an argument could be made for a 5-yard delay-of-game penalty. But right now the penalty is a big fat 15 yards. Stupid.
February 11th, 2009 at 6:13 PM ^
if some Ed Hightower type is officiating. But wait! Wasn't he the official who called the penalty against U-Dub in a game earlier in the season that when the WA qb toss the football into the crowd,game winning score infact,triggering the dreaded...taunting penalty?
Fun has become a three-letter dirty word....
February 11th, 2009 at 6:20 PM ^
Mike Bellotti needs to look at his own team before he starts talking about the whole NCAA. Have you ever seen an Oregon game? Jayson Williams dances in the grill of DBs every time he ACTUALLY catches a ball. This rule is a slap in the face of the athlete. If they actually called the rule they have now fairly for every team, they would not talk about this garbage. There is a rule on the books that says a player can't remove his helmet on the field to celebrate. However, If Tebow does it against FSU it is called "Being a Leader".
February 11th, 2009 at 8:58 PM ^
...Michigan scores last second (literally) touchdown on a Chad Henne pass to Mario Manningham to beat Penn State. Points are removed after a call for excessive celebration.
Yeah, this idea is dumb.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:02 PM ^
this year. Taking that play away would have possibly changed the national championship and a whole bunch of bowl matchups.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:48 PM ^
Manningham was in the end zone when he caught it, so the points couldn't be taken away. Unless somehow he taunted and then caught the ball.
Question is what about those guys who are penalized for diving into the end zone? Would you have to look and see if the ball was across before he started his dive? This is dumb. I'm all for celebration penalties but sometimes they're penalizing all the wrong ones.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:13 PM ^
The way I see it, this applies only to the players who turn around near the goal line and taunt a hopeless defender or who turn around and wave for the defender to catch up. Etc. Etc. That stuff has no place in the game. I'm okay with people diving into the end zone when nobody's around - which is currently a penalty - but I absolutely hate it when players turn around and wave or wag their finger. That type of stuff has no place in the game.
So yes. If they wag their finger in a defender's face, it should be a penalty from the spot of the foul. Like somebody else said above, if it were a holding penalty before the guy got to the end zone, it would be called back. Why shouldn't a taunting penalty nullify a TD?
February 11th, 2009 at 10:21 PM ^
the holding is different because it may have contributed to the TD - holding the defender prevented him from making the tackle. Thus, you take the points off the board. With taunting, he would have scored regardless of whether he taunted or not.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:26 PM ^
Okay...what about those unnecessary blocks in the back when the runner is 15 yards downfield and going in for a touchdown? Since it doesn't contribute to the TD, should those not be called? And if those SHOULDN'T be called and prevent a TD, then what are we going to do with the sudden outbreak of clipping penalties whenever there's a long run?
February 11th, 2009 at 10:39 PM ^
rulebook because there is much I disagree with. The block in the back you referenced - I don't think it should negate the TD. And there wouldn't be a sudden outbreak of clipping because you could just assess the penalty on kickoff or if the conduct is really bad, ejection. There's plenty of other cards in the deck to punish someone without taking points off the board. If someone is going to score no matter what, no conduct of any player should negate those points IMO. It's kind of like calling PI when the pass was uncatchable - a judgment call, but one that needs to be made.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:07 PM ^
...is that it's - at worst - premeditated, and it's - at best - hubris run amok.
When you think of most other penalties, they're all natural.
"Oh, this guy's getting past me and he's going to sack the quarterback - I'd better grab his jersey!"
"Argh...the only thing I can do to bring him down and save a touchdown is by grabbing his facemask!"
Those are reactionary. False starts, offsides, pass interference, etc. Yes, they should be penalized, but there's a physical, primal reason for committing them.
Taunting is pure, unadulterated hubris. It's LOOK AT ME I'M BETTER THAN YOU. Or it's THIS IS TOTALLY GOING TO RUIN YOUR SELF-ESTEEM.
There's nothing programmed in our DNA or mind-set that says, "I'm going to score a touchdown. I MUST WAG MY FINGER AT THE NEAREST OPPONENT!!!!!!" So does it perhaps deserve a harsher penalty? Sure.
Fine, you're going to let your emotions and overconfidence get the better of you? This isn't the place for that. Say goodbye to six points. I'm okay with it.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:30 AM ^
and your desire for harsher penalties (I actually don't want harsher penalties, but assume I do for the purposes of this post), but I disagree about where they should be placed. I don't want refs interfering with the scoreboard in a direct manner. When a team makes a play that gets them in the endzone without HELP from a penalty (i.e., no push off, holding, close to the play clip, etc), those points should stay no matter what.
If we are indifferent to points coming off the board, then we start to stray into arbitrary-land. "That facemask was brutal, subtract 2 points from their team." I realize that's absurd and not your argument, but it comes pretty close when an otherwise clean play that scored points comes off the board from a player being a douche. I think we can get adequate deterrence from other means, like ejecting the player or giving them game suspensions if necessary. People definitely won't celebrate if they have to sit for the 4th quarter or miss the next game.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:31 AM ^
I agree and cosign 100%.
My main complaint with this rule is that it unnecessarily provides another situation in which a referee can make a subjective call which potentially alters the outcome of a game. As a high school coach I would think you would prefer that the outcome of a game is decided by the plays your players make on the field rather than the calls the zebras choose to make.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:44 AM ^
...but fair enough.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:15 PM ^
You know as well as I do that the linemen clipping penalties are never called, the refs never see it and everybody else is too busy looking at the play downfield.
I'm a little bitter about this, I got benched for a couple of series unnecessarily because it happened to me, and I couldn't convince my coaches that I got murdered by 2 O-linemen until we watched the film session.
Back on topic, I think those should be called, shouldn't negate the touchdown, but should be enforced on the extra point (in HS, when extra points are iffy if you push them back), or off the kickoff in college.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:16 PM ^
Shenanigans!
February 11th, 2009 at 11:00 PM ^
As long as they flag every retard that makes a tackle - a regular tackle - and gets up and does a ridiculous little dance, I'll be happy.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:22 PM ^
I want O$U's tainted NC that they "won" with ineligible Maurice Clarett to come off the books, too.
I am tired of the rather obvious double standard here. What did O$U and U$C do to be exempt from punishment when they pay their players and do their work for them?
February 12th, 2009 at 2:03 PM ^
The NCAA does not have a problem with "celebration" per se.
The current penalties were initiated because the "celebrations" were getting to be more taunting the other team rather than celebrating. And, there started to be a lot more pushing, shoving, and even fights.
If you allow unlimited "celebrations", the result will inevitably be an ugliness in college football that no one wants.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:02 PM ^
Can you please provide statistical data showing that more "taunting" or "celebration" penalties were called this year than in years past.
Also, can you please provide data showing that more fights occurred this year than in years past.
Thank you.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:28 PM ^
You must have misunderstood what I posted. When I said current, I mean the rules as they existed in the 2008 football season and are current until changed.
When I referenced celebrations turning into taunting and more pushing/shoving/fights, I was referring to behaviors from several years ago that were the impetus for the NCAA "excessive celebration" rule.
I do not know when the initial rule was first passed. Does anyone?
February 12th, 2009 at 7:08 PM ^
While I definitely am against such a penalty being allowed to take points off the board, I do agree there's just no place in the game for such classless behavior as taunting often is.
There are two primary reasons I'm against the proposed rule:
1) Like most other penalties, it will not be called consistently from game to game, conference to conference, crew to crew. We know this.
2) Having considered reason #1, I have to call out those who say they're ok with the rule. Because I promise you the first time Michigan is the victim not so much of the rule itself, but of the inconsistency with which it is called, you won't be nearly as ok with it as you once thought you were.