Taunting

All Categories >> Sports

04/15/2010 1:22 pm

Alex's Archive

Rate this Blog

Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5092774

"Beginning in 2011, live-ball penalties will be assessed from the spot of the foul and eliminate the score. Examples include players finishing touchdown runs by high-stepping into the end zone or pointing the ball toward an opponent."

Why is taunting such a big deal? Were the people passing these rule changes subjected to severe grade school ridicule and now trying to seek revenge?

You're really going to take away a TD because a guy high steps on his way in? What's next, the team that makes the most polite greeting during the coin toss gets 10 points to start the game? Is smiling still allowed on the field, or is the scoring/winning team supposed subdue their emotions and apologize to the other team?

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/15/2010 @ 01:28:43 PM
For a second I though this was the NFL, and I was upset. Now I'm not, both because I don't give a crap about college ball, and because it makes slightly more sense to do this there, though I don't think much of it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 04/15/2010 @ 04:18:18 PM
Sound's like a pretty stupid rule to me. I think taunting should be flagged, but assess the penalty on the kickoff or conversion try. That way the player has still hurt his team by giving the other team good field position or making an extra point or 2 point try harder. Don't take away the score.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 04/15/2010 @ 05:12:50 PM
I think those that want to allow taunting are more annoying in their complaint about the anti-american fascists that want to eliminate it than the people trying to eliminate it. The wording shared by someone who is obviously in disagreement with it isn't even that bad. So players can't highstep anymore. Really? Is that really to the detriment of college football? I know for sure I am going to stop watching now because I want my team to be able to walk all over some cupcake and make them ashamed for even stepping on the field.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 04/15/2010 5:14:40 pm

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 04/15/2010 @ 05:34:27 PM
I just don't understand why it needs to be regulated. It would different if it had been a major infraction and trying to make an argument for allowing it, but what is the impetus for making the change towards stricter penalties/enforcement for taunting? If your team is good they're still going to walk all over some cupcake. I doubt the cupcake really cares if the other team highsteps if they're going to lose by 30 anyway. If the other team played their best then they have nothing to be ashamed of right?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 04/15/2010 @ 10:29:40 PM
It's not part of the game, that's why. You shouldn't have to be good to be respected.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 04/15/2010 @ 11:12:57 PM
Well, pushing taunting as a thing has some merit in college since it's a place of learning, and "don't be a dick about it" is as good a lesson as any. The point that the person brought up though is that it really just brings it in line with the other penalties. If there was holding on the 5 the TD wouldn't count, so why should it count if there's taunting on the 5, which is actually a bigger penalty yards wise. Of course the answer to that is that the holding could have directly led to the TD where as the taunting didn't, and from time to time the player actually bungles away the TD trying to show off. I'm not sure this is the way to go about it, but there's some merit to the idea of not letting football in general, and college football in this particular case, turn into the WWE.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 04/16/2010 @ 07:26:36 AM
So I guess we have to start taking home runs away when someone flips their bat while the ball is in the air.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/16/2010 @ 08:30:41 AM
Well, baseball has a way of sorting taunting after a homerun out on its own, even if "retribution" doesn't come until months later in a meaningless Spring Training game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 04/16/2010 @ 08:37:40 AM
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 08:26:36 AM So I guess we have to start taking home runs away when someone flips their bat while the ball is in the air. Totally, Kirk Gibson and Kirby Puckett should have had their game-winning home runs nullified due to excessive fist pumping.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - Since 1980! 04/19/2010 @ 02:17:21 PM
amen, duque.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/19/2010 @ 09:38:32 PM
Micah Wrote - 04/16/2010 @ 09:37:40 AM jthompto Wrote - 04/16/2010 @ 08:26:36 AM So I guess we have to start taking home runs away when someone flips their bat while the ball is in the air. Totally, Kirk Gibson and Kirby Puckett should have had their game-winning home runs nullified due to excessive fist pumping. There literally are no infractions in baseball. This, then, doesn't even make sense.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/20/2010 @ 08:59:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xipza9joNw		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 04/21/2010 @ 01:17:32 AM
Scott Wrote - 04/15/2010 @ 05:12:50 PM So players can't highstep anymore. Really? Is that really to the detriment of college football? I know for sure I am going to stop watching now because I want my team to be able to walk all over some cupcake and make them ashamed for even stepping on the field. Totally dude! Everyone against this new rule is just a pro-taunting bafoon! And, scene. The rule seems kind of dumb. In some ways though, I'm torn. I hate taunting, but I'm not really big on penalties that needlessly and/or disproportionately change the complexion of the game. I like the idea of trying to change the behaviors and whatnot, but something about this just seems awkward. I imagine it's going to punish the fans just as much as the players. It's not going to be pretty. Players have pretty much been rewarded socially for stupid behaviors like taunting and showing the world how great they think they are. I don't see them reining that in when they're in the heat of the moment. The severity of the penalty should make it less acceptable over time and maybe eventually change things. But I predict growing pains. One BCS game will probably swing entirely on one of these calls. And don't even get me started on all the trouble in determining what's taunting and what's not. Just another grey area judgement call for the refs to make in the blink of any eye. And now the stakes are higher than ever.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 04/21/2010 @ 01:39:24 AM
jthompto Wrote - 04/16/2010 @ 07:26:36 AM So I guess we have to start taking home runs away when someone flips their bat while the ball is in the air. Jeremy Wrote - 04/16/2010 @ 08:30:41 AM Well, baseball has a way of sorting taunting after a homerun out on its own, even if "retribution" doesn't come until months later in a meaningless Spring Training game. Micah Wrote - 04/16/2010 @ 08:37:40 AM jthompto Wrote - 04/16/2010 @ 07:26:36 AM So I guess we have to start taking home runs away when someone flips their bat while the ball is in the air. Totally, Kirk Gibson and Kirby Puckett should have had their game-winning home runs nullified due to excessive fist pumping. I don't know how much of these comments are tongue in cheek, but they sort of illustrate the point of what's taunting and what's not. The three homers: Puckett? To me, it seemed like authentic celebration. But I wouldn't be surprised if one out of ten refs would whistle that type of thing for taunting. Gibson? Again, to me, authentic. But on the other hand, it could seem a bit unnatural. That level of fist pump would probably draw a whistle from maybe 3 out of 10 refs. Was the Prince Fielder planned out homerun earthquake/bomb thing taunting? I might lean toward "yes." At best, I thought it was tacky. Others thought it demonstrated a positive aspect of teammates being teammates. But of the three, it was easily the closest to a taunt. It also happened at the end of the "play." I know it's baseball, but still, just work with it. So Puckett goes unpenalized, Fielder gets penalized on the next play, and Gibson's homer gets taken away by some ref who doesn't understand one of the great sports moments of our lifetime. (And the A's go on to win the game, and the Series and the next two, and today we're all rocking Eckersley moustaches and speaking Russian!)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/21/2010 @ 10:03:00 AM
I don't think any of the homers are relevant examples. Fielder's celebration technically took place after the game, not just after the play. And, once the ball leaves the field on a homerun, rounding the bases is just a formality, so a walkoff homerun or a game changing homerun warrants a bit of sponteneous celebration. It's different in football. Comparing the two doesn't even make sense.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 04/21/2010 @ 11:01:11 AM
I know in the NFL, the new thing these days is to do a rugby style flip into the endzone, which would start before said player is actually in the endzone. Then, some player last year, can't remember who, actually got hurt doing that flip. Is that part of the game? No, does NOT doing it make the game any less interesting? No. It may be too harsh to penalize something like high stepping. Certain things are obvious though. Holding the ball out while running away from a defender is text book "i'm just doing this to piss you off". If I think of some more legimitate taunts merritting penalty, I'll add to this.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 04/21/2010 @ 11:38:50 AM
Again, I don't think anyone is necessarily saying they "like" players taunting each other, just the the punishment is disproportionate, and the crime is ill-defined. We shouldn't encourage guys to be dicks, but this is almost certainly going to lead to directly losing a game for some team a handful of times, and a couple of those might be on questionable knee jerk interpretations.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 04/21/2010 @ 12:11:14 PM
Well, it might be, but Jon used the term "growing pains", and I think it fits. If they are trying to cut down on things like this, giving a player an individual repremand doesn't sink in often. That person then weighs the cost-benefit (is the penalty worth my self-indulgence?). Now, if that player realizes that his me-only actions are now going to affect his teammates as well, things will change very quickly.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 04/21/2010 @ 12:50:16 PM
It already did effect your team. It was the equivalent of a dead ball excessive celebration penalty, the opposing team got 15 yards of field position when they got the ball back. Even though these penalties occur during the play they are much more akin to the other "this isn't something that actually affected the play, just something we want to discourage" penalties than they are to a "he might not have scored had it not been for that infraction" penalty like holding, blocks in the back, etc. It also pre supposes that the players aren't lost in the moment and are actually weighing the pros and cons as they are sprinting toward the endzone. The existing penalty is as severe a yardage penalty as is given out, and it apparently hasn't done the job. Being generous and assuming that teams normally only average the 20 on kick returns, your stunt handed the other team almost 20% of the yardage they need for a TD of their own. Put it this way. You can be against drunk driving and that still doesn't mean you think that an automatic life sentence every time an officer thinks you are drunk and may intend to drive later is a good solution. It has obvious problems on the face of it, the punishment is way out of whack with similar offenses, and it's not defined anywhere when a person is even guilty. On top of that the problem is systemic. If the penalty is severe enough sure, you might get the occasional guy who decides to cab it to the bar in the first place, but most decisions to drive drunk are made drunk, so expecting the person to weigh the pros and cons of the now more severe penalty isn't realistic. Most situations like this just end up punishing all the people who did nothing wrong almost as severely as the person in the wrong.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 04/21/2010 12:52:50 pm

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 04/21/2010 @ 01:23:59 PM
Well, maybe people should start thinking. Did Barry Sanders have to think realy hard every time he scored a touchdown and didn't dance and do the worm and whatnot? Probably not. It was apparently engrained in him to just play the game. "I got caught up in the moment" isn't an excuse for drunk driving and it shouldn't be an excuse for show-boating in football. In the end, maybe I agree with these new rules, and maybe I don't. But I'm sure the decisions weren't made lightly, and you hear coaches for all levels say they want their players to act like they've been there before. Mike Holmgren called Antonio Freeman out on TV once for pointing the ball to a defender on his way to the end zone. Maybe a 15 yard penalty that essentially only affects the defense isn't enough of a deterent for a 19 year old wide receiver to realize that he should start thinking more off the field about how he plays the game. edit: and..the "life sentence" part of the analogy doesn't make sense, because there is no "life sentence" equivalent in our football scenario. That's a bit too extreme to really understand where you are going with it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 04/21/2010 1:31:45 pm

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 04/21/2010 @ 01:52:40 PM
Well, the extreme was intentional, I never said they correlated. The point is to agree on the idea that there's a line where you can go too far, either by excess or uselessness, and that the argument is setting that line, not forgiving/condoning the act. Barry Sanders might not have celebrated after the fact, but Walter Payton did do a high step move on almost every one if his long runs, for little more than show, and it's viewed as one of sports' most cherished memories. Coaches not tolerating it is probably exactly what should happen, and is totally different. Getting benched for the next series is something that, much more so at least, only punishes you. The problem is the attitude "if you're good you can do whatever you want" is accepted at most levels, and until that cultural attitude changes, harsh rules won't do much to prevent it, and any steps towards preventing it aren't worth the other repercussions.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.