Rule Change

[sd'sker]

If they want to crack down, they should make this a suspend-able offense. That is, you do it, and the NCAA can hit you with a 1 or 2 game suspension. That should make players think twice before doing it, and it goes in line with other conduct-related punitive systems (i.e, NFL players being fined for excessive celebrations, Oregon's Blount suspended for throwing punches, flagrant fouls in the NBA, etc...). Taking back play that already happened for something that had no effect on the outcome of the play is just fundamentally wrong in every sense.

That is the most sensible idea I've heard yet. They could dispassionately review the "offense" after the game and incur the penalty a day or two later. It'll never happen, but that's a solid suggestion.

 

 

I agree. The sole source of entertainment is the game and game only.

Defensive post play antics: the offense gets the ball back + 15 yards + automatic first down.

 

Offensive post play antics: The TD or first down is called back - 15 yards and loss of down. If loss of down occurs on a 4th down - the defense gets the ball.

oh, i thought it was about athletes competing and enjoying their experience. but i guess your right, their job is to perform for the audience and remove all their humanity to become automatons.

 

 

Yes I am. They should and need to play with emotion. But once the play is over - it's over. Take the celebration to the sideline with handshakes, high-fives, and chest pumps. Just keep the post play antics off the field. Please don't confuse this with anything else.

well, i do not like taunting, but i think there is an obvious difference between celebration and taunting.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

If they want to crack down, they should make this a suspend-able offense. That is, you do it, and the NCAA can hit you with a 1 or 2 game suspension. That should make players think twice before doing it, and it goes in line with other conduct-related punitive systems (i.e, NFL players being fined for excessive celebrations, Oregon's Blount suspended for throwing punches, flagrant fouls in the NBA, etc...). Taking back play that already happened for something that had no effect on the outcome of the play is just fundamentally wrong in every sense.

That is the most sensible idea I've heard yet. They could dispassionately review the "offense" after the game and incur the penalty a day or two later. It'll never happen, but that's a solid suggestion.

 

 

I agree. The sole source of entertainment is the game and game only.

Defensive post play antics: the offense gets the ball back + 15 yards + automatic first down.

 

Offensive post play antics: The TD or first down is called back - 15 yards and loss of down. If loss of down occurs on a 4th down - the defense gets the ball.

oh, i thought it was about athletes competing and enjoying their experience. but i guess your right, their job is to perform for the audience and remove all their humanity to become automatons.

 

 

Yes I am. They should and need to play with emotion. But once the play is over - it's over. Take the celebration to the sideline with handshakes, high-fives, and chest pumps. Just keep the post play antics off the field. Please don't confuse this with anything else.

well, i do not like taunting, but i think there is an obvious difference between celebration and taunting.

 

 

I'm all for celebrating. Just do it on the sideline. Aside from a civilized pat on the butt, everything else belongs on the other side of the sideline.

[MattDoza]

I don't like the taunting rule at all but I don't mind the eye black rule. I just wish it would have been instated a few years ago so we wouldn't have had to deal with Tebow's bible verse eye black.

 

Deal with? How did you have to "deal with it?" Do you have a hard time driving past a church? Or seeing a cross dangle from someone's necklace?

 

You dont like that it's being banned to have guys celebrate prior to scoring, but you dont mind guys writing script(religious or personal) on their eye black being banned?

[Ringer02]

the taunting rule will stay until it costs a team like Miami a win over Florida state and starts a riot

[shyndy]

so how many times is a running back not gonna pick up their heels now and get tripped from behind bc they don't want to be seen as highstepping?

[MattDoza]

so how many times is a running back not gonna pick up their heels now and get tripped from behind bc they don't want to be seen as highstepping?

 

Pretty sure the referees will be able to differentiate.

[Fuzzy]

Now the eye black can't contain messages or symbols, correct? But they can still have NEB #33, like say Matt O'Hanlon had painted on his face last season.

[ESPY]

The rules committee just painted themselves & the refs a new shade of gray with this taunting rule. For every obvious taunting penalty called, there will be a taunting penalty that could go either way based solely on the ref's discretion. That's a 1:1 ratio of obvious black/white calls vs subjective/gray calls. There is nothing standardized or black/white about calls that hinge on a ref's discretion during a game b/c some refs "let them play" & some refs are the touchy-feely type.

 

Here's a scenario I could see playing out w/ this new rule...

In a home game at Memorial Stadium, the Blackshirts cause a fumble within the opponent's 20-yard line, scoop it up & rumble it home for TD. All the while half of the Blackshirts, including the guy scoring the TD, throw the bones at this triumph to both celebrate & pump up the fans. The refs see this celebration, pull the flag & erase the defensive TD.

 

The D's celebration to most people is perfectly within reason as one of football's more exciting/emotional scenarios. Notice I said "most" b/c the one guy in the whole stadium who thinks this kind of celebration is unreasonable will undoubtedly be the ref who pulls the flag & negates the TD.

 

What about Asante's pick6 vs the Rajun Cajuns? This was a long pick6 in which Asante pointed at the crowd before getting into the endzone. This new rule makes it sound like simple things like that would be penalized too. I mean you gotta be kidding me!

 

Do you see where I'm going with this? I won't believe in this rule change until I see exactly how scenarios like this will play out.

[Scratchtown]

I don't like the taunting rule at all but I don't mind the eye black rule. I just wish it would have been instated a few years ago so we wouldn't have had to deal with Tebow's bible verse eye black.

 

Are you kidding me? why are you focusing on that during a game? Get off the kids back, he plays for who/what he believes. Its not like he's being hypocritical. I've seen players put "MOM" or "DAD" on their eyeblack before. I suppose their respective parent may have had a horrible accident and their child has that because it has a special meaning to him. Now i'm not saying you hate Tim Tebow but it seems as if when Tebow is called out or hated its for his faith. Thats terrible. One of the most influential QB's to play the game in modern history and he will be remembered by the people that hate him purely on his faith. Yet everyone loves the players that go beat up their wives/girlfriends, or rape minors (Ben R)

 

Oh well, i'm me and your you...thats why were different.

[Fuzzy]

The rules committee just painted themselves & the refs a new shade of gray with this taunting rule. For every obvious taunting penalty called, there will be a taunting penalty that could go either way based solely on the ref's discretion. That's a 1:1 ratio of obvious black/white calls vs subjective/gray calls. There is nothing standardized or black/white about calls that hinge on a ref's discretion during a game b/c some refs "let them play" & some refs are the touchy-feely type.

 

Here's a scenario I could see playing out w/ this new rule...

In a home game at Memorial Stadium, the Blackshirts cause a fumble within the opponent's 20-yard line, scoop it up & rumble it home for TD. All the while half of the Blackshirts, including the guy scoring the TD, throw the bones at this triumph to both celebrate & pump up the fans. The refs see this celebration, pull the flag & erase the defensive TD.

 

The D's celebration to most people is perfectly within reason as one of football's more exciting/emotional scenarios. Notice I said "most" b/c the one guy in the whole stadium who thinks this kind of celebration is unreasonable will undoubtedly be the ref who pulls the flag & negates the TD.

 

What about Asante's pick6 vs the Rajun Cajuns? This was a long pick6 in which Asante pointed at the crowd before getting into the endzone. This new rule makes it sound like simple things like that would be penalized too. I mean you gotta be kidding me!

 

Do you see where I'm going with this? I won't believe in this rule change until I see exactly how scenarios like this will play out.

 

It sounds to me that the taunting rule is more focused on players taunting the other team, not necessarily celebrations, which to me sounds kind of redundant because didn't they already have rules in place for that?

 

Didn't Dezmon Briscoe get in trouble for highstepping his way into the endzone on a punt return? It seems to me that this is just another public reminder to schools about the taunting rule.

[RockyMountainOySker]

It sounds to me that the taunting rule is more focused on players taunting the other team, not necessarily celebrations, which to me sounds kind of redundant because didn't they already have rules in place for that?

 

Didn't Dezmon Briscoe get in trouble for highstepping his way into the endzone on a punt return? It seems to me that this is just another public reminder to schools about the taunting rule.

I think the biggest problem most of us have is the subjectivity that goes into deciding what is a celebration and what is taunting.

[sd'sker]

It sounds to me that the taunting rule is more focused on players taunting the other team, not necessarily celebrations, which to me sounds kind of redundant because didn't they already have rules in place for that?

 

Didn't Dezmon Briscoe get in trouble for highstepping his way into the endzone on a punt return? It seems to me that this is just another public reminder to schools about the taunting rule.

I think the biggest problem most of us have is the subjectivity that goes into deciding what is a celebration and what is taunting.

I think that has something to do with it, but my concern is that this is a game, and the players should be allowed to have fun. Obvious taunting, when it is directed at a specific, identifiable player should not be tolerated; however, the players/team should be allowed to celebrate a good play. Like Paul’s penalty in the holiday bowl, I saw nothing wrong with that. I don’t know if the flag was just for the spiking, the flexing, or both, but I really see nothing wrong with any of it. Now, I do not want to see any ochocincos out there, which the joke is on him because the translation is eightfive, not eighty-five. But throwing the bones or celebrating a big stop (classic sweeping hands across the body, as to indicate someone in baseball is safe) should be allowed, as long as it is not established by a reasonable certainty that the celebration is directed at a particular player for taunting purposes (as opposed to as a general celebration for a good play, you make a stop and turn to the fans and through the bones for instance, that would not be directed at the player, but a celebration directed at the fans).

 

However, who really knows the affect of this rule change (if any at all), it all has to do with how it is employed.

[Fuzzy]

It sounds to me that the taunting rule is more focused on players taunting the other team, not necessarily celebrations, which to me sounds kind of redundant because didn't they already have rules in place for that?

 

Didn't Dezmon Briscoe get in trouble for highstepping his way into the endzone on a punt return? It seems to me that this is just another public reminder to schools about the taunting rule.

I think the biggest problem most of us have is the subjectivity that goes into deciding what is a celebration and what is taunting.

I think that has something to do with it, but my concern is that this is a game, and the players should be allowed to have fun. Obvious taunting, when it is directed at a specific, identifiable player should not be tolerated; however, the players/team should be allowed to celebrate a good play. Like Paul’s penalty in the holiday bowl, I saw nothing wrong with that. I don’t know if the flag was just for the spiking, the flexing, or both, but I really see nothing wrong with any of it. Now, I do not want to see any ochocincos out there, which the joke is on him because the translation is eightfive, not eighty-five. But throwing the bones or celebrating a big stop (classic sweeping hands across the body, as to indicate someone in baseball is safe) should be allowed, as long as it is not established by a reasonable certainty that the celebration is directed at a particular player for taunting purposes (as opposed to as a general celebration for a good play, you make a stop and turn to the fans and through the bones for instance, that would not be directed at the player, but a celebration directed at the fans).

 

However, who really knows the affect of this rule change (if any at all), it all has to do with how it is employed.

 

From my understanding it was the flexing that got called, the pointing at the crowd while running in, and the spiking of the ball was ok. But the flexing, to the ref, was too much celebration.

 

Its like the refs will grant you one celebration move in the endzone, after that, its too much.

[NoDoubt]

So what happens when Alex Henery kicks a 57 yard game winning field goal against Alabama next year and starts to celebrate before the ball clears the uprights??? Points erased?

 

It's a horrible rule.

 

Call taunting penalties all you want but don't take away the points, penalize the kick. You cannot rewrite history and punish an entire team/fan-base because a 20 year old kid started celebrating a touchdown a little early.

[CornKing]

Both rules are cry baby BS. I mean come on now the players can't have the N on the eye blacks. Really if you can't deal with seeing a bible verse on a kids eye you need therapy. Is it really offensive to people to see that? I don't much to care to see guys kissing so I don't watch. The other rule is crap too IMO if it isn't taking time off the clock and nobody is physically hurt it should be legal. It is an emotional sport played by guys it's not patty cake with your niece. :facepalm: :facepalm: (yeah 5 of 'em)