• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NFL considering taunting rule change

The pussification of the NFL and the US in general continues. Gimme a break. These are grown men getting paid millions of dollars. They banned taunting in college in the name of sportsmanship, which I can kind of understand, but it's unnecessary at that level too.
 
Can you imagine the gambler's tampering potential? "Hey ref, there's a $100,000.00 in it for you if you 'heard' a taunt during the spread-breaking score."
 
EatLeadCommie said:
The pussification of the NFL and the US in general continues. Gimme a break. These are grown men getting paid millions of dollars. They banned taunting in college in the name of sportsmanship, which I can kind of understand, but it's unnecessary at that level too.
Click to expand...

While I agree the league has pussified itself (whole month of wearing pink; frown at a QB and get fined; relying on rules to protect players), the problem with permitting taunting and the like is that it can and will lead to retaliation. It won't be retaliation of the pussy kind like baseball with pitchers hitting random guys just because someone hit a homer off them- in football, it'll be some kind of personal-foul retaliation and teams will start putting NHL-like goons in the game to take someone out. And I'd love to see the reaction of everyone who's railing against a rule change on this if a Tar Heel player pulled this shit in Groves.
 
This is a terrible idea. Giving NFL referees - who are already putrid - the opportunity to take away touchdowns based on something that subjective (how much is TOO much taunting?) is going to lead to disaster sooner rather than later.
 
The real question is why taunting is treated as a dead ball foul regardless of when it occurred. If it happened during the play, when the ball was live, it should be a treated as a live ball foul and fall under Rule 14, Article 5 of enforcement ("If the offense fouls behind the basic spot, enforcement is from the spot of the foul"). As the rule currently exists it falls under Rule 14, Article 7 ("A dead ball foul is enforced from the succeeding spot, and the down counts.")

So why is taunting automatically a dead ball foul?
 
bojanglefunk said:
How is it any worse than "seeing a hold"?
Click to expand...

It's at least as bad and probably worse in the sense that you can plausibly do it after the conclusion of the play.

Incidentally, holding shouldn't be a penalty. I've never really understood the difference between a 325 pound man pushing (perfectly legal) and a 190 pound man holding (a violation). It's made even worse when the defensive holding basically acts as a substitute for pass interference of an uncatchable ball.
 
bojanglefunk said:
How is it any worse than "seeing a hold"?
Click to expand...

I agree that plenty of sins are committed in the name of the phantom hold. It's amazing how many times the 5-3 team holds the 8-0 team in November conference games...
 
jhmd2000 said:
It's at least as bad and probably worse in the sense that you can plausibly do it after the conclusion of the play.

Incidentally, holding shouldn't be a penalty. I've never really understood the difference between a 325 pound man pushing (perfectly legal) and a 190 pound man holding (a violation). It's made even worse when the defensive holding basically acts as a substitute for pass interference of an uncatchable ball.
Click to expand...

You can have your hands inside the pads, but you can't have them outside and/or pulling on your man. Pushing is always legal regardless of who does it. You can't hold a guy ever at any point on the field.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
You can have your hands inside the pads, but you can't have them outside and/or pulling on your man. Pushing is always legal regardless of who does it. You can't hold a guy ever at any point on the field.
Click to expand...

I get the "what" and "how", but I've never understood the "why"? What's the difference?
 
When you're pushing somebody it's about strength, positioning, and leverage. Holding somebody can be about strength, but it's also just a cop out if you get beat.

That's the argument I would think.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
The pussification of the NFL and the US in general continues.
Click to expand...


No doubt. The NFL is turning thier attention towards women in order to increase its fan base.


The NFL is working to broaden its fan base, and many believe that’s one of the reasons the game is changing, evolving as it tries to maintain its hold on the hearts and minds of Americans. Efforts at marketing to women have brought 16-page women’s magazine spreads breaking down the game, girly NFL T-shirts, aprons and oven mitts.


http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/10/31/softer-nfl-turns-to-merchandising-women-to-expand-fan-base/
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
When you're pushing somebody it's about strength, positioning, and leverage. Holding somebody can be about strength, but it's also just a cop out if you get beat.

That's the argument I would think.
Click to expand...

A lot of football plays are undone on that distinction. It seems to occur on a disproportionate number of times away from the play on big plays, which is what bf is insinuating. Taunting rule would pose the same problems, if not worse with the lookback factor.
 
I just don't see the taunting rule changing having much of an impact at all. We hardly see any taunting flags thrown unless it's absolutely blatant and I think that it's just really obvious that if it occurs during a live ball it should be a spot foul. Maybe I should be posting on the Unpopular Opinions thread.
 
good. the more subjectivity in sports the better.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I just don't see the taunting rule changing having much of an impact at all. We hardly see any taunting flags thrown unless it's absolutely blatant and I think that it's just really obvious that if it occurs during a live ball it should be a spot foul. Maybe I should be posting on the Unpopular Opinions thread.
Click to expand...

The best rules in sports against taunting are the unwritten ones in baseball. Highest compliance rate, too.
 
VaDeac said:
Doesn't college already have this rule? AIR, it was a huge deal when it came out, but it's never an issue now because... people would rather have their TDs actually count than mess it up by taunting first.
Click to expand...

Exactly. College & high school both take back the TD. You are supposed to enforce a penalty from the spot of the foul in most cases. That is why college & high schanged that stuff a few years ago. And that is why you don't see it done until they get in the end zone. If a guy starts his taunt at the 20, then the penalty gets assessed from the 20 and the team starts from the 35 after the 15 yards is marked off. Play the game the right way.
 
Just wait till you see how many fouls are called in the college basketball game. Fans will be outraged but it is going to be a much cleaner game one time the players & coaches get it cleaned up.
 
TheReff said:
Just wait till you see how many fouls are called in the college basketball game. Fans will be outraged but it is going to be a much cleaner game one time the players & coaches get it cleaned up.
Click to expand...

And their viewership and attendance numbers will continue to decline. The people in charge of college basketball right now are fucking idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top