THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Your link was pulled for an alleged copyright violation. Try the link in my alias, which is from CBS’ website.

It is not a new rule, by the way.  It is a change in the enforcement of an already existing rule.  Previously, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls for taunting during a play were enforced as dead-ball fouls after the result of the play.  Meaning you would keep the score.  The only thing that is “new” is that the foul is now considered a live-ball foul occuring during the play, and is enforced from the time and location it was committed.

Taunting has always been against the rules.

Either I screwed it up or the board software truncated the link.  I choose to believe the latter. This should work:

http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/play/collegefootball/oHxZ3RpdeDmhPHPKeAsiEBHaDQxc_ud0

Ah, geez.  Yeah, that’s ridiculous to negate a touchdown based on that.  I’d be fine with assessing a significant penalty on the ensuing kickoff.

Software does limit url size.

Ah, geez.  Yeah, that’s ridiculous to negate a touchdown based on that. 

Yeah.  So then why would you taunt?  It’s not like this was some hidden rule that nobody knew about.

Geez, I’m a Gators fan and I think this call was ridiculous. My rule of thumb for things like this is how would I feel if it was called on the other side.

In real time, it looks equally possible that he momentarily lost his balance and spread his arms to regain it. This is certainly not what I think of when I think of taunting. Extending the ball towards the defender in the end zone and shaking your butt, now that’s taunting.

I’m sorry Florida lost, especially so decisively, but I’m glad the call had no effect on the final result.

No rule is a priori.  Everyone knew this rule had been put in place.  Every coach had the opportunity to make it clear to every player, “don’t even come close to the line; ignore the other side even if they are talking about how they had sex with your mother last night.” Now they have proof.

I heard Iowa’s coach, Kirk Ferentz, discuss this several times before the season started. He had told his players time and again to not taunt because of the change. I imagine every single coach in the country did the same thing. If they did not, they should be fired immediately. Every single player knew of the change. They heard it not once, not twice and probably not even three, four or five times. They probably heard about it dozens of times.

I don’t think the rule is necessarily a good one, but the players were told time and again about it. Is it silly? I don’t know. I tend to think it’s more about whether the players know about the rules. If it’s some obscure rule then I have sympathy for the player or team, but if it’s one they know well then I have none.

I still think this rule is terrible. Is that taunting, or is that enjoying the GAME you are playing?

Also, I think it’s likely that the punter wasn’t around when the coaches drilled “do not celebrate” into the team’s head.

If the punters weren’t around then it’s on the coach. There’s no excuse that any player on the roster, even red shirt freshmen, would not know about the rule change. I also find it hard to believe that’s true. I heard it talked about a lot before the season started. By a lot, I mean ALOT. It was brought up in numerous press conferences by Iowa coaches, it was discussed at length by the announcers in the first game, players for Iowa discussed the rule extensively and it was written about online and in newspapers. I just don’t believe that there is any player on an FBS roster that didn’t know about the change. For that matter, I don’t even believe there’s a single player on any FBS roster that didn’t heard about it at least 20 times.

Some of us are missing the point here.  This isn’t about whether the call was foreseeable—I believe I saw earlier that this was only the second time it had been called and certainly the first in a nationally televised game—it’s that it’s patently ridiculous.  All “unsportsmanlike conduct” penalties are by their very nature absurd because they turn on the personal opinions of the closest official about what is and isn’t tasteless.  It makes no sense.  It’s very football, as a dangerous sport, to try to make football romantic, but stop imposing stupid rules on the outcome of the game.  Channel your desire to control things on defenders leading with the helmet.  That would actually be useful.

Hot Sauce, you’re confusing “missing the point” with “emphasizing something you happen to disagree with.” As I said in my comment, there are no a priori rules.  “Unsportsmanlike conduct” has been part of football rules as long as I’ve been watching football, which goes goes back a bit.  You may find it absurd, but it’s not an unreasonable position to believe that holding the players’ emotions in check can stop the escalation of violence among 300 lb. people with lethal weapons on their heads.  There’s no reason that can’t coexist with penalties about leading with your helmet, since in fact they do.

In high school, we read a sportsmanship message to both teams prior to the game.  I have little doubt that the NCAA mandates the same thing.

I had that game on when it happened, and IIRC CBS’ sideline reporter stated that LSU’s head coach scolded his punter on the sideline and, when asked by the reporter, said that it was a good call.  I’m sure it helped that his team was on its way to a rout, but still.

All “unsportsmanlike conduct” penalties are by their very nature absurd because they turn on the personal opinions of the closest official about what is and isn’t tasteless. 

This doesn’t make much sense.  A lot of the calls we have to make are judgment calls.  Unsportsmanlike conduct fouls require little more personal opinion than does a holding foul or a pass interference foul.  Even a false start foul or illegal formation foul requires a measure of personal opinion.  Did that movement simulate a snap?  Is that end on the line?  Heck, even spotting the ball is an exercise in futility as far as being exact goes.

I know people think its absurd, but the NFHS and the NCAA do take sportsmanship somewhat seriously.

Is there seriously not a difference between imprecision and discretion?  “I think he moved before the center snapped the ball” is different than “I think that was unsportsmanlike” or, even worse, “I think that celebration was excessive.” It requires a personal opinion about taste rather than one about perception. 

Leading with your head penalties are very similar to unsportsmanlike penalties in that neither is enforced consistently.  While I think the latter is the only one of the two that should be enforced consistently, I also think that it’s not possible to enforce the former consistently because not everybody shares the same taste.  The NFL has a rule which makes it unsportsmanlike conduct to do any celebration which prominently features the ball after a touchdown.  Is that really in poorer taste than the way Steve Smith acts after he catches a mere first down?  I honestly don’t know the answer to that and I strongly suspect that reasonable people could disagree about it.

As far as preventing cheap shots by “holding the players’ emotions in check”, I have no confidence that taunting and celebration rules contribute anything towards accomplishing that goal at all.  If football really cared about preventing those, then it would be enforcing the leading with your head rule more vigilantly than it is.  I honestly believe that it only cares about the perception that it cares, in which case I’d rather not having no rules about sportsmanship that ones that are selectively and capriciously enforced.

Does anybody really believe that this was the least sportsmanlike action that happened in the LSU game?  And if not, then why was it penalized as such?

i’m glad this happened to a punter. punters have the easiest job in football. while the rest of the team is being brutalized during summer two a days, these guys kick a ball for a while and then go watch movies in the locker room. and maybe every other day practice fakes with the rest of the team. pathetic.

so good for the refs for taking away this punter’s glory. the punter at LSU already has it too good, getting flown all over the world to participate in extravagant, nationally televised events for free, just because he can kick a ball on fourth downs.

anything to knock these lazy punters down a peg or two is just fine with me.

I don’t know why you keep talking about “excess”.  The rule is “no taunting”.  There is no judgment to be made in terms of what is and is not excessive.  Rule 9-2 lists a number of specifically prohibited acts (and specifies that prohibited acts are not limited to this list), and act (d) utilizes the term “excessive” in relation to acts with which the player attempts to focus attention on himself, but that is it.

The main section of the rule states

No player, substitute, coach or other person subject to the rules shall use abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures, or engage in such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to game officials or to the image of the game, including but not limited to:

Turning to face the defense, who cannot get you, and giving them a “come get me” pose on your way into the end zone is a demeaning taunt.  Period.

If you want to complain that the officiating crew exercised poor judgment and misapplied the rules, you’re wrong.  If you want to complain that the rule is wrong, should be changed and players permitted to taunt each other, go for it.  You will find little agreement from those charged with keeping order during the games.

As far as preventing cheap shots by “holding the players’ emotions in check”, I have no confidence that taunting and celebration rules contribute anything towards accomplishing that goal at all.

There is plenty of “I’m going to get that knob back for showing me up like that” attitude.  When that knob costs his team yardage or points, it puts the offending team on notice that a) he got his comeuppance where it counts and b) we’re watching you, too.

anything to knock these lazy punters down a peg or two is just fine with me.

Not only that, but when he is called upon to do what he does, it is almost never the optimal play!

We had a pretty big soccer player try out at kicker in high school.  They let him kick...and also made him play some safety.

I’m lumping in the no taunting rule with the other “in poor taste” rules, excessive celebration and unsportsmanlike conduct.  I’m not objecting to this particular call, I’m objecting to the rule that forced the officials to make this call.  If the NCAA can come up with a way to non-selectively enforce taunting and unsportsmanlike conduct, then I’d probably be okay with the rule.  As it is, the NCAA is using this rule to create the perception that it cares about players taunting each other by taking points off the board when the act is most clearly visible.  If it really cared about the side effects of taunting then it would try to eliminate all taunting, which I’m not sure it really can do.

Can you not still act like a “knob” in situations where points aren’t being taken off the board?  Is it not still pretty easy to get away with taunting as long as you say something that the officials don’t hear or do something that’s not that visible, or, in the case of the other two penalties, do something that doesn’t offend their sense of taste too much?  If it is, then I don’t see how the rule helps.  If it isn’t, then we are watching different games.

Players are penalized for taunting on plays on which a score did not occur.  This particular play is particularly memorable simply because points came off the board.

Of course it’s easy to get away with taunting (although when you are the guy running with the ball untouched to the end zone, it’s tough to be sneaky about it).  That fact does not mean there shouldn’t be a rule against it.

It’s like the old “holding happens on every play”.  Does the fact that we can’t see every hold, just the obvious ones, mean that we should just throw the rule out the window and forget about it?

Heck, it’s pretty easy to get away with not wearing the required padding.  Does that mean we should forget about those rules?

I think there shouldn’t be a rule because I don’t think that was taunting. Was the punter taunting the other team, or was he celebrating a great play call and touchdown with the home crowd and the national audience?

Is it taunting for the players on the sideline to perform the exact same action while the play was still occurring? What if the punter still turned and raised his hands (for a brief moment I might add), but had waited until after the touchdown was scored? Is it taunting for the home crowd to cheer and shout? To go to the absurd extreme, is it taunting to have a trophy celebration at midfield immediately after the BCS championship game has ended? I’m sure that’s way more affecting than what the punter did, yet it’s endorsed by the NCAA.

Is this really the kind of thing that people consider “taunting”?

Taking points off the board for this is beyond silly.  If 15 yards at the kickoff was not enough of a deterrent, then make it 25 yards and “red card”.

This is a rule that only a pro golfer can love.

I don’t like that points came off the board, but the penalty has to be applied somewhere. Those kinds of actions will stop because coaches jobs depend on it and they aren’t going to let some punk kid destroy their career. We already saw what the coach had to say to this player. Imagine what was said behind closed doors. I’d be surprised if the punter wasn’t crying and I’d be equally surprised if the punter didn’t catch hell from half the team. It will stop. Nobody on LSU is going to want to be like the punter and go through what he undoubtedly did. I’m not saying that’s right. I don’t think it is and I think that’s one problem with the new rule.

If they want taunting out of the game, I propose they keep the touchdown and on the ensuing kickoff the kicking team can have only 8 players on the field. This way there is a very good chance the kickoff is returned for a touchdown or at least deep into the opponent’s territory. The team that scored gets their touchdown and then they pay the price by giving one up.

I do love this rule for high school and younger, just to teach those punks some manners.  College?  Eh, I’d rather have a different disincentive system.

This “taunt” looked more like a check swing to me.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be against a rule that you can’t enforce.  I’m gathering that the supposed point of penalizing “bad” behavior is to keep people in line so they don’t hurt each other with cheap shots.  But you’re never going to do anything to substantially penalize this behavior unless you can keep the players from either talking to each other or otherwise having emotions.  Do I have to make a gesture at somebody to piss him off?  Can’t I just say something about his mother?

So what you end up with is a sometimes-enforced rule that has nothing to do with the physical playing of the game but still affects the outcome, which is why I find it so obnoxious that we’re judging players’ behavior by taking points off the board.  If you can’t tell the difference between an obvious hold and a good block (which I think you can), then holding shouldn’t be a penalty.  If your rule requires an instant judgment about what is and isn’t offensive behavior (or “demeaning” behavior), something everybody has a different definition of, then neither should that behavior be a penalty.

"giving them a “come get me” pose on your way into the end zone is a demeaning taunt”

What happened to the Bull Durham days where everything short of c-sucker was fair game? 

I have no interest in cheap shots and taunting, but that play was innocuous.  Focus on dirty play and off-the-field violations, then get pissy at the UW quarterback for tossing the ball a foot above his shoulder.

Is it taunting for the players on the sideline to perform the exact same action while the play was still occurring?

Technically, yes, but there isn’t really an official in charge of watching everybody on the sideline.

What if the punter still turned and raised his hands (for a brief moment I might add), but had waited until after the touchdown was scored?

Dead ball foul occurring after the play, enforced on the try or the kickoff.

Is it taunting for the home crowd to cheer and shout?

The rules apply to those participating in the contest.

To go to the absurd extreme, is it taunting to have a trophy celebration at midfield immediately after the BCS championship game has ended? I’m sure that’s way more affecting than what the punter did, yet it’s endorsed by the NCAA.

When the game is over, it is over.  The rules do not apply anymore.

Taking points off the board for this is beyond silly.

What’s silly is to treat a foul as if it had occurred later than it actually did.

"What’s silly is to treat a foul as if it had occurred later than it actually did.”

To me, this is the crux of the whole thing.  The taunting rule hasn’t changed, what has changed is that it is enforced at the spot of the foul.  We “take points off the board” for a hold on the side of the field far away from an athletic catch in the end zone, and no one blinks an eye.  Assuming there is a taunting rule, why should it be enforced, if the taunt occurs before the score, other than at the spot of the foul?  The offense committed a foul before the ball got into the end zone.  Whether you agree or disagree that it should be a foul, or that it was a foul, given that it was called a foul, why should the score stand?

I meant for this particular play.

This is about the flimsiest taunt one can imagine.

I presume there’s a hold on every single play, but they aren’t going to call those, are they?