15 Yards or 15 Years ?
 

15 Yards or 15 Years ? Va Tech's Daddy Nicholas didn't just brush ACC's senior ref Cherries arm. He chopped it and got only 15 yards. I predict a suspension for the next game or two coming down from ACC administration, but this was one of the most aggressive attacks on a ref that I have seen over past few years.

You haven't seen the news this year have you?

That deserved an ejection IMO but it unfortunately is far from the most aggressive attack this year.

I only saw the replay and didn't hear anything regarding an ejection or lack thereof, although I assumed that would be a given. I can't imagine how that wouldn't have been automatic as there are only two ways you contact an official in this situation: A) accidental contact (which this wasn't) or B) intentional contact. Given those two possibilities, I'm pretty sure the options are A) no foul for accidental contact or B) USC foul, 15 yards and automatic ejection. The ejection is part of the penalty for forcible contacting an official and even if the penalty were declined, the ejection would stand.

Ignoring (tolerating, excusing) blatant disrespectful/thugish behavior ONLY serves to encourage more of it. It's a genie, once let out of the bottle, is really hard to get, and keep, back in.

And then, after the flag he looked at the R with his hand on his chest like "on me? what did I do?"

We have a real problem with some of our youth who don't think they ever do anything wrong and should never get punished. Organized sports is supposed to teach some of those lessons.

Are you quoting me in your post because you interpreted my post to say I thought the contact in this situation should have been ignored? My point was that you either have an ejection in this case or you don't have a penalty at all. Unless the flag was for something the player said and not for the contact, an ejection is a mandated part of this penalty that cannot be declined or waived off. If the referee decided not to flag the contact and instead something else, that is his judgement, and while I don't agree with it, that is the only other route to not ejecting the player.

The other part of my point is that there are situations in which a player contacts an official and the situation is completely unintentional and innocent, but when it is more than this and ejection is a required part of the penalty.

I referenced your observation simply as a point of reference to the subject matter. Whether the contact displayed merited a penalty was a judgment call, and hopefully was made for appropriate reasons.

In a very broad, general sense, "Ignoring (tolerating, excusing) blatant disrespectful/thugish behavior ONLY serves to encourage more of it. It's a genie, once let out of the bottle, is really hard to get, and keep, back in.", and although often the seemingly "less confrontational, or convenient choice" inevitably has lasting counterproductive consequences.

We owe to each other and the game itself, to maintain and enforce existing high standards and consistent compliance.

Gotcha...and completely agree with everything you're point. Appreciate you clarifying because I'm very much in the same boat as you on this.

I think the thing that frustrated me about this situation is that, assuming the foul was for the contact, the ejection is a required aspect of the penalty. The rule itself makes a statement about this type of behavior, but until someone definitively points out that the foul was for something other than contacting the official, I can't help but wonder why the player wasn't ejected.