Unsportsmanlike (taunting) or not?

[parepat]

Had a situation at our association meeting that sparked some discussion. Player A is five or more yards clear of all B players. When he gets to the goal line he dives into the end zone. Do we automatically have an USC? I know that they have been calling this in college, but the rule refers to delayed, prolonged or excessive acts whereby a player attempts to focus attention upon himself (9-5-1-c). I think the player is attampting to draw attention to himself. However, is this act, on its own, delayed, prolonged or excessive?

[Middleman]

Originally Posted by parepat

Had a situation at our association meeting that sparked some discussion. Player A is five or more yards clear of all B players. When he gets to the goal line he dives into the end zone. Do we automatically have an USC? I know that they have been calling this in college, but the rule refers to delayed, prolonged or excessive acts whereby a player attempts to focus attention upon himself (9-5-1-c). I think the player is attampting to draw attention to himself. However, is this act, on its own, delayed, prolonged or excessive?

Flag it. Every time.

[HLin NC]

Excessive, don't you think?

[parepat]

Not really, no. Firstly. Apparently we are supposed to discern the motives behind the act. Thus, if the player felt someone was on his heals and dove to try and get the ball in the end zone who are we to flag it. Secondly, Just because the NCAA does something doesn't automatically mean we need to. Thirdly, if a player does a legal act, (ie diving into the end zone) at what point does it become illegal. Three yard, five yards etc.

[MJT]

Some judgement, yes, but 5 yards clear as you are running and a few yards from the goal line seems like enough room to think he is doing it to show off, not to keep from getting tackled.

[Ref inSoCA]

Originally Posted by parepat

Had a situation at our association meeting that sparked some discussion. Player A is five or more yards clear of all B players. When he gets to the goal line he dives into the end zone. Do we automatically have an USC? I know that they have been calling this in college, but the rule refers to delayed, prolonged or excessive acts whereby a player attempts to focus attention upon himself (9-5-1-c). I think the player is attampting to draw attention to himself. However, is this act, on its own, delayed, prolonged or excessive?

Why was there discussion?

If you're talking NF...

If the player is in the clear and dives it is a FOUL EVERY TIME. Flag it. There is no need for that crap in NF ball.

[parepat]

[QUOTE=Ref inSoCA]Why was there discussion?

There was discussion because the rule or case books do not specifically set out this act as a foul.

Second, because the act that the player did was one that derived the word that we use to describe a score. (IE touching the ball down in the end zone to score ....or touchdown) some of us thought it curious that this very act is now considered by some as USC.

If you call an USC everytime a player dives into the end zone, in my opinion is over officious and disregards the language of the rule which requires us to make some subtle judgments.

That is why we discussed it.

[MJT]

[QUOTE=parepat]

Originally Posted by Ref inSoCA

Why was there discussion?

There was discussion because the rule or case books do not specifically set out this act as a foul.

Second, because the act that the player did was one that derived the word that we use to describe a score. (IE touching the ball down in the end zone to score ....or touchdown) some of us thought it curious that this very act is now considered by some as USC.

If you call an USC everytime a player dives into the end zone, in my opinion is over officious and disregards the language of the rule which requires us to make some subtle judgments.

That is why we discussed it.

9-5-1 Any delayed, excessive or prolonged act by which a player attempts to focus attention upon himself.

What part of diving in the EZ when there is NO WAY you will be tackled is not trying to "focus attention upon himself?" Flag it without a doubt. The rule and case books cannot give EVERY example of focusing attention on himself.

[SC Ump]

I've heard there was a player at one of the local schools that did this last year. The flag was thrown and the player was surprised and asked the BJ, "That's not illegal is it?" The BJ said, "Of course it is." The player argued, "But they do it in Madden '06".

[parepat]

[QUOTE=MJT]

Originally Posted by parepat

9-5-1 Any delayed, excessive or prolonged act by which a player attempts to focus attention upon himself.

What part of diving in the EZ when there is NO WAY you will be tackled is not trying to "focus attention upon himself?" Flag it without a doubt. The rule and case books cannot give EVERY example of focusing attention on himself.

Do we know that the runner knows that he won't be tackled? If so, how?Also you point to only half the rule. In addition to deciding that the player was trying to focus attention on himself we have to determine whether the act is delayed, excessive or prolonged. Apparantley you feel this is excessive.

How about these.
1. Wide receiver jumping for a ball when he doesn't need to.
2. Kicker giving the touchdown signal after a field goal.
3. QB jumping into the arms of his lineman with arms outstretched after a TD pass.

[MJT]

[QUOTE=parepat]

Originally Posted by MJT

Do we know that the runner knows that he won't be tackled? If so, how?Also you point to only half the rule. In addition to deciding that the player was trying to focus attention on himself we have to determine whether the act is delayed, excessive or prolonged. Apparantley you feel this is excessive.

How about these.
1. Wide receiver jumping for a ball when he doesn't need to.
2. Kicker giving the touchdown signal after a field goal.
3. QB jumping into the arms of his lineman with arms outstretched after a TD pass.

Those are almost funny. All 4 officials who responded giving their opinion said to flag it.

Yes, excessive, just as HLin NC said. It does depend on how close the defender is, but you are asking for more trouble if you let it go unless you are pretty sure he did it cuz he thought he might be tackled. This is what causes the other team to retaliate and bad crap may start to happen.

The TD will still count, but the try will be 15 yards further back and the kid will know he should not be so self-centered next time.

BTW, how many times does a player, running at full speed near the goal line, get tackled from behind and not make it in the EZ. He is going to end up in the EZ anyway. The dive is fine if trying to beat a defender to the goal line, but not if you have them behind you and you are right at the goal line.

[Forksref]

[QUOTE=parepat]

Originally Posted by Ref inSoCA

Why was there discussion?

There was discussion because the rule or case books do not specifically set out this act as a foul.

Second, because the act that the player did was one that derived the word that we use to describe a score. (IE touching the ball down in the end zone to score ....or touchdown) some of us thought it curious that this very act is now considered by some as USC.

If you call an USC everytime a player dives into the end zone, in my opinion is over officious and disregards the language of the rule which requires us to make some subtle judgments.

That is why we discussed it.

Nobody said EVERY time, just when there is NO one who could tackle him because he is so far in front.

As described, the play would get an UC flag from me. Enforce on the try.

[sloth]

[QUOTE=MJT]

Originally Posted by parepat

Those are almost funny. All 4 officials who responded giving their opinion said to flag it.

Yes, excessive, just as HLin NC said. It does depend on how close the defender is, but you are asking for more trouble if you let it go unless you are pretty sure he did it cuz he thought he might be tackled. This is what causes the other team to retaliate and bad crap may start to happen.

The TD will still count, but the try will be 15 yards further back and the kid will know he should not be so self-centered next time.

BTW, how many times does a player, running at full speed near the goal line, get tackled from behind and not make it in the EZ. He is going to end up in the EZ anyway. The dive is fine if trying to beat a defender to the goal line, but not if you have them behind you and you are right at the goal line.

Along those same lines...if A-82 is going in for a TD on a long pass reception and holds the ball back to B45 who is in chase starting at the 5 yard line, do you flag and assess the penalty from the start of the taunting or do you toss the flag in the end zone and mark it off on the try?

My first impression is that you'd asses it from the 5, but that seems a bit excessive to wipe out a sure score for the sake of taunting.

Don't have the rule book handy and this just popped into my head as I read through this thread. Thoughts?

[whitehat52]

Sloth

It doesn't matter if you flag it on the five or in the endzone. The TD will still count. This is an usportsmanlike conduct penalty which will be enforced from the succeeding spot. The TD counts and enforce the penalty on the try. Also remember an UC can not combine to form a double foul or a multiple foul. All UC will be enforced at the succeeding spot.

[Opie]

I attended a college game Saturday night. A kid returned a punt for a touchdown. He was well ahead of K pursuing him and dived into the EZ, which drew a flag from the R. Then the kid proceeded to run past the opposing bench taunting them as he ran by, drawing a second USC flag.

Then I loved what the R said when he got on the mic " There are two dead-ball unsportsmanlike conduct fouls on number 21 of the return team. He has therefore disqualified himself from the game. The penalties will both be assessed on the kickoff."

After the successful try from the 3, they kicked off from their own 10 after the two USCs were marched off.

I'm a Fed guy and not real familiar with college rules so I'm not sure if this all was right, but I liked the R indicating that the player had disqualified himself and not that he was just ejected or we ejected him.