Taunting

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We have penalties for reasons other that it created an unfair advantage. If a team can't score without acting like idiots while they're doing it, there should be punitive action. JMHO.

But there could easily be forms of increased punitive action other than changing the enforcement spot, which as we've shown here produced inequitable results.

If he governing body thought this was a severe enough problem, they could for instance:

• increase the yardage assessment -- 15 yards isn't set in stone, nor is half the distance to the goal line
• suspend the player for an interval of downs, periods, etc.
• award penalty points to the other team, as in wrestling,
• award a "power play" as in hockey, lacrosse, or rugby, with the suspended player not to be substituted for, or
• award a free scrimmage down, outside the normal system of downs, for the offended team to have "in its pocket" to use any time -- even interrupting the offending team's series.

Or they could apply sanctions other than those administered during the game by game officials.

You may not like any of the above, but at least they'd be more consistent than your choice of distance enforcement spot.

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

...when the player bent over, or when he pulled his pants down?

TOO FUNNY!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Penalizing from the spot of the foul would have ridiculously different results between incidents of USC occurring in the end zone in which the fouling team scored, and occurrences where after a breakaway TD, someone on his own 30 yard line taunts an opponent.

So if the runner is on the 10 yard line and A12 takes a cheap shot at B70 at the 30 yard line, it should be penalized as a live ball foul. But if he taunts him under the same situation, it shouldn't be? Why? What's the difference?

Many occurrences of USC take place well out of bounds, and relating these to a position on the field, although a simple geometry exercise, gets to be silly.

I'm talking about a USC foul by one of the 22 players on the field during a live ball.

Understand, I'm looking for ways to stop unsporting behavior that occurs DURING the play. It's no more difficult to penalize than any other ABO foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But there could easily be forms of increased punitive action other than changing the enforcement spot, which as we've shown here produced inequitable results.

If he governing body thought this was a severe enough problem, they could for instance:

• increase the yardage assessment -- 15 yards isn't set in stone, nor is half the distance to the goal line
• suspend the player for an interval of downs, periods, etc.
• award penalty points to the other team, as in wrestling,
• award a "power play" as in hockey, lacrosse, or rugby, with the suspended player not to be substituted for, or
• award a free scrimmage down, outside the normal system of downs, for the offended team to have "in its pocket" to use any time -- even interrupting the offending team's series.

Or they could apply sanctions other than those administered during the game by game officials.

You may not like any of the above, but at least they'd be more consistent than your choice of distance enforcement spot.

Robert

Yours are more consistent? Are you serious?

Robert, everything you suggest is completely foreign to the game. The fact is the rule used to be written the way I'm suggesting. Nothing you've suggested above has ever been used. Since players and coaches continue to ignore sportsmanship, it's time we go back to the old, more punitive rule.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So if the runner is on the 10 yard line and A12 takes a cheap shot at B70 at the 30 yard line, it should be penalized as a live ball foul. But if he taunts him under the same situation, it shouldn't be? Why? What's the difference?

Interesting that you choose these two examples. One act is physical, the other verbal. Up here in Canada, physical is a LB foul, verbal is a DB foul. We have no problems whatsoever in enforcement or everyone's understanding of that enforcement, and the separation between the two.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Interesting that you choose these two examples. One act is physical, the other verbal. Up here in Canada, physical is a LB foul, verbal is a DB foul. We have no problems whatsoever in enforcement or everyone's understanding of that enforcement, and the separation between the two.

Nor should there be. We have no trouble understanding the enforcements either.

My point is that if the USC was penalized as a live ball foul, and we started taking touchdowns away, coaches clean it up a lot quicker.

[Mike L]

Perhaps it's the area you work in, but around here the USC problem is pretty minor. Maybe because we have always hit them and hit them hard when it does happen. And we have a very punitive ejection policy set by our CIF district so the kids have learned it's not something they want to get near. If the officials let it happen, no matter what the circumstances, then the coaches/players have no real incentive to stop it either. And the great majority of my USC calls have not come on scoring plays. So the main point of your case is moot for me, but I'd bet if the calls are made and enforced correctly when deserved, the players/coaches will get the message without adding anything extra to meet your sensibilities.
The bottom line is, I spend little time worrying about why penalties are enforced the way they are and more time making sure I do enforce them the way the NFHS, the CIF board, and my assoc wants them enforced.

[rdfox]

In Kentucky, we have been instructed by the State to enforce the unnecessary roughness penalty that is behind the ball on a "break-away" scoring play as succeeding spot (the try). Not live ball and also not carry-over to the kickoff. The try is from the 18-yard line.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Nor should there be. We have no trouble understanding the enforcements either.

My point is that if the USC was penalized as a live ball foul, and we started taking touchdowns away, coaches clean it up a lot quicker.

No ... what would happen is that you'd have officials ignoring USC that SHOULD be flagged, because it had no true outcome on the play. You'd have B players end up not being penalized for USC behind the play, because (unless A scores on the play) A would be forced to decline the foul. Both of these are bad outcomes. Leave the current rule alone.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Yours are more consistent? Are you serious?

Robert, everything you suggest is completely foreign to the game.

The word is "consistent" -- as in having the same effect every time.

[MadCityRef]

Could be the WH wanted to teach the lad a lesson. Wipe out a TD, or show just how much a 1 1/2 yard penalty can hurt.

My first year: Frosh game. RB broke a long run for a sure score. He stopped at the one yard line to run the width of the field (parallel to the goal line) and taunt the defense. I threw the flag and reported to my WH, a very experienced official.
He thought for a moment, said we really shouldn't allow the TD.
1-10 at the 16. I was

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Perhaps it's the area you work in, but around here the USC problem is pretty minor.

Sportsmanship is an NFHS Point Of Emphasis this year. No, I don't think it's just my area.

The bottom line is, I spend little time worrying about why penalties are enforced the way they are and more time making sure I do enforce them the way the NFHS, the CIF board, and my assoc wants them enforced.

Nor do I. I have very few worries nor do I have a problem enforcing the rules the way they're written. But I am interested in making the game better.

Originally Posted by rdfox

In Kentucky, we have been instructed by the State to enforce the unnecessary roughness penalty that is behind the ball on a "break-away" scoring play as succeeding spot (the try). Not live ball and also not carry-over to the kickoff. The try is from the 18-yard line.

Any idea why?

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No ... what would happen is that you'd have officials ignoring USC that SHOULD be flagged, because it had no true outcome on the play. You'd have B players end up not being penalized for USC behind the play, because (unless A scores on the play) A would be forced to decline the foul. Both of these are bad outcomes. Leave the current rule alone.

Still think that live ball foul has to be declined, Mac?

[FeetBallRef]

Originally Posted by rdfox

In Kentucky, we have been instructed by the State to enforce the unnecessary roughness penalty that is behind the ball on a "break-away" scoring play as succeeding spot (the try). Not live ball and also not carry-over to the kickoff. The try is from the 18-yard line.

RdFox, Did this come down in writing or was it hear say 3-4 steps removed.

It does not make any sense that Ky. would do this...

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why are live ball USC fouls penalized from the succeeding spot? I have a huge problem with this rule.

...

But here's my problem with the rule. Why the succeeding spot enforcement? Penalize it as a live ball foul from the spot of the foul, and take the touchdown away. I can guarantee that such a rule change would clean up this type of unsporting behaviour, maybe even faster than ejectd and suspending kids would.

Thoughts?

One thought. It's the rule. Instead of the coaches being upset with the officials why not the bonehead player who committed the foul.

If officials starting penalizing the rule as written coaches would understand it and relaize it is the player's fault for committing the stupid foul.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MadCityRef

Could be the WH wanted to teach the lad a lesson. Wipe out a TD, or show just how much a 1 1/2 yard penalty can hurt.

My first year: Frosh game. RB broke a long run for a sure score. He stopped at the one yard line to run the width of the field (parallel to the goal line) and taunt the defense. I threw the flag and reported to my WH, a very experienced official.
He thought for a moment, said we really shouldn't allow the TD.
1-10 at the 16. I was

How nice to know we have WH's out there making up rules to fit their own personal idea of sportsmanship.