Taunting

[Bob M.]

REPLY: BktBallRef...the simple answer is that a USC foul will have nothing at all to do with determining the result of the play. A can't gain an advantage by taunting, nor can he put B at a disadvantage. That's why the Fed changed the USC enforcement a number of years ago. It used to be as you suggested--a simple live ball foul with all-but-one enforcement. But because of the USC's insignificance in determining the result of the play, they decided to change it...for better or worse. If they changed it back, it would be clear that the only reason for the change would be a punitive reason and not something to do with negating an unfair advantage.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

A's ball on their own 1 yard line. A breaks a big gainer and is going to score easily. While the ball carrier is on the 50, Team B lineman on A's 1 yard line starts talking smack, cussing, whatever - you flag it.

If you have no succeeding spot enforcement, A must decline this penalty.

Hmmm...you might want to look that up in your rule book. Like any other live ball foul on such a play, A has the option of taking the penalty on the try.

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: BktBallRef...the simple answer is that a USC foul will have nothing at all to do with determining the result of the play. A can't gain an advantage by taunting, nor can he put B at a disadvantage. That's why the Fed changed the USC enforcement a number of years ago. It used to be as you suggested--a simple live ball foul with all-but-one enforcement. But because of the USC's insignificance in determining the result of the play, they decided to change it...for better or worse. If they changed it back, it would be clear that the only reason for the change would be a punitive reason and not something to do with negating an unfair advantage.

I realize all of that, Bob. But USC is no longer insignificant in other regards. What's happened since that enforcement was changed? Taunting and unsporting conduct constantly show up in the POE. It's all over TV, so more and more kids are behaving in inappropriate ways.

Wee 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.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I don't necessarily disagree with you, BktBallRef. And I realized you probably knew that. But I was just mentioning it for some others so that they could have a proper understanding of the philosophy which made USC a succeeding spot enforcement.

[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

[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.

[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.