High Stepping in the Orange Bowl

[BktBallRef]

Well, I've got him on IGNORE now so I can't see his latest post. But I'd bet a game fee that this reply was just as stupid as his initial post. Am I right?

[jaybird]

...calls are never consistent.

This cop-out sounds like the comments of a disgruntled coach, who is getting thumped.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Well, I've got him on IGNORE now so I can't see his latest post. But I'd bet a game fee that this reply was just as stupid as his initial post. Am I right?

You are right.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

And the same outside pitch is called a strike by Hunter Wendlestedt and a ball by John Hirschbeck; and the same move by Lebron is ruled a travel the first time and not the next time; and a "lateral" is ruled a foward pass one time and a backward pass the next time....

What the F@#K is your point?

And, by the way, thanks for moving to the football board.

The point is obvious.

[kdf5]

Jimpiano is strangely reminiscent of a troll on another board. Can someone contact a moderator and persuade them to show this guy the door?

[JasonTX]

Where is all this talk of inconsistency coming from piano? Would you please post the written rules that you are comparing so that we can see what you are talking about. Also, can you put both plays that you are talking about so that we can see the play? Do you even know what the rule says? Perhaps there is a reason something was flagged in one game and not the other. If you just don't like the way the rules are written then why the hell are you on an officiating forum? Haven't you learned by now that officials are NOT part of the rule making process? You need to move on to a coaches board and complain to them because they ARE involved in process.

[sj]

It's just that his kind of attitude needs to be taken to the sports talk shows where the uninformed-mr-tough-guy-sports-fan approach to communicating is what they want.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

No, the rule is stupid and leads to inconsistent enforcement.
The same play let go by the SEC is flagged by the Big Ten.

One player dove into the end zone because he wanted to make sure he scored, rising to the challenge posed by the opponents' play, trying to achieve the object of the game. The other player goose stepped into the end zone to deliberately make it harder for him to score, saying, "Look, I'm scoring even though I'm walking funny!", dissing the opponents while flouting the object of the game. Can't you distinguish the latter as unsportsmanlike versus the former as sporting?

Robert

[Forksref]

Trying to prevent a kid from breaking his neck is not a stupid intent for a rule.

As for enforcement, wide open diving would merit a flag. Diving to avoid a defender is not worthy of a flag. Officials are paid to be able to discern the difference. Looks like they get it right most of the time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Trying to prevent a kid from breaking his neck is not a stupid intent for a rule.

I do not know that anyone has made that claim. But since this is being brought up, the intent of the rule has nothing to do with safety. If that was the case then all diving under any circumstances would be illegal.

Originally Posted by Forksref

As for enforcement, wide open diving would merit a flag. Diving to avoid a defender is not worthy of a flag. Officials are paid to be able to discern the difference. Looks like they get it right most of the time.

If this was a safety issue (only) then I would see diving over a player as more dangerous. At the very least when players are diving to showboat, they are not doing so with 200 pound players hitting them in the process while running at full speed.

Peace

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Trying to prevent a kid from breaking his neck is not a stupid intent for a rule.

As for enforcement, wide open diving would merit a flag. Diving to avoid a defender is not worthy of a flag. Officials are paid to be able to discern the difference. Looks like they get it right most of the time.

I totally agree. The problem is consistency. The SEC let the dive go....but in a Michigan/OSU game a receiver catching a pass at the five and between two defenders gets a flag for diving into the end zone.

It is perfectly understandable to penalize a player doing a front flip into the end zone the same with wide open diving. But diving to avoid defenders?

Excessive celebration connotes actions AFTER the score, not making the score. This is not to say that taunting or finger pointing on the way to paydirt should be ignored. But diving and high stepping? The rulesmakers need to get a grip.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I totally agree. The problem is consistency. The SEC let the dive go....but in a Michigan/OSU game a receiver catching a pass at the five and between two defenders gets a flag for diving into the end zone.

It is perfectly understandable to penalize a player doing a front flip into the end zone the same with wide open diving. But diving to avoid defenders?

Excessive celebration connotes actions AFTER the score, not making the score. This is not to say that taunting or finger pointing on the way to paydirt should be ignored. But diving and high stepping? The rulesmakers need to get a grip.

Diving to avoid a defender is not a foul. If you dive and are unnopposed then that is illegal. In all the bowl games thus far and all the flags that have been thrown or not thrown I would agree with all but one non-call. I'm not sure of the actual numbers but a good guess would be about 10 Unsportsmanlike calls. So, if an official missed 1 of those that's pretty good as far as consistency go. Missing 1 out of 10 is pretty darn good.

[ljudge]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

Missing 1 out of 10 is pretty darn good.

And a grade of 90 gets you an "A" in most universities. Get all 90's and you graduate Summa Cum Laude.

Darn good officials in this game!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ljudge

And a grade of 90 gets you an "A" in most universities. Get all 90's and you graduate Summa Cum Laude.

90's may get you cum laude or magna cum laude, but it takes more than that, in most institutions that take their honors seriously, to graduate summa cum laude.

[ljudge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

90's may get you cum laude or magna cum laude, but it takes more than that, in most institutions that take their honors seriously, to graduate summa cum laude.

An A gives you a 4.0....doesn't matter whether it was 93, 95, 97, or 100. A 4.0 is a 4.0. And, Summa is (I believe) anything greater than 3.85.