Taunting
 

This is a question and has no bearing on the actual ruling but more on the rationalization of the rule, which may be beyond this panel's expertise in explaining.

During the Indiana loss to Central Michigan,the Chippewas' Antonio Brown had the ball behind the defense and on his way to a 79-yard touchdown. When he got to about the ten yard line, he turned and made some gesture to the Indiana defenders chasing him. Naturally, he was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Why isn't that penalty treated as a live ball foul instead of a dead ball foul?

He hadn't scored yet, the play wasn't over, so why isn't the penalty enforced from the spot, like any other personal foul would?

I understand that this is the correct ruling, but I don't understand the purpose of the rule.

If you want to stop that type of taunting, take away the score.

And it is even harder to justify when you add in the fact that if the same exact thing happened in OT after a change of possession, the score would NOT count. (Ruling is the same on a change of possession on an extra point play)

Because non-contact fouls, as USC are, could not have affected the team's ability to score that touchdown. In fact if there were some good way to penalize it without affecting the conduct of the game itself at all -- such as spanking, detention, or a Dutch rub -- that'd be even better.

Robert

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Flag for Objectionable Conduct. TD counts, 10 yards on convert or KO.

[QUOTE=jimpiano;548101]He hadn't scored yet, the play wasn't over, so why isn't the penalty enforced from the spot, like any other personal foul would?

Simply because "taunting" is NOT a personal foul.

NF 9.4 deals with "Illegal Personal Contact", while NF: 9.5 relates to "Noncontact Unsportsmanline Conduct by Players" Taunting is clearly a noncontact issue.

I certainly agree that handling taunting as a live ball situation, and penalizing it as such, would be much more effective as a deterrent, but that would require a major rule philosophy revision

In this situation, the taunting was "a live ball situation". The penalty enforcement for USC has nothing to do with live or dead.

Actually, it wasn't that many years ago (remember I am old and anything since 1980 is not that many years ago) that it was handled under the all-but-one in Fedlandia. In the situation given in the initial post, the taunting would have been penalized from the ten yard line. 1st and 10 from the 25, clock on the snap.

Excuse me, "penalty enforcement for USC has nothing to do with live or dead.", other than the fact USC are enforced, the same as dead ball fouls, from the basic spot of the succeeding spot.

Perhaps my observation would have been more gramatically correct if I said handled as a live ball personal foul situation, but because that was the heart of the conversation, I didn't think it necessary to restate that.

Appology accepted.

It would result in less consistent effect of penalties. For example, there'd be no deterrent at all if you used the 3-and-1 principle to penalize cases where a player conceding a safety holds the ball overhead at the back of his end zone to egg on defenders (which I've seen) before stepping out of bounds.

A taunt is a taunt regardless of where or when it occurs, so penalizing it as if it were some tactical foul is silly. As I wrote, the best ways to penalize USC would not be done by game officials at all.

Well, I could imagine one effective way that would sort-of involve the officials: someone taunts, the opponent gets one free shot at him -- during or up to 1 min. after the game, but only while the ball is dead.

Robert