Jameis Winston

[bigjohn]

Danny Kanell thinks Tim Tebow would’ve been celebrated if he pushed the official | Fan Buzz

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Danny Kanell thinks Tim Tebow would’ve been celebrated if he pushed the official | Fan Buzz

This goes to jrut's point. It has to either be a foul or not be a foul, with clear criteria. Intentionally contacting an official is either always a foul or it isn't. Otherwise, we have to hear blah, blah from the likes of Kanell.

[InsideTheStripe]

This is one of those situations where I wonder if Doug Rhoads' public comments match his private comments. In either case, I'm glad he's publicly supporting his guy(s).

[chapmaja]

My take, as a non-football official but a football fan is this should have been a penalty, but it was caused by the positioning of the official as much as by Winston. This is a positioning problem because it does not allow the offense to get set up like they should be allowed to set up.

If I understand the rules correctly, the offense is prevented from snapping the ball until the defense has made their substitutions. There is nothing in the rules that prevent the offense from being able to get set up for the play. The actions of the official by nature of his positioning impact the play of the offense, so I understand Winston trying to move him out of the way. My problem with Winston's actions aren't the first contact, it is when he pushed him over into the left guard. That to me was unsportsmanlike conduct.

I suspect the officials would be a little scared to throw a flag in that situation because of the ramifications of such a penalty on something that is truly a borderline call.

My understanding of the rule is that if you rule the action to be unsportsmanlike conduct for contacting an official, the ejection is required, no if's and's or butt's. There is no grey area. In this case there should have been grey area allowed. I think 15 yards, but not an ejection.


For the record: I am as much of a Winston hater as their is. I think he is a punk kid who thinks he can do whatever he wants when he wants, and there are no consequences to his actions. I think his coach looks like a complete moron for defending the indefensible as well.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

My understanding of the rule is that if you rule the action to be unsportsmanlike conduct for contacting an official, the ejection is required, no if's and's or butt's.

There is a lesser option, though, but it's a bit of a stretch: 3-4-2b.8, "Action clearly designed to delay the officials from making the ball ready for play." That'd be a delay of game foul, just a 5 yarder, but you'd have to say it's clearly deliberate & for that purpose.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

There is a lesser option, though, but it's a bit of a stretch: 3-4-2b.8, "Action clearly designed to delay the officials from making the ball ready for play." That'd be a delay of game foul, just a 5 yarder, but you'd have to say it's clearly deliberate & for that purpose.

How can you justify that when his obvious intent was the exact opposite?

[hbk314]

By rule, is it possible to flag him without ejecting? Or is the penalty for contact with an official 15 yards and an ejection by rule?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Matt

How can you justify that when his obvious intent was the exact opposite?

I see what you're saying: It's like the player's going, here, I'll help you get out of the way, rather than the player's getting in the official's way. Maybe there's no way to make 3-4-2 fit. But did 9-2-4 contemplate such a situation? It's written so black & white, with no nuances, that it makes me wonder how an official could discretionarily ignore the forceful & deliberate contact in such a situation.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Suudy

This goes to jrut's point. It has to either be a foul or not be a foul, with clear criteria. Intentionally contacting an official is either always a foul or it isn't. Otherwise, we have to hear blah, blah from the likes of Kanell.

If you're in this business to garner approval from spectators and/or commentators, you might seriously consider a career change, because this is not the place to expect approval. Why would any official care what Danny Kanell thinks about the role and responsibilities of officials?

He's entitled to his opinion, but so what.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you're in this business to garner approval from spectators and/or commentators, you might seriously consider a career change, because this is not the place to expect approval.

I hardly do this for a living. But wouldn't it be nice to actually make a living officiating football! I don't get paid enough to deal with most of the crap. It's my love of football that makes me remain an official.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Why would any official care what Danny Kanell thinks about the role and responsibilities of officials?

Because idiotic comments by him and other commentators leave impressions on players and coaches. How many times have any of us heard "He was outside the pocket!" or other such crap? Coaches and players watch football on Saturday and Sunday and listen to these folk.

And this goes beyond just commentary on officials' roles and responsibilities. Kanell has gone beyond just football commentary and entered into social and political commentary. To suggest that Tebow would be lauded while Winston is excoriated speaks about more than just roles and responsibilities. It speaks to what some think is unfair treatment because of Winston's race, or Tebow's faith, or other such ridiculous notions.

And if there was a standard, and that standard was applied, we'd never have this discussion, because all players would be treated the same by all officials.

Originally Posted by ajmc

He's entitled to his opinion, but so what.

Words mean things. Words have real effects. And idiotic commentary such as Kanell's doesn't add anything to the discussion. As APG pointed out, talk about the merits of a flag or ejection, don't waste time on social and political commentary.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Suudy

Because idiotic comments by him and other commentators leave impressions on players and coaches. How many times have any of us heard "He was outside the pocket!" or other such crap? Coaches and players watch football on Saturday and Sunday and listen to these folk.

And if there was a standard, and that standard was applied, we'd never have this discussion, because all players would be treated the same by all officials.


Words mean things. Words have real effects. And idiotic commentary such as Kanell's doesn't add anything to the discussion. As APG pointed out, talk about the merits of a flag or ejection, don't waste time on social and political commentary.

You seem to recognize M. Knells comments as "idiotic", so why are you paying any attention to them or letting them bother you?

Treating "all players alike", doesn't require treating all situations exactly alike, because it's extremely rate that any two situations in a football game are EVER EXACTLY alike. The "standard" we all strive for is measured by our judgment, as long as we're consistent in applying that judgment to whatever situation we're dealing with, rather than trying to find "one size that fits all".

As long as we're accurate, what difference does it make that others are inaccurate (dopey comments like, "he was outside the pocket). Of course such comments give us an opportunity to educate someone, but if they choose to remain ignorant, THAT'S ON THEM.

Ignorance can be corrected by providing accurate information. Those who choose to ignore accurate information are STUPID, and that's a condition that can last forever and likely beyond our ability to correct.

"Intentionally contacting an official is either always a foul or it isn't", as determined by the judgment of the game official observing or enduring the contact.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You seem to recognize M. Knells comments as "idiotic", so why are you paying any attention to them or letting them bother you?

Because other people pay attention to them. The very same people that I work with on Monday, Tues, Thu, and Friday nights.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Treating "all players alike", doesn't require treating all situations exactly alike, because it's extremely rate that any two situations in a football game are EVER EXACTLY alike. The "standard" we all strive for is measured by our judgment, as long as we're consistent in applying that judgment to whatever situation we're dealing with, rather than trying to find "one size that fits all".

Correct. But you note that Kanell states that even in the same situation, Tebow would be celebrated ("If this happened to Tim Tebow back in heyday, we would be talking about how great of a competitor he is...."). So the only difference between Winston and Tebow in Kanell's analysis is the player.

Originally Posted by ajmc

As long as we're accurate, what difference does it make that others are inaccurate (dopey comments like, "he was outside the pocket). Of course such comments give us an opportunity to educate someone, but if they choose to remain ignorant, THAT'S ON THEM.

Call me old fashioned, but shouldn't coaches coach to the rules? If they are watching football on Saturday and Sunday to learn the rules, that's one thing. If they are listening to commentators on stupid analyses like "Tebow would have been celebrated" that is another. One just gets the rules wrong. The other gets our motivations and intentions wrong.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Ignorance can be corrected by providing accurate information. Those who choose to ignore accurate information are STUPID, and that's a condition that can last forever and likely beyond our ability to correct.

Then shouldn't we speak out against those to make inaccurate, dopey comments, like Kanell's?

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Intentionally contacting an official is either always a foul or it isn't", as determined by the judgment of the game official observing or enduring the contact.

That wasn't my point. I'm not arguing against application to circumstances. Of course circumstances change the application (I can point you to an excellent talk by Peter Kreeft on ethics). My frustration with Kanell is that he's gone past arguing about the application of the rule with regard to circumstances, instead arguing about the individuals involved, as if somehow that actually matters.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Suudy

That wasn't my point. I'm not arguing against application to circumstances. Of course circumstances change the application (I can point you to an excellent talk by Peter Kreeft on ethics). My frustration with Kanell is that he's gone past arguing about the application of the rule with regard to circumstances, instead arguing about the individuals involved, as if somehow that actually matters.

Well there are officials who have made the very comment about which player that would be involved. I think Kanell is right in that assessment how the media covered this. But I heard on another site people talking about Winston and his off-field issues in this situation. If he is to be ejected, that should never be mentioned. Since the official involved was not put off by the action, something tells me that there was not a direct confrontation. Something tells me the official understood a confusion or understood what the player was trying to do and used his judgment.

So we cannot get on Kanell when we have had officials say the very same thing.

Peace