Jameis Winston
 

Jameis Winston's contact with official did not warrant unsportsmanlike penalty, ACC says - ESPN

What are your thoughts on both the on-field actions and ACC response?

To me I don't see how there wasn't a flag thrown, and I would have supported an ejection.

I said this before and I will say this here. If this was another player, we would not be discussing this issue. We have a newer mechanic that has no standardization it appears that caused this issue if you ask me. I did not see an issue. I did not see the reaction from the official that showed he was put off by the situation. And as usual high school (only) officials seem to love to compare what happens with them to what happens at a higher level. That is mistake number one if you ask me.

I think the ACC did the right thing.

Peace

Pfttttt, yuck, I agree with rut! That hurt!

Winston makes Jimbo look like a tool. Nobody at FSU as the cajones to do anything with him.

College officials are too job scared to make an issue out of it. You can argue about comparing situations but we have no rule in HS ball holding the U over the ball anyway.

I don't see too many HS umpires allowing a kid to put their hands on them and doing absolutely nothing about it. Of course the white hat could have stepped in and helped out by blowing it dead but then I guess Jimbo is raising hell at him then.

First of all this is not HS. I do not care what HS officials would or would not do, because many HS officials would get themselves in a lot of trouble doing the things they do at the college ranks. And this is not about a particular player. I would not call this on any player based on the mechanics and based off of that level. For one I have never seen an official ever do what this guy did. Maybe that is because there is not a standardization of that 8th official or Center Judge, but not sure why he needed to stand right in the way of the center, substitution or not. I have seen umpires in 7 man stand over the ball, but never physically prevent a player from moving into an area or under center. And that IMO cause part of the problem and the official never reacted like he was offended or put off by the contact. If he was, then that is another story. But he also knows what was said to the Winston and his response. None of us here know what was said either way and that would affect my opinion of this situation if the right words were used.

Peace

I'm sorry. This is absurd. He put his hands on an official and pushed. 15 yards. You want to waive the ejection because it was not unsportsmanlike, fine... but this is a penalty all day, every day, at any level.

It was not in anger or disrespect, the official looked to be just as confused as the QB did as to why it was happening. It was not intentional and none of the other zebras saw a problem, they were muttering get the hell out of his way, dumbass!

If it was a penalty at every level, why was no flag thrown and the conference said the official was not offended or put off by the contact? You telling me every contact we have with a player is a penalty? Yep, I when I see that that technically, I will believe you. I have seen officials break up players from each other and not throw a single flag when the player reacted or had to be "calmed down." That was not even the case here.

Peace

Insisting on punishing a player for a situation, BECAUSE of who he is, is just as bad as NOT punishing a player, BECAUSE of who he is. The official involved didn't look like a rookie, and we should presume his working at the level game suggests an ability to deal with varied situations.

If he felt threatened, disrespected, or otherwise violated, he had the tools to deal with any of that at his disposal. It seems only the official and the player knew what was said, or why something was said, and neither seemed to be overly distracted by what was said.

"Much ado about nothing".

Doug Rhoads, the ACC's coordinator of officials, said in a statement Sunday:"The center judge's positioning, which was due to the experimental year of having an eighth official, combined with the late substitution and by rule the need to allow the defense to matchup, led to contact between himself and the player. The official believed the contact was incidental and insignificant and did not rise to the level of unsportsmanlike conduct and automatic disqualification."

If the Center Judge believed that contact was incidental, he's got bigger issues. Pure and simple, he wussed out. And I don't care what Rut cares about HS officials. The NFL takes a pretty stern view of contacting an official too. So plain and simple, NCAA officials by and large are too worried about hanging on to the conference they are in or moving up to the next one. Conference commissioners are scared of the coaches too.


You've either got the balls to make the call and live with the consequences or you don't from youth league up to the big boys.

CYA chicken$#!tz too afraid to bite the hand that feeds them.

Amen. And it seems the bigger the game, the smaller the testes. Bush push being the prime example.

But at least somebody had the cajones in the ND/FSU game to call OPI. So the ACC is batting .500 on big calls.

:rolleyes:

Whether you believe the player should have been ejected or not, it's real easy, sitting from your seat on Saturday, to accuse officials of not having the balls, testes, cojones, fortitude, (insert noun here to denote bravery) to eject (and while no one straight up said it, it's been implied).

Want to discuss the merits of an ejection? Fine...keep it to that.

Bah. We have big games at the HS level too (granted, not AS big). And there are pressures there as well. I agree with HL, you gotta have frijoles no matter the level.

Your big high school game is nothing compared to a national audience....but I digress cause it doesn't matter...

If you want to discuss the merits of whether an ejection is worthy or not, that's fine. Going down the path you and HLN are going...is not.

I kinda get the feeling this is one of those "we'll support a non call, but we would've supported a call" type situations, but I have no evidence to back that up other than my gut feeling.

It'll be interesting to see if Rogers says anything about in the next CFO video.

From a mechanics perspective, this just makes me wonder why the Center Judge is responsible for hatching the ball in these situations anyway... seems like the Umpire would be better able to get to the ball/prevent the snap without getting in the way. Thoughts?

Isn't that the truth! No disagreement from me here.

Fair enough. I'll keep it to myself.

I am going to guess, that he got paid for that game more than you or I would make an entire season of varsity football. He obviously proved his worth to someone, because he was on National TV and you and I were sitting at home commenting on the situation.

Peace

We get accused all the time of what we do based on who is involved and in the comments we have people commenting about "who" was involved rather than what we would do if this happen to anyone else. IT is actually sad and I am saddened by our community with the tone of these comments here and in other places.

Peace

The view from behind makes it look like the player is interfering with game administration. But the fact that the official he was shoving didn't throw a flag -- nor did any other official -- or stop play seems to say that the official did not consider it such interference.

Was the offense trying to conserve time? In that case I could understand officials' being reluctant to stop play, although my understanding is that a time penalty is an available tool in NCAA to handle such situations.

Otherwise I think you've got to either immediately flag & whistle it for UC (or at least delay of game), or else acknowledge it as a nothing.

I'm fine with a 15 yarder. There probably wasn't any malicious intent to do harm so no need to eject and no way Mr. Heisman Trophy would get ejected in any event. He was trying to move him out of the way. He knew what he was doing. The CJ was just trying to do his job according to the NCAA rules.

Its just the politics indicative to big time NCAA football that allows this to happen. One level up or down, there is going to be a flag. One level up, a fine also. The NCAA buries their head in the sand, just like knee pads and the restricted area, and tells us all to move along, nothing to see here.

It wouldn't bother me so much but somewhere on a Friday night in the not so distant future some dipstick teenager is going to try the same trick.

Rant over, apologies to TPTB.:o

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.

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).

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.

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?

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?

Every single penalty that does not involve targeting and fighting can result in just a 15 yard penalty.

Peace

The rule about contacting an official specifically includes disqualification. If you are going to call this you have to disqualify unless you are going to stretch some other rule that doesn't apply.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Good point. My reading was that he was critical of officials treating players differently. But after reading it again, I think I misread it. It does seem Kanell is critical of the media, fans and pundits, not the officials.

Well, this does put a twist on things. If doing a game and the crew from the previous week warns you about a player that was problematic, I think we are more likely to scrutinize that player. But that is limited to on-field behavior. I agree that off-field behavior should not be a factor.

I hadn't commented on it yet, but that is the impression I got from watching the video. I do not think his contact was malicious. I do think it was intentional. But there is a difference between intentionally contacting an official in a benign manner (shaking hands, helping up, pat on the shoulder, etc) and in a malicious manner (shoving, running into, etc). The discussion on here and elsewhere was judging which category this particular contact falls. The officials on the field didn't appear to find it malicious. Insofar as the discussion is focused on that, I don't have a problem. But those discussing the motivations of the officials is problematic.

My original comment about "Intentionally contacting an official is either always a foul or it isn't" should be edited. Perhaps "Maliciously contacting an official is either always a foul or it isn't." Malicious acts are always intentional, and not all intentional acts are malicious. Now, I don't know how the NCAA rule is phrased. But if it is the former, that may be a reason why this discussion is going on.

Well, since I think I misunderstood Kanell's point, I think that Kanell and the officals are saying different things.

The contact in my opinion was Winston trying to get under center because he wanted to be uptempo for the next play. The substitution was completed and he was trying to get the next play off. I do not think it was intentional as people are tryign to suggest. He was trying to intentionally snap the ball for sure, quickly. And if you look at the time the ball was snapped, the CJ was not yet set into his position. I think that was party how the conversation took place between Winston and the CJ. And that is why I feel there was no penalty or even a concern. All Kanell was only saying that the official did not react in a way that he felt a penalty should be called and that it was about how the media percieved Winston as compared to a player like Tebow. Kanell just agreed that there should not have been a penalty and that is also what the ACC suggested as well.

Peace

It's phrased in a way that malice doesn't enter into, just whether it was forceful & intentional.

I'm trying to look at it in a way the official directly affected, or other officials looking on, would not have been said to ignore the letter of the law. Perhaps it could be said that since it's in a section labeled "unsportsmanlike acts", a particular action by a player that fit the specifics of an article within it could simply be ruled not to have been "unsportsmanlike". In other words, by reading into each provision affecting actions in that section a qualifier, "in a manner which is unsportsmanlike", because that's how the section is headed.

Similarly, helping an official off the ground by pulling him would be forceful & intentional, but not unsportsmanlike...I hope. ("Hey, you dissing me by saying I need help to get off the ground? You're outta here!")

I could think of other situations where there'd be a similar conflict between the wording of this provision and its probable purpose. Just any live ball and an official is in your way as a player. You could go around him, but say that tactically it's to your advantage to try to run him over. You didn't go out of your way to make contact, but you could've avoided it. Or say you're a non-player subject to the rules, and an official has been knocked off the sideline by such a contact, and you hit him to deflect him from hitting some hard object near the field.

It was as "intentional" as many other actions in the game where the rules use that word.

There was a time I deliberately shoved a cop. My father had called him over to us in a dispute on the street over what some disrespectful youth had just done to him in an argument. The policeman asked me what the person in question had done. I couldn't resist what might've been a once-a-lifetime opp'ty. I'm sure the cop expected just a description, but instead I demonstrated by shoving him on the shoulders with enough force that he, being slight of build, staggered backwards. My father later couldn't believe I'd done that on purpose.

I'm sure that calculated type of action, i.e. contriving as I did to push an authority figure around in the guise of other action, was not what the player in the game undertook, but it was intentional nonetheless.