Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Collegiate Sports Discussion > College Football

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-29-2010, 06:34 PM   #16
Brad O.
1,549
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 792
Brad O. will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
But why stop there? Why not disqualify the entire team if they celebrate too much at the end of a game, and declare the other team the winner?

I'm all for disciplining "taunters" after the fact with fines, suspensions etc. But reversing the entire outcome of a play (or game) is asinine overkill - or, to trot out one of my favorite allegories, it's like William Tell using a cannon to shoot the apple off his son's head.
I mostly agree with you, though this is substantially different than what you initially wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
If you don't want to get "taunted," play better!
I don't know that I would use the word overkill, but I agree that reversing the outcome of actual plays is the wrong way to go. I do like in-game consequences rather than post-game punishments, though. Fines aren't a realistic solution at the college level (or even the NFL, really). I guess suspensions could work, but that seems like overkill to me. It's also potentially subject to teams working the system. I generally like the way the NFL does things, with a stiff penalty (usually 15 yards) following the play. So a touchdown would stand, but you assess 15 yards on the extra point or the kickoff (opponent's choice).

I might be willing to go with touchdown reversal, etc., if the rules for what constitutes "taunting" were more clearly defined and evenly enforced. For now, I think a post-play penalty is more appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Some of us need to do what Mr. T. suggested in that Snickers commercial that aired in Britain but was kept off the air by the P.C. Thought Police on this side of the pond:

Get some nuts.
P.C. Thought Police? I think you're confusing censoring of political speech with protective parents and social conservatives who find that sort of language obscene. There's nothing politically correct about avoiding that use of the word "nuts"; it has nothing to do with politics whatsoever. That's Puritanism, not political correctness.

Then again, how can I argue with someone who looks to a Mr. T commercial for wisdom?
Brad O. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2010, 05:45 AM   #17
Anthony
Moderator
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 8,370
Anthony is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad O. View Post
I mostly agree with you, though this is substantially different than what you initially wrote:

I don't know that I would use the word overkill, but I agree that reversing the outcome of actual plays is the wrong way to go. I do like in-game consequences rather than post-game punishments, though. Fines aren't a realistic solution at the college level (or even the NFL, really). I guess suspensions could work, but that seems like overkill to me. It's also potentially subject to teams working the system. I generally like the way the NFL does things, with a stiff penalty (usually 15 yards) following the play. So a touchdown would stand, but you assess 15 yards on the extra point or the kickoff (opponent's choice).

I might be willing to go with touchdown reversal, etc., if the rules for what constitutes "taunting" were more clearly defined and evenly enforced. For now, I think a post-play penalty is more appropriate.

But should Billy Sims' patented "hang glide" move from the early '80s merit a nullification penalty? It would, under this rule, because he would typically start it before he actually crossed the goal line.



Quote:
P.C. Thought Police? I think you're confusing censoring of political speech with protective parents and social conservatives who find that sort of language obscene. There's nothing politically correct about avoiding that use of the word "nuts"; it has nothing to do with politics whatsoever. That's Puritanism, not political correctness.

Then again, how can I argue with someone who looks to a Mr. T commercial for wisdom?

That had nothing to do with why the commercial failed to air in the U.S. Rather, the ad featured a Bruno-type character, at least highly effeminate, if not overtly gay (and it was gay-rights groups that persuaded Snickers not to air it here).

And I see you haven't even commented on UFC 114 yet. I have - in a full-length article I have submitted for publication on this very site.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2010, 04:17 PM   #18
Brad O.
1,549
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 792
Brad O. will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
But should Billy Sims' patented "hang glide" move from the early '80s merit a nullification penalty? It would, under this rule, because he would typically start it before he actually crossed the goal line.
I'm with you on this one: I don't think plays should be nullified because of taunting; I think they should earn stiff yardage penalties assessed following the play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
That had nothing to do with why the commercial failed to air in the U.S. Rather, the ad featured a Bruno-type character, at least highly effeminate, if not overtly gay (and it was gay-rights groups that persuaded Snickers not to air it here).
I'm not familiar with the ad, but it sounds like this was a marketing decision by Snickers rather than a government-imposed decision based on political correctness or what constitutes offensive speech. It's a basic tenet of business that companies will abandon advertising techniques that do more harm (offending a segment of the population) than good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
And I see you haven't even commented on UFC 114 yet. I have - in a full-length article I have submitted for publication on this very site.
I'll post a few thoughts in the appropriate thread. I look forward to reading yours, as well.
Brad O. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SCMB College Football Pick'em Week 2 Marc College Football 16 09-14-2007 06:57 AM
College Football john1981cr College Football 1 09-22-2006 11:43 AM
Why College Football is the greatest sport Bobcats050 College Football 2 12-09-2004 05:30 AM
[Sports Central Newsletter] #119 - Why College Football is Broken Marc News and Announcements 0 12-08-2004 05:31 PM
Top 30 College Football Players bama4256 College Football 6 07-23-2001 10:28 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 AM.