Taunting Rule: Good Idea that will be Poorly Executed

By Joe Phelps

It's been an off season for the books. Numerous programs have been notified of violations and a few have already learned their fate for the 2011 season and beyond. Fan bases have been at each others throats over the misdoings of their beloved programs. However, this is nothing compared to the chaos that the NCAA's new taunting rule will incite this season.

Forget the cliches like "Act like you have been there before (end zone)" or "College Football is NOT the NFL". Absolutely, the College Football is NOT the NFL. These are kids playing a game...not for millions of dollars, but simply because of their passion for the physically and emotionally draining sport. These young men are going to get excited. They are going to fist pump, Tomahawk Chop, Gator Chomp, and Rock 'em Sock 'em Robot with youthful exuberance, and yes, for some, they have NOT "been there before".

This is why a rule that is too subjective is going to spell disaster in the 2011 College Football season.

I am sure everyone is familiar with the new rule, so I will not go into great detail. For the first time ever, a score can be taken off of the board if the officials feel that the scoring player celebrated and/or taunted before he crossed the goal line. While a good idea in embryo, leaving the enforcement of the rule to the oft maligned officials and their "subjectivity" is an abortion. While some of the taunting needed to be done away with (like the throat slash...this is college football...not the WWE, or standing over the ball carrier or player that you just annihilated...there's no place for that), giving the officials the ability to alter the scoreboard is something that need not be injected into College Football.

I have touched briefly on my concern about the vagueness of the rule and leaving it to the subjectivity and interpretation of the officials, but now will press deeper into it. Let's start with two horrendous calls that are still fresh in our minds:

Jake Locker had just led his Huskies down the field and scored a late touchdown against BYU in September of 2008, which with the extra point pending would have tied up the contest. In his excitement of the big play, he tossed the ball up and over his shoulder and immediately celebrated with his teammates.


Yet the officials decided to interject themselves into the outcome of the game, and penalized Washington and Locker for excessive celebration. This is the very subjectivity that will be applied to the new taunting rule. The flag cost Washington the tie (as the extra point, which went from chip shot to a 23 yard field goal attempt, was missed). The vagueness of the rule ALREADY in existence was exposed then and there. The ref did not have to throw the flag. Locker was not trying to show BYU up. The young man was ELATED that he and his team made a huge play to end a 17 play 76 yard drive. Apparently that was lost on the official, and even after a discussion where the rest of the crew had the opportunity to get the call right, the penalty was upheld. This was utter FAILURE on the part of the rule and the crew.

In October of 2009, an incredible SEC contest was marred by another poor interpretation of the already existing rule. A classic and epic back-and-forth battle between Georgia and LSU had fans on the edge of their seats. The home standing Bulldogs were trailing when A.J. Green caught a pass and scored with 1:09 left on the clock, putting Georgia ahead 13-12. A flag was thrown for unsportsmanlike conduct on Green. (You would think that if it was so blatant, their would be video evidence of it all over the net, but alas, not one piece of video evidence) The official used his "subjectivity" through a group of celebrating and excited Bulldog players (which INCLUDED Green) to determine that Green made a gesture to the crowd, thus calling attention to himself and provoking the flag. The result was shameful, as Georgia had to kick off from the 15 yard line, basically cutting the field by 3/4 for the LSU Tigers. LSU would eventually score and win 20-13.

Even after the game, later that Saturday night, the subjective officials stood their ground, refusing to admit their mistake. It was THEIR boss, Rogers Redding, that finally admitted that the call was erroneous. "We looked at it from every angle on TV and video. We did not see (Green) separating himself from the celebrating group, nor the gesture he allegedly made at the crowd."

It was little consolation for the losing Bulldogs.

These are just two examples of calls that were blown when left up to imperfect human subjectivity. What is even more worrisome is the fact that the new taunting rule is NOT subject to review nor can it be challenged by the coaches. Even with the implementation of replay review, the officials still do not get it right. A great example of this is September of 2006 in the Oklahoma vs Oregon game.


I could list many, many more examples of the ineptness of college officiating. This new taunting rule is destined for controversy. It will besmirch the game and make the officials the most important and demonstrative individuals on the field. The game was not designed for that, the coaches and the players should control the outcome of the game.

These examples are mere regular season contests and look at the discord the poor calls caused. Even more imperative is the fact that this is not the NFL where a couple of regular season losses mean nothing to your ability to win a Championship. Every game is crucial in the FBS, and giving the officials the ability to change the outcome of the game is shortsighted and utter buffoonery.

Can you imagine the reaction of the fans when the first time the new taunting rule is enforced, especially if it takes a last second game winning score off of the board? I would not want to be THAT official...or crew for that matter. What do you think the backlash would be if that happens in a HUGE non-conference game where the crew is from the same conference as the team benefiting from the taunting call? Or worse yet, what about the chaos that will run rampant if the call happens in the BCS title game?

One thing is for sure, Conference Commissioners and Conference Officiating Coordinators are going to be spending a lot of time sending out apology letters in 2011. The new taunting rule is a good idea that is too vague and one that will be poorly executed.

***Editorial

This new rule is a reflection of the sad state of affairs our society has entered. The era of entitlement has saturated every pore of our civilization. Whether it is "sharing the wealth" or the lazy sponging off of those who have worked hard for what they do have, it has now started to effect our entertainment, and worse yet, our sports.

We have become a society that feels you should not celebrate your success. That you should consider the feelings of your opponents. It is as if you should feel bad for winning because someone else had to lose for you to be successful. We have stopped keeping score in our youth sports. We have stopped teaching kids how to lose and how it should make them hungry to win. We give everyone a trophy for just showing up. This instills the sense of entitlement that is becoming so detrimental to us as a civilization.

I don't know what was wrong with the old way of "Lose with grace, win with class." We have gone soft, we have become the grasshopper, expecting the hard working ants to aid us even though we sit on our self entitled butts.

This new rule is part of a disturbing trend that needs to be halted before it gets any worse.