Sportsmanship is the #1 topic at Owner's Meetings

[Threedee]

Bob McNair was quoted as saying he thinks that officials should have thrown a lot more flags than they did last year and that it should be a point of emphasis going forwards.

This is the problem in a nutshell, bunch of old rich white dudes pushing their moral agenda on the league trying to fix things that 99% of fans and players don't think is a problem.

"OMG, look at that angry black man taunting his opponent, we never did that in 1956............new rule!"

So, morals = bad?

 

[kidhawk]

Owners aren't making these rules, as your comment suggests, they just give the final approval (or disapproval) of rules that have made it through the competition committee, which is made up of coaches/GMs.

You don't think Bob McNair has any influence over one of his employees (Rick Smith) when it comes to what's brought before the competition committee? That's naive.

Why would coaches and GM's care about their players dunking over goalposts? Procedural rules that affect the game? Yes, those are things that matter to coaches and GM's. But don't kid yourself, all these new "code of conduct" rules are directly influenced by the old boy network and outside alliances and groups with agendas. Politics doesn't stop in DC, it's in every business.........including the NFL.

Of course there is politics involved, nobody ever claimed there wasn't, but your claim that the owners are making these rules due to some sort of racism or elitism or whatever is ludicrous. ESPECIALLY this goal post rulling. It's not even a new rule. This rule has been around for years they've just been ignoring it. You can't use props in your celebration. The ball can't be used as a prop and the goal post certainly can't be used as a prop. All that happened on this particular ruling is to push for enforcement of a rule already in place.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Why are we letting owners decide rules? They are business men, most of whom have close to zero experience playing or coaching football. It seems like a dumb idea, and from the sound of the OP, it looks like it is achieving a dumb result.

Why are WE letting? THEY are the owners. That means they get to decide.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Why are we letting owners decide rules? They are business men, most of whom have close to zero experience playing or coaching football. It seems like a dumb idea, and from the sound of the OP, it looks like it is achieving a dumb result.

Why are WE letting? THEY are the owners. That means they get to decide.

Damn it, my tax dollars went into the stadium. I want a voice at the table too.

Can we get back the old music video-style team dance routines in the '80s? I'm showing up and voting for that.

 

[rigelian]

Bob McNair was quoted as saying he thinks that officials should have thrown a lot more flags than they did last year and that it should be a point of emphasis going forwards.

This is the problem in a nutshell, bunch of old rich white dudes pushing their moral agenda on the league trying to fix things that 99% of fans and players don't think is a problem.

"OMG, look at that angry black man taunting his opponent, we never did that in 1956............new rule!"

So, morals = bad?

I've never looked at taunting as a moral issue. Perhaps you can explain what set of morals implicates. In my opinion, one of the most negative acts that people do these days is elevate an issue which is a case of tastes, preferences, and culture to some high level "moral" issue.

 

[kobebryant]

Bob McNair was quoted as saying he thinks that officials should have thrown a lot more flags than they did last year and that it should be a point of emphasis going forwards.

This is the problem in a nutshell, bunch of old rich white dudes pushing their moral agenda on the league trying to fix things that 99% of fans and players don't think is a problem.

"OMG, look at that angry black man taunting his opponent, we never did that in 1956............new rule!"

So, morals = bad?

I don't see how morals have anything to do with the debate.

If you are looking to sports for morals you are looking in the wrong place; sports are surrealist entertainment.

 

[SouthSoundHawk]

Lol @ no trash talking.

WTF is this...

My MOM talks trash...all the time! These league officials need to dig their heads out of their asses.

 

[entropyrulesall]

Hell no. This is a business of entertainment. Do I think every tackle deserves a dance? No. I enjoy little victory celebrations after touchdowns and trash talk just makes the game more interesting and adds to the drama. I guess some would argue that the drama doesn't belong on the field, but I think that is stupid. I personally love ish like Shoeless Dick dancing with the cheerleaders. I think it is up to the refs to reign it in if things get out of hand or maybe the coaches, but instituting league rules and penalties? No Fun League. :les:

Your avatar and this topic are quite ironic. If the NFL wants to address sportsmanship in the game, the conversation starts with Jim Harbaugh. People were quick to excoriate Golden Tate for handwaving during the Rams touchdown but his behavior is nothing compared to JH's constant whining. While I thought the Rams had it coming in regards to Tate, the Rams SUCK btw, I also see no place for that type of taunting in the game. A bit of trash talk the next series is fine but taunting as the play was in motion was indefensible.

 

[fenderbender123]

I like entertainment in my entertainment sports. Many people enjoy the celebrations, the trash-talking, etc...and it doesn't take away anything from anyone...for that reason alone the owners who are trying to take away that portion of our entertainment can go suck a f****.

 

[rigelian]

I like entertainment in my entertainment sports. Many people enjoy the celebrations, the trash-talking, etc...and it doesn't take away anything from anyone...for that reason alone the owners who are trying to take away that portion of our entertainment can go suck a f****.

I honestly have no problem with the league/owners having the power to crack down on what many consider to be excessive celebration or taunting. It's their game and they have the right to market it anyway they want. Of they believe that by cracking down they will be in a better position to market the game to fans, so be it.

Personally, I had no problem with Golden Tate waving at his opponent while streaking toward the end zone, other than the fact that he almost ran out of bounds and got penalized... I mean if you're going to taunt someone you might as well do it to maximum effect.

As far as Sherman's post game shot at Crabtree, I thought that Pete got it right. It overshadowed the play of his teammates and it was a mistake. I thought the fine for flashing the choke sign was probably justified...but not a fine for dissing Crabtree.

 

[DavidSeven]

It's coaches and GM's who make up the competition committee where the rules are discussed and put forth for the owners to vote on. I would think if people were up in arms over something they'd have a better understanding of the system they are complaining about.

It's not just coaches and GM's, outside alliances groups also submit new rules for consideration. Like the Fritz Pollard Alliance, an activist group submitting the new racial slur rule.

You'd think if people were up in arms about defending the rules committee, they'd have a better understanding of the system they're defending.

The rules committee goes through all suggested rules (and/or comes up with their own) and sends them to the owners for approval. Suggestions come from multiple sources, but that's not even the point. The point is trying to be made that the owners don't make the rules, they only get the final vote on the rules. You said and I'll quote it so you're not confused:

This is the problem in a nutshell, bunch of old rich white dudes pushing their moral agenda on the league trying to fix things that 99% of fans and players don't think is a problem.

"OMG, look at that angry black man taunting his opponent, we never did that in 1956............new rule!"

Owners aren't making these rules, as your comment suggests, they just give the final approval (or disapproval) of rules that have made it through the competition committee, which is made up of coaches/GMs.

Edit to fix an error in the copy/paste of the quote

A bunch of crap gets thrown against the wall in terms of rule proposals. Many of which I'm sure come from the owners themselves. The owners are the only ones with the power to enact new rules; thus, they are the ones who should shoulder the blame for passing unpopular ones.

Same deal with Congress. A lot of their ideas come from their constituents or off their own domes. If it's a bonehead idea, then they get the blame. No one cares who originally generated the idea.

 

[chris98251]

Well go ahead and try to gag players during the game, trash talk has been going on since the organzation of competition in one way or another. May be a bit different words but still trash talk. You don't think there was trash talk in the 50's and 60's, your delusional, it just wasn't as main stream and you didn't have on field microphones and players had a different role in interviews back then.

Art Donavan, Alex Karras, Dick Butkus, and many more were legendary for what they would do and say on the field.
Those are Line man and Linebackers. Deacon Jones is another.

If they pass this I would call it the Sherman Rule.

 

[kidhawk]

It's coaches and GM's who make up the competition committee where the rules are discussed and put forth for the owners to vote on. I would think if people were up in arms over something they'd have a better understanding of the system they are complaining about.

It's not just coaches and GM's, outside alliances groups also submit new rules for consideration. Like the Fritz Pollard Alliance, an activist group submitting the new racial slur rule.

You'd think if people were up in arms about defending the rules committee, they'd have a better understanding of the system they're defending.

The rules committee goes through all suggested rules (and/or comes up with their own) and sends them to the owners for approval. Suggestions come from multiple sources, but that's not even the point. The point is trying to be made that the owners don't make the rules, they only get the final vote on the rules. You said and I'll quote it so you're not confused:

This is the problem in a nutshell, bunch of old rich white dudes pushing their moral agenda on the league trying to fix things that 99% of fans and players don't think is a problem.

"OMG, look at that angry black man taunting his opponent, we never did that in 1956............new rule!"

Owners aren't making these rules, as your comment suggests, they just give the final approval (or disapproval) of rules that have made it through the competition committee, which is made up of coaches/GMs.

Edit to fix an error in the copy/paste of the quote

A bunch of crap gets thrown against the wall in terms of rule proposals. Many of which I'm sure come from the owners themselves. The owners are the only ones with the power to enact new rules; thus, they are the ones who should shoulder the blame for passing unpopular ones.

Same deal with Congress. A lot of their ideas come from their constituents or off their own domes. If it's a bonehead idea, then they get the blame. No one cares who originally generated the idea.

Blaming the owners and assuming it's done for racial reasons without one iota if actual evidence is ludicrous. I stand by that and that is all I was trying to point out. Letting assumptions made become basis for beliefs early ends well. I can't make anyone change their beliefs but I can point out when they are assuming things baselessly.

 

[Threedee]

Bob McNair was quoted as saying he thinks that officials should have thrown a lot more flags than they did last year and that it should be a point of emphasis going forwards.

This is the problem in a nutshell, bunch of old rich white dudes pushing their moral agenda on the league trying to fix things that 99% of fans and players don't think is a problem.

"OMG, look at that angry black man taunting his opponent, we never did that in 1956............new rule!"

So, morals = bad?

I don't see how morals have anything to do with the debate.

If you are looking to sports for morals you are looking in the wrong place; sports are surrealist entertainment.

It was Sgt Largent who derided this rule as being tied down to morals. I find taunting, dancing, and dunking to be immature. Ironically, Steve Largent viewed it as unprofessional, and used to do the unthinkable handoff to a ref following a TD.

It's not going to drive me away from the sport if Victor Cruz dances the Salsa, Graham dunks, or Cam pretends to be Superman. I do hate the NCAA for throwing a flag everytime someone yells "yay!"

I do find it odd that someone would take an issue with a move for being "too moral."

 

[Escamillo]

Bob McNair was quoted as saying he thinks that officials should have thrown a lot more flags than they did last year and that it should be a point of emphasis going forwards.

This is the problem in a nutshell, bunch of old rich white dudes pushing their moral agenda on the league trying to fix things that 99% of fans and players don't think is a problem.

"OMG, look at that angry black man taunting his opponent, we never did that in 1956............new rule!"

So, morals = bad?

"Morals"? Please explain to me how dunking a ball over a goalpost is "immoral". Is there a particular one of the 10 Commandments it violates that I'm unaware of? "morals", please. :229031_rolleyes:
BTW, I agree with the idea of eliminating ball dunking due to potential to misalign the goalposts, but don't tell me that that it's "immoral".
It's bad enough that you can't even spike the ball after a TD now, and that was something that players had done for decades. And the current nonsense about, "It's OK to celebrate with your team but not on your own (or is it the other way around?)" makes even less sense.

Back in the day, I was in favor of banning the pre-choreographed celebrations (like Washington's "Fun Bunch" TD celebrations) and banning Gastineau's sack dance, but I've changed my mind since then. I say, allow any celebration that's not "taunting" (i.e. not directed at an opposing player) and that's not offensive (like the "throat slash") after a TD or turnover, or any "big play" as the ref sees it. :0190l:
After a minor play (again, as the ref sees it), then allow only minor celebrations. :th2thumbs:
In other words, let it be a judgment call by the referee as to whether a particular celebration is excessive for a given play. After a few weeks, everyone will have a general understanding of what's OK when and what is not. Either that, or let everything go (except explicit taunting and the "throat-slash" gesture). The other extreme is to let there be no celebrations at all (so the players must act like emotionless cyborgs).

Then again, leaving it up to the ref has some problems. I recall a college bowl game a few years ago where a K-State player scored a TD near the end of the game, and he had the gall to salute the K-State fans. One of the refs thought that saluting the K-State fans was excessive celebration, so he penalized K-State 15 yards (I forget if it was assessed on the kick-off, or the PAT, or on an attempted 2-pt conversion), and that played a big role in their ultimately losing the game. It was absurd. ukeface:

 

[two dog]

Do they still have the competition committee ? It was composed of..what..5 or 6 coaches
who recommended rule changes to improve or streamline the game. Mike Holmgren was
a member for a few years. Jeff Fisher too. Not owners.

The only coaches I hear about this year are Belly-chick and Hair-ball who both believe they
should be able to challenge every play on the field. And those two guys would do just that.
Then you would have a REAL nightmare. Make you forget goal post dunkin' pretty quick.

 

[Teqneek]

Bob McNair was quoted as saying he thinks that officials should have thrown a lot more flags than they did last year and that it should be a point of emphasis going forwards.

This is the problem in a nutshell, bunch of old rich white dudes pushing their moral agenda on the league trying to fix things that 99% of fans and players don't think is a problem.

"OMG, look at that angry black man taunting his opponent, we never did that in 1956............new rule!"

So, morals = bad?

"Morals"? Please explain to me how dunking a ball over a goalpost is "immoral". Is there a particular one of the 10 Commandments it violates that I'm unaware of? "morals", please. :229031_rolleyes:
BTW, I agree with the idea of eliminating ball dunking due to potential to misalign the goalposts, but don't tell me that that it's "immoral".
It's bad enough that you can't even spike the ball after a TD now, and that was something that players had done for decades. And the current nonsense about, "It's OK to celebrate with your team but not on your own (or is it the other way around?)" makes even less sense.

Back in the day, I was in favor of banning the pre-choreographed celebrations (like Washington's "Fun Bunch" TD celebrations) and banning Gastineau's sack dance, but I've changed my mind since then. I say, allow any celebration that's not "taunting" (i.e. not directed at an opposing player) and that's not offensive (like the "throat slash") after a TD or turnover, or any "big play" as the ref sees it. :0190l:
After a minor play (again, as the ref sees it), then allow only minor celebrations. :th2thumbs:
In other words, let it be a judgment call by the referee as to whether a particular celebration is excessive for a given play. After a few weeks, everyone will have a general understanding of what's OK when and what is not. Either that, or let everything go (except explicit taunting and the "throat-slash" gesture). The other extreme is to let there be no celebrations at all (so the players must act like emotionless cyborgs).

Then again, leaving it up to the ref has some problems. I recall a college bowl game a few years ago where a K-State player scored a TD near the end of the game, and he had the gall to salute the K-State fans. One of the refs thought that saluting the K-State fans was excessive celebration, so he penalized K-State 15 yards (I forget if it was assessed on the kick-off, or the PAT, or on an attempted 2-pt conversion), and that played a big role in their ultimately losing the game. It was absurd. ukeface:

why did you reference the ten commandments. nothing about the history of that nutty cult stuff is moral in,any shaoe or form

 

[MysterMatt]

Last year I commented many times that refs already have too much b.s. to think about. In fact, I am probably the first an only person to make this profound observation. Sadly, these new rules only make it worse. Without replay, the game will continue to get worse and the fundamentals (holding, false starts, off sides, PI, roughness, etc.) will continue to be neglected. I hate, hate, HATE Goodell.

 

[Mindsink]

All of these conduct fouls should be called on the field, but evaluated and enforced off the field (via fines, game suspensions, etc.). To grant free yards and 1st downs to the opposing team compromises the integrity of the game, IMO.