From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: taunting for 15
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:13:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.140050.23059@oakhill.sps.mot.com> floydg@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Floyd Goodrich) writes:
>(John P. Gloria) writes:
>>floydg@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Floyd Goodrich) writes:
>>>(John P. Gloria) writes:
[ text deleted ]
>>
>I thought this thread originated wrt taunting calls under the rules of the 
>NFL, when someone asked why taunting was called twice in the Giants/SF game.
>In that context, the rules are inherently considered.  If you want to discount
>ethics or sportsmanship, would you consider intentionally injuring an opponent
>to help your team win?
>
Let me ask you this:  Do you think a player in any sport has not 
intentionally injured someone purposely or with intent to maim?
What are the odds that a player would do this for the benefit of his team?
>
>Also, the article you quoted was my first post on this thread, so it is
> unlikely you told ME we were on opposite ends of the spectrum.  I
>guess I would divide the issue into "celebration" versus "taunting."  I'm 
>all for celebration after a fine play, but I'm dead set against taunting.
>My dictionary defines taunting as "to deride in a mocking or sarcastic
>manner; to jeer at; to ridicule."  I don't see why that has ANY place in
>any sport (except maybe pro wrestling  :-) ).  
>
Ok, so you are set dead against taunting.  Personaly, taunting does not
bother me.  Taunting was part of growing up for me. I don't subscribe to
calling your mother a whore or that type of taunting during any game.
I describe taunting as telling a player, "Hey nice catch", when they drop
the ball. Another example would be, "Oooh, is that as hard as you can
hit?"  What is wrong with that?  What was so terrible about Harris shooting
his imaginary guns after his sack of Simms?  That is my whole point.
If the Zebra Dudes are going to blow the whistle on this type of
infraction, then the rule sucks.

>It's unlikely anyone will change your mind on this; it seems made up.  But 
>I remember before the Hawaiian Ironman Triathlon a few years back when the
>announcers asked 6-time winner Dave Scott about his rivalry with Mark Allen.
>Scott said, "I hope he has the best race of his life and I still beat him."  I
>personally find that attitude more attractive than someone standing over me 
>waving his finger in my face and telling me I'm toast.
>
In case you are missing the point, this is not about anyone changing 
anyone's way of thinking.  I thought it was merely a discussion in differenes
of "apparent" opinions on the taunting rules.  Likewise, your mind is made
up and you are entitled to your views.  You and I and whomever are simply stating
are views.  In no way am I attempting to change your mind. I am just interjecting
another perspective/view/interpretation of the taunting rule. 
>
>>The whole issue is whether the NFL should have voted this rule in.
>>Are you saying you agree with rule?  I don't agree with it.
>
>The NFL distinguishes between taunting and celebration.  Last year, *excessive*
>celebration was a 5-yard penalty.  Just plain celebration was perfectly legal.
>This year, I hear they're going to be lax on calling excessive celebration
>penalties, but taunting has never been legal in the NFL.  It just hasn't been
>a huge problem until the last few years.  Unsportsmanlike conduct has always
>been a penalty.  I don't think unsportsmanlike conduct is defined anywhere, but
>I don't know.  You may think that taunting is perfectly fine sportsmanlike
>conduct, but I and the NFL differ with you.  That doesn't make you wicked or 
>evil.  
>
I would be happy to go along with taunting rules if only the penalties
excerised against players would be fair, across the board.  If the
penalties are called fairly and justly, then I can accept that. However,
to call an infraction on shooting imaginary guns one time of three is
not right.  Do you disagree with this point?

>I noticed you didn't reply to the point about taunting possibly cutting down
>on the number of fights in the NFL.  Do you think there's any merit in that
>argument?
>
Taunting possibly cutting down on the number of fights in the NFL??
I don't know if I understand your question, unless you meant does taunting
create more fights. If so, that is hard to measure.  Again, it depends on the 
type taunting that is being directed at someone. If the opponent is calling the 
other player's wife a slut, then I would expect some players to get very 
agitated and possibly have an altercation. On the other hand, the tauntee might 
go back to the huddle and inform his teammates and before the game is over, 
someone will rack-up the taunter.  Hey, shit happens all the time. 
>

-- 
  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com	--------	
  "I have great faith in fools - self-confidence my
   friends call it."        Edgar Allan Poe
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro