From: floydg@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Floyd Goodrich)
Subject: Re: taunting for 15
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:33:08 GMT

(John P. Gloria) writes:
>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?

Yes, I know this.  I have never attempted to injure someone purposely
or intended to maim.  I'm not doubting that some people do; I don't think
all people do.  It's certainly not explicitly stated that this would be 
illegal, either.  I could hire 5 pro boxers for my basketball team.  At
the opening tipoff, they beat the hell out of the other team's starters.
We get 5 technical fouls and the boxers get ejected.  Who's gonna win the
game?

>>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?  

Nothing's wrong with this.  I suspect that the calls were for something 
different than what your example is.  I don't consider that taunting.  See
my previous post about my definition of taunting.

>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.

Again it depends on how you define taunting.  I noticed you deleted my 
definition from the post.  And you didn't provide an alternate definition.


>>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?

Such is the case with subjective calls.  Should we do away with pass
interference or holding because they're not always called the same?  Judgment
calls are a bitch when the judgment goes against you; they're fine when you
get away with something.

I'm not saying the call was right.  At the very least, it was inconsistent.
But I was not on the field; I did not hear what he said to Simms; I do not 
know if the official had warned him after his previous antics or not.  Maybe 
that's the first time the official saw him or heard him.  The ref and the 
players know what the exact situation was; we don't.  If after the first time
the ref didn't see it, after the second time the ref told him to cool 
it, and he did it a third time, would that mitigate the apparent inconsistency?
Granted, that's based on assumption.

By the same token, if the ref just got tired of seeing him shoot the guns,
the ref did a plain bad job.  That's also based on assumption.

You would be in agreement with taunting penalities if they were objective
and consistent?  I thought you felt that taunting was a natural (and healthy?)
part of the game.  Do you feel that the game cannot be played without taunting?

>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. 

Yes, it's hard to measure if taunting causes more fights.  But then again
remember you brought up the fact that you would continue to taunt someone
if it gave you a competitive advantage.  And that if the tauntee got angry
enough to fight about it, you would fight.  (You also deleted that line
from what I had quoted in my previous post.)  So, there is a possibility,
even a probablility, that taunting increases the probability of a fight.
Or at least, you acknowledge that the real possibility exists.

Competitive situations are pressure cookers for competitive personalities.
By cutting down on unnecessary actions which would push these personalities 
to fighting, the NFL has taken a stand against a league where fights
are commonplace.  At least that's one explanation.


--
Floyd Goodrich
floydg@oakhill.sps.mot.com

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro