Author Topic: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game  (Read 16031 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2011, 06:51:11 AM »
Sorry, mother was hospitalized yesterday so I was unable to complete the editing till now

This one was flagged
http://youtu.be/-p6L5A4ePLg

Sorry to hear about your mother.  No way either of those draws my flag.

Offline Coby

  • *
  • Posts: 283
  • FAN REACTION: +24/-72
Re: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2011, 07:57:00 AM »
Play #1...finger in the air with no high stepping--one minor act = no flag
Play #2...finger in the air with high stepping--two acts = flag

I can support this based on what I see.

I retract my earlier statement...I thought the first clip was the game deciding call.

High Stepping on the second clip...really???  I see him slowing down thus changing his running style, but high stepping??  This brings up an interesting point...what is your definition of high stepping?

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2011, 08:19:42 AM »
High Stepping on the second clip...really???

I don't see any high stepping, either.  That call is simply indefensible when taking Play 1 into account.

It "happens".  It's "happened" to me. 

Learn from it.  Hope others learn from it.  Move on.

Offline psv

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-14
Re: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2011, 10:54:51 AM »
I have to say, if it were me, i probably wouldnt have flagged the second one.... esp since I know i wouldnt have flagged the first. 

That is my own personal opinion and trying to think how *I* would have done it.

rickref

  • Guest
Re: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2011, 10:59:39 AM »
"Learn from it.  Hope others learn from it.  Move on."

I agree.....

Offline TexDoc

  • *
  • Posts: 1861
  • FAN REACTION: +98/-26
Re: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2011, 09:02:57 AM »
Flagging either of these would be weak.  Let this stuff go.  No prolonged for trying to bring attention to themselves.

Offline Arbitrator

  • Chief Manor Road Pig Poker
  • *
  • Posts: 687
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-10
Re: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game
« Reply #31 on: November 19, 2011, 02:08:26 PM »
 ^flag

IMHO, the only possible way that I, or my BJ for that matter, would have ever flagged such an act would be if the player(s) in question also turned to face the opposition that was trailing him while he was ardently displaying the "numero uno" digit toward the heavens. By "the only possible way", I'd have to see the intent of the perpetrator as proof positive that he was indeed taunting. I have been told by some of my college brethren that their commissioners pretty much dictated that if inside the 3 yard line, do not flag them but to dole them out a rather stern "BUTT-chewing" for what they did. I furthermore understand that TASO subscribed to this very same edict at this years State Meeting in San Antonio.

This is much the same way as some player "flipping" or "somersaulting" himself into the end zone. If he is way ahead of the defenders and does it, then that can only be construed as "showboating."  Conversely, if he is encountering any defensive player(s) that are either in hot pursuit or defending in the vicinity of the goalline, and then he "flips," then in my minds eye, that act would be totally acceptable!   z^

The Ref Thats Lef

  • Guest
Re: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2011, 11:26:12 AM »
^flag

IMHO, the only possible way that I, or my BJ for that matter, would have ever flagged such an act would be if the player(s) in question also turned to face the opposition that was trailing him while he was ardently displaying the "numero uno" digit toward the heavens. By "the only possible way", I'd have to see the intent of the perpetrator as proof positive that he was indeed taunting. I have been told by some of my college brethren that their commissioners pretty much dictated that if inside the 3 yard line, do not flag them but to dole them out a rather stern "BUTT-chewing" for what they did. I furthermore understand that TASO subscribed to this very same edict at this years State Meeting in San Antonio.

So perhaps that is the answer. The crew chewed out the team for the previous incident and then called it when the player disregarded the warning.

And now we have a whole other can of worms opened on the contentious subject. Flag the act on the 3½ yard line but not the 3. Is this a penalty action or not? If it is at the 3½ yard why not nearer the goal line. If it is not inside the 3 then why is it a penalty outside?

It just gets more confusing.

Hank

  • Guest
Re: New Rule on Uns Conduct Impacts a Game
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2011, 10:29:22 PM »
So perhaps that is the answer. The crew chewed out the team for the previous incident and then called it when the player disregarded the warning.

Wait a minute. 

Blue (sorry, don't know the teams) scored on play 1 and crew missed obvious illegal block and passed on UC.

White scored on play 2.  Clean play, potential UC is for all intent identical.  If you give the first team a freebie, don't you have to return the favor for team 2?

I can agree with chewing them out and penalizing them the next time, but you can't chew them out and then penalize the OTHER team when they do essentially the same thing.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living