UNS Rule affects Mass. HS Championship Game

[NVFOA_Ump]

Because Rule 9-2 explicitly says so, and we've asked to enforce the rule as written.  A brief hand raising is considered spontaneous celebration while the change in stride is considered taunting.  The hand raising is not listed in 9-2, the change in stride is.

The 9-2 list is:

(a) Pointing the finger(s), hand(s), arm(s) or ball at an opponent, or imitating the slashing of the throat.
(b) Taunting, baiting or ridiculing an opponent verbally.
(c) Inciting an opponent or spectators in any other way, such as simulating the firing of a weapon or placing a hand by the ear to request recognition.
(d) Any delayed, excessive, prolonged or choreographed act by which a player (or players) attempts to focus attention upon himself (or themselves).
(e) An unopposed ball carrier obviously altering stride as he approaches the opponent’s goal line or diving into the end zone.
(f) Removal of a player’s helmet before he is in the team area (Exceptions: Team, media or injury timeouts; equipment adjustment; through play; between periods; and during a measurement for a first down).
(g) Punching one’s own chest or crossing one’s arms in front of the chest while standing over a prone player.
(h) Going into the stands to interact with spectators, or bowing at the waist after a good play.

We've been given guidance that we should not be flagging anything that is not on the 9-2 list unless it's flagrantly over the top.  I'm not sure what that would be, but we've been told that we'll know it when we see it.  Certainly that's not simply raising one's hand.

[Osric Pureheart]

I'm not looking for "because the rule says so".  We're told that the best way to learn the rules is to understand why they are the rules and what they're trying to accomplish.  I now know, for instance, that a low block towards the opposite sideline is frequently very difficult for a defender to brace for, which can lead to serious injury (and is therefore illegal); while a low block towards the near sideline usually has a completely different angle and is much more safe to be on the recieving end of (and remains legal).

I am having difficulty working out why high-stepping is specifically prohibited and raising the arm is not; I can see no practical difference between the two acts.

[mccormicw]

If a player waits until he is in the endzone prior to raising his arm above his head, I imagine that few if any of us will throw a flag.  It is really nothing at all.  I believe the problem comes when the player hasnt scored yet and raises his hand, alters his stride, etc.  Doing that may appear to taunt the defense by saying there is nothing you can do to stop me.  I am going to score.  Look at me.

I dont believe that was the case in this play, it appeared to be pure excitement over the impending score.  I don't think it would hurt for the rule to state that any celebration may not start until the play is over.  That would make it simple.  Then limit the celebration after a score to things that dont taunt, are choreographed, etc.  There will never be a perfect rule, but that would simplify the most important part (penalties that take points off the board).

[Berkut]

I'm not looking for "because the rule says so".  We're told that the best way to learn the rules is to understand why they are the rules and what they're trying to accomplish.  I now know, for instance, that a low block towards the opposite sideline is frequently very difficult for a defender to brace for, which can lead to serious injury (and is therefore illegal); while a low block towards the near sideline usually has a completely different angle and is much more safe to be on the recieving end of (and remains legal).

I am having difficulty working out why high-stepping is specifically prohibited and raising the arm is not; I can see no practical difference between the two acts.

Have you ever heard the saying that armies always prepare to fight the LAST war they fought?

Rules are the same.

One is illegal and the other not simply because when the rule was written, players high stepping was a common way that they would draw attention to themselves. The rules intent is to stop this kind of grandstanding and attempts to focus attention on the individual rather than the team.

So we get rules that try to do two things:

1. Stop particular instances of known behavior that is definitely not ok (high stepping, spiking, pointing, throat slash) while
2. Being general enough to provide officials with enough latitude to penalize similar actions that are not identical to the listed actions, but close enough that they are effectively the same. This is to make sure that if you ban high stepping, someone does not subtly alter the behavior so it does not meet the specific definition of the rule, while still violating the obvious spirit of the rule.

This is why we get language like "acts include, but are not limited to..." in the rules.

The problem is that we will always have competing issues with rules like this. On the one hand, you want the rule to be general enough that officials can use their judgement to penalize appropriately without the need to explicitly list every single possible way someone can be unsporting. On the other hand, the moment you make a rule generalized and count on the officials judgement, it is 100% inevitable that somewhere, sometime, some official will apply that judgement poorly, and penalize something that the rule likely did NOT intend.

There is no solution to this problem, you can only minimize it.