By the rules - right call on Wadley

nilekinnick

nilekinnick

Well-Known Member
point E
(e) An unopposed ball carrier obviously altering stride as he
approaches the opponent’s goal line or diving into the end
zone.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR17updated.pdf

SECTION 2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct Fouls
Unsportsmanlike Acts
ARTICLE 1. There shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct or any act that
interferes with orderly game administration on the part of players, substitutes,
coaches, authorized attendants or any other persons subject to the rules,
before the game, during the game or between periods. Infractions for these
RULE 9 / CONDUCT OF PLAY ERS AND OTHERS SUBJECT TO RULES FR-93
acts by players are administered as either live-ball or dead-ball fouls depending
on when they occur. (A.R. 9-2-1-I-X)
a. Specifically prohibited acts and conduct include:
1. No player, substitute, coach or other person subject to the rules shall
use abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures, or engage in
such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to
game officials or to the image of the game, including but not limited
to:
(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 ) A player removing his helmet after the ball is dead and 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.
(i) Intentionally removing the helmet while the ball is alive.
(j) Dead-ball contact fouls such as pushing, shoving, striking, etc.
that occur clearly after the ball is dead and that are not part of the
game action. (A.R. 9-2-1-X)
(k) After the ball is dead, using forcible contact to push or pull an
opponent off the pile. (A.R. 9-2-1-XI)
 
nilekinnick said:
point E
(e) An unopposed ball carrier obviously altering stride as he
approaches the opponent’s goal line or diving into the end
zone.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR17updated.pdf

SECTION 2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct Fouls
Unsportsmanlike Acts
ARTICLE 1. There shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct or any act that
interferes with orderly game administration on the part of players, substitutes,
coaches, authorized attendants or any other persons subject to the rules,
before the game, during the game or between periods. Infractions for these
RULE 9 / CONDUCT OF PLAY ERS AND OTHERS SUBJECT TO RULES FR-93
acts by players are administered as either live-ball or dead-ball fouls depending
on when they occur. (A.R. 9-2-1-I-X)
a. Specifically prohibited acts and conduct include:
1. No player, substitute, coach or other person subject to the rules shall
use abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures, or engage in
such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to
game officials or to the image of the game, including but not limited
to:
(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 ) A player removing his helmet after the ball is dead and 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.
(i) Intentionally removing the helmet while the ball is alive.
(j) Dead-ball contact fouls such as pushing, shoving, striking, etc.
that occur clearly after the ball is dead and that are not part of the
game action. (A.R. 9-2-1-X)
(k) After the ball is dead, using forcible contact to push or pull an
opponent off the pile. (A.R. 9-2-1-XI)
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone would argue it was the right call by the rules - the argument is it happens every Saturday and has for years and isn't called. In fact, it happened on nearly every one of Wadley's big runs before. It bit him, doubt he does it again - Iowa moves on.
 
I hope fans bring flags to the PSU game and throw them when McSorely does his stupid home run thing then. The issue isn't the rule, the issue is calling it on Iowa on a pretty tame example vs. what happens on a weekly basis.
 
Can the refs prove 100% without a doubt that wadley didn't think there may have been a defender diving at his legs? A high step is a legit football move after all

Around the 20 yard line wadley high stepped to break a tackle of a falling defender and there was no flag...because it was a legit move.

Also. If you watch the replay, the ref right next to wadley, with the play happening right in front of his face, was NOT the one who thew the flag. It looked to me like the back judge 30 yards away threw it. Why didn't the ref right next to wadley throw the flag?

Obviously he was showboating but it was not even close to egregious and never should have been called
 
My biggest problem with the rule is the fact that it should be assessed on the kickoff. I cannot fathom how the NCAA has a rule in place in which its assess two different ways. Why should it wipe a score off the board and be assessed 15 yards from the spot of the infringement when the touchdown stands if it's celebratory after a touchdown.

They love to put these "grey area rules" that they expect to enforce consistently and its ridiculous. By definition or not it's too much of a judgment call and in my opinion is no different than a player celebrating a first down, pass break up, sack, or INT.

Regardless of how the rule is defined they put too much effort into rules like these when IMO the officials from Saturday's game had more than enough problems calling what really mattered between the two teams. Let's not focus on the important issues, but rather whether a person changes his stride while going into the endzone untouched.

FYI-- I'm not saying by rule it wasn't unsportsmanlike by definition, but rather by definition the rule is a complete joke.
 
I should also add to the rant above that I don't see how that is any different than two players chest bumping after a score or a player jumping into the arms of another.
 
kicker22 said:
My biggest problem with the rule is the fact that it should be assessed on the kickoff. I cannot fathom how the NCAA has a rule in place in which its assess two different ways. Why should it wipe a score off the board and be assessed 15 yards from the spot of the infringement when the touchdown stands if it's celebratory after a touchdown.

They love to put these "grey area rules" that they expect to enforce consistently and its ridiculous. By definition or not it's too much of a judgment call and in my opinion is no different than a player celebrating a first down, pass break up, sack, or INT.

Regardless of how the rule is defined they put too much effort into rules like these when IMO the officials from Saturday's game had more than enough problems calling what really mattered between the two teams. Let's not focus on the important issues, but rather whether a person changes his stride while going into the endzone untouched.

FYI-- I'm not saying by rule it wasn't unsportsmanlike by definition, but rather by definition the rule is a complete joke.
Click to expand...

If his 2 high steps are after he crosses the goal line, it's 15 yards on the kickoff. If his two steps are inside the 5, it's first and 10 from the 20. You know a rule is messed up when doing the exact same thing 5 yards apart can have such drastically different consequences.
 
They can make the rule anything they want. Why not just say if you celebrate a touchdown, they take it away and give you 1st and 10 at the 15? The way the rule is now, someone can get in a guy's face and trash talk after a touchdown, and the penalty is way less than 2 high steps before the touchdown. It's ridiculous.
 
kicker22 said:
My biggest problem with the rule is the fact that it should be assessed on the kickoff. I cannot fathom how the NCAA has a rule in place in which its assess two different ways. Why should it wipe a score off the board and be assessed 15 yards from the spot of the infringement when the touchdown stands if it's celebratory after a touchdown.

They love to put these "grey area rules" that they expect to enforce consistently and its ridiculous. By definition or not it's too much of a judgment call and in my opinion is no different than a player celebrating a first down, pass break up, sack, or INT.

Regardless of how the rule is defined they put too much effort into rules like these when IMO the officials from Saturday's game had more than enough problems calling what really mattered between the two teams. Let's not focus on the important issues, but rather whether a person changes his stride while going into the endzone untouched.

FYI-- I'm not saying by rule it wasn't unsportsmanlike by definition, but rather by definition the rule is a complete joke.
Click to expand...

The first down part is interesting. Consider this:

Player gains enough for a first down. Player gets up. Player tosses ball to official, or merely leaves ball on ground. Player makes first down motion. Flag is thrown. First down is taken away.

Nick Saban would never stand for that...
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
The first down part is interesting. Consider this:

Player gains enough for a first down. Player gets up. Player tosses ball to official, or merely leaves ball on ground. Player makes first down motion. Flag is thrown. First down is taken away.

Nick Saban would never stand for that...
Click to expand...
Vandeberg does this every time he catches a pass for a first down. Why isn't that a penalty under part (d)? See how stupid this rule is? Particularly when you try to start enumerating what is a penalty, by using words and phrases that are subject to interpretation. If they want to have a stupid rule (after all this is the NCAA, so goodness knows, they're infatuated with stupid rules), then simply penalize taunting with a penalty - it should be a 5 yard delay of game penalty. This is really a rule brought on by the Miami teams back in their hey day.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
The first down part is interesting. Consider this:

Player gains enough for a first down. Player gets up. Player tosses ball to official, or merely leaves ball on ground. Player makes first down motion. Flag is thrown. First down is taken away.

Nick Saban would never stand for that...
Click to expand...

Great Point. The problem lies with the gray area they create when using interpretation to determine what is by definition unsportsmanlike. The rule is ridiculous because how do you define where/when it crosses the line? As you said, I can think of a number of ball tosses to an official that I consider equally as unsportsmanlike as Wadley's high step. Rules and what constitutes a violation of such rules and whether they are enforced or not should not be based on how an official interprets the action of an individual. It creates too big a gray area which leads to inconsistencies in the frequency in which it is/isn't called.

It's moronic to have a rule that will be enforced as infrequently as this one. If the call is not going to be made consistently regardless of the teams involved, or the importance of the game, then there is no point in having it to begin with.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
The first down part is interesting. Consider this:

Player gains enough for a first down. Player gets up. Player tosses ball to official, or merely leaves ball on ground. Player makes first down motion. Flag is thrown. First down is taken away.

Nick Saban would never stand for that...
Click to expand...

Well actually, if you make the 1st down motion after you get it, it's still a 1st down. But if you make it right before you cross the 1st down line, it's not a 1st down. It would probably take a 5 minute review to decide where the 1st down motion was made.
 
Could an official be called for unsportsmanlike conduct if they throw their flag in what could be considered an unsportsmanlike manner if directed toward a player?
 
revkev73 said:
Spirit of the Law/Letter of the Law

Experienced and common sense refs won't call anything like it if it isn't connected to some sort of obvious taunting towards another player or team...a celebration move rather than in your face.
Click to expand...

My brother refs in a conference just below the power five. He has done Big Ten and bowl games in the past. I believe he said if it was one stride it would not be called but if it were three it would be called. I asked about two strides and he hedged and didn't really have a definitive answer. I believe he said strides, and not steps, so a stride would be one step with each foot.

How many high steps did he do? There is a lot of room for interpretation on this. I hear him tell me all the time they would prefer if it would be more cut and dried for that very reason. He also said when that KSU player was penalized in the bowl game a few years ago after scoring and giving a quick military salute to the crowd that he wouldn't have penalized him, and a lot of other officials on their message board, we are talking college and NFL officials, said the same thing.

Anyway, take all of that for what it is worth.
 
kicker22 said:
Could an official be called for unsportsmanlike conduct if they throw their flag in what could be considered an unsportsmanlike manner if directed toward a player?
Click to expand...

The one who hit the player in the eye years ago deserved one.
 
PCHawk said:
If his 2 high steps are after he crosses the goal line, it's 15 yards on the kickoff. If his two steps are inside the 5, it's first and 10 from the 20. You know a rule is messed up when doing the exact same thing 5 yards apart can have such drastically different consequences.
Click to expand...

This is my biggest issue with the rule. You could score a touchdown and do a windmill dunk on the goalposts and its a 15 yard penalty, but if you "glide" into the endzone you can kiss your td goodbye.

What if a player turns their head and sees no defender near them and slows down from a sprint to a brisk jog. By rule that is "altering your stride" and the TD should be negated. So no matter what you MUST all-out sprint to the goal line no matter what even if no defender is within 40 yards of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top