Punter created bad karma

[ravens]

Bad karma...UNI going down :eyebrow:

[ravens]

Bad karma...UNI going down :eyebrow:


Only one thing can overcome bad karma....braindead coaching !!!

[catamount man]

Only one thing can overcome bad karma....braindead coaching !!!

And folks think I'm rough on the decisions Kent Briggs and his staff make? :eek: GO CATAMOUNTS!!!

[ButlerGSU]

What?? You teach your kids to hit the ground and try to draw a flag. You do it in soccer and in basketball. He did what he had to do to help his team. By doing that they got a field goal. Cannot blame him for that. Great job #45

[igo4uni]

What?? You teach your kids to hit the ground and try to draw a flag. You do it in soccer and in basketball. He did what he had to do to help his team. By doing that they got a field goal. Cannot blame him for that. Great job #45

Amen.

[ASU Kep]

What?? You teach your kids to hit the ground and try to draw a flag. You do it in soccer and in basketball. He did what he had to do to help his team. By doing that they got a field goal. Cannot blame him for that. Great job #45

And UNI got a FG off of that play...turned out pretty good for em actually.

[ravens]

What?? You teach your kids to hit the ground and try to draw a flag. You do it in soccer and in basketball. He did what he had to do to help his team. By doing that they got a field goal. Cannot blame him for that. Great job #45


You might, I wouldn't coach that way.

[ASU Kep]

I would.

[ButlerGSU]

You better believe I would and I bet 99.99% of coaches tell their punters to hit the ground if they feel any contact. It's the Ref's job to call the game and the players job to get every advantage possible.

[JohnStOnge]

Bad karma...UNI going down :eyebrow:

I just hope that the official involved at least sends a letter of apology to Texas State acknowledging that he blew the call. We can't say that UNI won because of it because there was a lot of football left to go at that point. But getting three points they shouldn't have gotten sure didn't hurt when it was a game that ended up going into overtime.

It also aggrevates me that UNI's punter got away with that acting job. To me it's getting rewarded for dishonesty. Not that any punter wouldn't have tried the same thing because doing that crap has become part of the game, but I really think football at all levels ought to start penalizing teams when punters do that by giving the other team possession at the spot of the ball prior to the punt. That way punters wouldn't be doing that because they'd know it'd be like a turnover if they get called on it.

[Freightliner]

I just hope that the official involved at least sends a letter of apology to Texas State acknowledging that he blew the call. We can't say that UNI won because of it because there was a lot of football left to go at that point. But getting three points they shouldn't have gotten sure didn't hurt when it was a game that ended up going into overtime.

It also aggrevates me that UNI's punter got away with that acting job. To me it's getting rewarded for dishonesty. Not that any punter wouldn't have tried the same thing because doing that crap has become part of the game, but I really think football at all levels ought to start penalizing teams when punters do that by giving the other team possession at the spot of the ball prior to the punt. That way punters wouldn't be doing that because they'd know it'd be like a turnover if they get called on it.


Got a question for the elder sages of this group...how are Ohio Valley Conference Refs....because that is what this crew was tonight.

[JohnStOnge]

And UNI got a FG off of that play...turned out pretty good for em actually.

Yes. His team was rewarded for his dishonesty. It very possibly made the difference between them making it to the seminfals or not. Like I said, I realize that because of the way things are just about any punter would try to do that. I'm sure Texas State's punter would've tried the same thing if given the opportunity. But I wish football would do something to curtail it.

You shouldn't be able to gain advantage by faking like that. It should be a penalty. In this individual case I guess he wouldn't have been penalized because the official bought his act but if football at all levels would start calling an unsportsmanlike conduct with loss of down on kickers when officials judge that they're taking a dive it would probably curtail the activity. With that practice in place he probably wouldn't have tried it. Coaches would not want their kickers taking dives under that circumstance.

And the game would be better for it if that state of things were created.

[PantherRob82]

great acting. part of the game.

[bunny]

You shouldn't be able to gain advantage by faking like that. It should be a penalty.

Yes. Diving in soccer got so bad that players can be carded for that kind of behavior. I think that it's also part of the new hockey rules to send a guy to the box for faking. I don't see why it shouldn't be a penalty in football.

Obviously, gamesmanship often does take a back seat to sportsmanship. That won't change, so the refs should be able to punish players who try to cheat.

[dungeonjoe]

what is this karma thing? :)

[Retro]

You shouldn't be able to gain advantage by faking like that

He didn't do anything illegal.. He did what players from many sports and levels do.. Regardless of how he fell or if he really got hurt or not, it's the ref's duty to throw or not throw the flag based on the contact, not based on the player being hurt afterward or if he was acting it out... Players have gotten hurt millions of time with no player contact at all in football.

Blame the ref for the bad call, which is what it was!

[JSU Fan]

Got a question for the elder sages of this group...how are Ohio Valley Conference Refs....because that is what this crew was tonight.

That explains it. The OVC is not blessed with very good officials.

Out.

[PantherMan]

I just hope that the official involved at least sends a letter of apology to Texas State acknowledging that he blew the call. We can't say that UNI won because of it because there was a lot of football left to go at that point. But getting three points they shouldn't have gotten sure didn't hurt when it was a game that ended up going into overtime.

It also aggrevates me that UNI's punter got away with that acting job. To me it's getting rewarded for dishonesty. Not that any punter wouldn't have tried the same thing because doing that crap has become part of the game, but I really think football at all levels ought to start penalizing teams when punters do that by giving the other team possession at the spot of the ball prior to the punt. That way punters wouldn't be doing that because they'd know it'd be like a turnover if they get called on it.

That might be the most asanine set of comments regarding this incident that I have heard yet! It's part of the game. Either way, contact was made and there was a penalty committed. I am sure the Texas State kid made no attempt to run into the punter; but he did and that is what matters. It's just like a face mask that ends in a personal foul; normally the kids don't try to do it, but it is a penalty nonetheless! xazzx

[McNeese75]

Yes. Diving in soccer got so bad that players can be carded for that kind of behavior. I think that it's also part of the new hockey rules to send a guy to the box for faking. I don't see why it shouldn't be a penalty in football.

Obviously, gamesmanship often does take a back seat to sportsmanship. That won't change, so the refs should be able to punish players who try to cheat.

:confused: Diving is done more in basketball than ANY other sport when a defender is trying to draw a charge. Its all part of the game (FB, BB, etc) and the ref has the discretion to ignore it and let pay continue without any consequence to the offended team.

[JohnStOnge]

That might be the most asanine set of comments regarding this incident that I have heard yet! It's part of the game. Either way, contact was made and there was a penalty committed. I am sure the Texas State kid made no attempt to run into the punter; but he did and that is what matters. It's just like a face mask that ends in a personal foul; normally the kids don't try to do it, but it is a penalty nonetheless! xazzx

The only reason I'm responding is to let you know that you are incorrect on the rule. Here is what the NCAA football rule book has to say about the situation:

"Roughing or Running Into Kicker or Holder
ARTICLE 3. a. When it is obvious that a scrimmage kick will be made, no
opponent shall run into or rough the kicker or the holder of a place kick
(A.R. 5-2-2-I and A.R. 9-1-3-I, III and VI).
1. Roughing is a personal foul that endangers the kicker or holder.
2. Running into the kicker or holder is a foul that occurs when the kicker
or holder is displaced from his kicking or holding position but is
not roughed (A.R. 9-1-3-II).
3. Incidental contact with a kicker or holder is not a foul."

As you can see, contact with the kicker is not a penalty unless the player displaces that kicker. That obviously didn't happen in this case. It was incidental contact...barely any contact at all.

All other things aside, there was no penalty by the Texas State player on that play. This idea that I've seen since I mentioned this that any contact with the kicker is a penalty is not correct. As you can see, the NCAA rulebook explicitly says that incidental contact with the kicker is not a foul and that it takes displacing the kicker from his kicking position.

Look, I know the guy didn't do it on purpose but that was a bad call. It wasn't a matter of the guy having violated the NCAA rule about running into the kicker then having the ref call him for roughing. He didn't violate the rule about running into the kicker either.

[JohnStOnge]

:confused: Diving is done more in basketball than ANY other sport when a defender is trying to draw a charge. Its all part of the game (FB, BB, etc) and the ref has the discretion to ignore it and let pay continue without any consequence to the offended team.

And I believe that in basketball it ought to be a technical foul to do that. I know I'm never going to get my way but that's what I believe.

This may sound corny but what you're basically doing by doing that is lying and cheating. At least that's the way I look at it. And I think all sports ought to include penalties to discourage that kind of thing. Why should competetors be rewarded for intentionally trying to deceive the people who are supposed to be officiating the game?

You wouldn't have to have that situation for very long...where officials would make calls when they think players are trying to deceive them...before people would quit doing it and start just playing the games like they're supposed to.

[JohnStOnge]

Yes. Diving in soccer got so bad that players can be carded for that kind of behavior. I think that it's also part of the new hockey rules to send a guy to the box for faking. I don't see why it shouldn't be a penalty in football.

Obviously, gamesmanship often does take a back seat to sportsmanship. That won't change, so the refs should be able to punish players who try to cheat.

Good for soccer. I'm sure my outlook was influenced by the fact that I was pulling for Texas State but that shot of that punter yuking it up on the sideline after pulling that scam absolutely disgusted me. To me that kind of thing should have no place in sports or anyplace else in life.

I'd be more than willing to have everybody in sports agree that that kind of thing would no longer be tolerated whether it's by a team I'm pulling for or anybody else.

And I think you nailed it by using the word "cheat." That's exactly what it is whether it's common practice or not.
And for anybody who doubts that here's the first two Websters definition of "Cheat:"

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice

That crap is cheating, and the sports world ought to quit winking at it.

[Retro]

Quit Whining John... He didn't cheat! If he did, then show me that in the NCAA Rule book? waa waa

[PantherMan]

The only reason I'm responding is to let you know that you are incorrect on the rule. Here is what the NCAA football rule book has to say about the situation:

"Roughing or Running Into Kicker or Holder
ARTICLE 3. a. When it is obvious that a scrimmage kick will be made, no
opponent shall run into or rough the kicker or the holder of a place kick
(A.R. 5-2-2-I and A.R. 9-1-3-I, III and VI).
1. Roughing is a personal foul that endangers the kicker or holder.
2. Running into the kicker or holder is a foul that occurs when the kicker
or holder is displaced from his kicking or holding position but is
not roughed (A.R. 9-1-3-II).
3. Incidental contact with a kicker or holder is not a foul."

As you can see, contact with the kicker is not a penalty unless the player displaces that kicker. That obviously didn't happen in this case. It was incidental contact...barely any contact at all.

All other things aside, there was no penalty by the Texas State player on that play. This idea that I've seen since I mentioned this that any contact with the kicker is a penalty is not correct. As you can see, the NCAA rulebook explicitly says that incidental contact with the kicker is not a foul and that it takes displacing the kicker from his kicking position.

Look, I know the guy didn't do it on purpose but that was a bad call. It wasn't a matter of the guy having violated the NCAA rule about running into the kicker then having the ref call him for roughing. He didn't violate the rule about running into the kicker either.

Wrong again. Contact was made before Kos' leg had time to come down to the ground. That will get you a penalty at any level. Plus, the player that made contact was out of control, had he demonstrated any control, he would have avoided contact. Do I think it was a 15 yarder? Prolly not. Was it a penalty? Definitely.

[JohnStOnge]

Quit Whining John... He didn't cheat! If he did, then show me that in the NCAA Rule book? waa waa

Retro, I just quoted the definition of "Cheat." How can you possibly say what he did didn't meet the definition of cheating?

I didn't say what he did was against the NCAA rules. I don't even know. Maybe there's something in there. My argument is that if it's not it should be because it is cheating.

[JohnStOnge]

Wrong again. Contact was made before Kos' leg had time to come down to the ground. That will get you a penalty at any level. Plus, the player that made contact was out of control, had he demonstrated any control, he would have avoided contact. Do I think it was a 15 yarder? Prolly not. Was it a penalty? Definitely.

Oh please. Look at the rule. He did not displace the kicker from his postition and that's what's required to constitute a penalty. Good grief.

Where in the rule does it say it's a foul if contact is made before the kicker's leg has time to come down?

The answer is: "Nowhere."

It doesn't say incidental contact is a penatly if the kicker's leg hasn't come down yet. It says incidental is NOT a foul, period. And it says the penalty is when the kicker is displaced.

Are you seriously going to argue that the kicker was displaced by the "impact" of the Texas State player? I sure hope not because that would be absurd.

And what happened on that play would not normally bring a penalty at any level. Most of the time the officials recognize it as acting.

[Maverick]

There was a penalty on that play, the ref threw the flag, and it is in the official scorebook. John, in your perfect world it should not have happened. In the real world it does. Refs call what they see. Until they can read minds that perfect world of yours will not exist. Even in those sports where a dive is called a penalty or foul, they don't catch them all. We can argue after the fact with the aid of replays and everything else, but a ref has to make a call based on what he sees on the field. Due to fact that the human condition means that less than perfect people do the job, the ref made a mistake after the fact. The interesting thing is that you from the same vantage point as the official may have made the same call. BTW, have your Cowboys ever benefitted from a blown call in a game? Did you go down on the field or tell the coach not to accept the advantage of such a blown call? Probably not, since you suffer from that same terminal condition we all have, called being human!!!

[JohnStOnge]

There was a penalty on that play, the ref threw the flag, and it is in the official scorebook. John, in your perfect world it should not have happened. In the real world it does. Refs call what they see. Until they can read minds that perfect world of yours will not exist. Even in those sports where a dive is called a penalty or foul, they don't catch them all. We can argue after the fact with the aid of replays and everything else, but a ref has to make a call based on what he sees on the field. Due to fact that the human condition means that less than perfect people do the job, the ref made a mistake after the fact. The interesting thing is that you from the same vantage point as the official may have made the same call. BTW, have your Cowboys ever benefitted from a blown call in a game? Did you go down on the field or tell the coach not to accept the advantage of such a blown call? Probably not, since you suffer from that same terminal condition we all have, called being human!!!

Well, at least you can see that it was a blown call. I know the guy is human. I know it's part of the game. And yes, it was a penalty because it was called. The point I'm trying to make is that the Texas State player did not violate the rules on roughing or running into the kicker and the penalty was assessed because of an error on the official's part.

But I do think that if they made rules and started assessing penalties for attempting to decieve the officials it would reduce the incidence of the behavior. It .

[blukeys]

There was a penalty on that play, the ref threw the flag, and it is in the official scorebook. John, in your perfect world it should not have happened. In the real world it does. Refs call what they see. Until they can read minds that perfect world of yours will not exist. Even in those sports where a dive is called a penalty or foul, they don't catch them all. We can argue after the fact with the aid of replays and everything else, but a ref has to make a call based on what he sees on the field. Due to fact that the human condition means that less than perfect people do the job, the ref made a mistake after the fact. The interesting thing is that you from the same vantage point as the official may have made the same call. BTW, have your Cowboys ever benefitted from a blown call in a game? Did you go down on the field or tell the coach not to accept the advantage of such a blown call? Probably not, since you suffer from that same terminal condition we all have, called being human!!!


Jon's argument from the beginning has been that the call was wrong. Every team has benefitted and suffered from bad calls. The results of the game don't change regardless of what is acknowledged and that is the refs blew it. At the very worst the call should have been running into the kicker and that is assuming there was contact. The refs blew this call badly. I have been a ref and it is a very difficult job and being human I have made mistakes as these guys did last night.

[Maverick]

I think it was Weeb Eubank who once said something to the effect that even if things were equal he still wanted his "fair" advantage. The competitive nature of sports will always have people looking for their "fair" advantage. This can range from the "acting" to get a call to the use of technology in sports equipment. There are teams who may use better equipment because they can afford it , but what about the other team who can't. Isn't that a form of "cheating" by tilting the playing field. The desire to have all things equal and equitable is wonderful, but the reality of even attaining such a state is not possible. The human element in terms of officiating makes that impossible. I am sure that the ref will regret his error, but what can be done? Hell, the fact of the imperfection of eyewitnesses who all saw the same crime not being able to agree on what happened shows the imperfection of such a system. Can you say he did not see what he saw to call the penalty? Armchair QBs always know what should have been done, but they don't have to do it at the moment it happened. All the rule changes in the world will not eliminate such "bad" calls.

[JohnStOnge]

At the very worst the call should have been running into the kicker and that is assuming there was contact. The refs blew this call badly. .

But please note that even if there was contact that doesn't necessarily mean running into the kicker as defined by the rule on that occured. It has to be contact sufficient to "displace" the kicker and the rule explicitly says that incidental contact is not a foul. I know you understand that because you've been an official but if there's ONE thing I wish I could get across it's the fact that it's not a foul just because the player made contact with the kicker, made contact with the kicker while his leg was up, etc.

To me it was pretty obvious that the Texas State player did contact the punter in a manner that displaced him. It was pretty obvious that the guy took a dive in order to try to draw a penalty.

[TxState_GO_CATS!]

the game is over. congrats UNI on your great win...you have a great team. Beat App St.! :nod:

[PantherMan]

Oh please. Look at the rule. He did not displace the kicker from his postition and that's what's required to constitute a penalty. Good grief.

Where in the rule does it say it's a foul if contact is made before the kicker's leg has time to come down?

The answer is: "Nowhere."

It doesn't say incidental contact is a penatly if the kicker's leg hasn't come down yet. It says incidental is NOT a foul, period. And it says the penalty is when the kicker is displaced.

Are you seriously going to argue that the kicker was displaced by the "impact" of the Texas State player? I sure hope not because that would be absurd.

And what happened on that play would not normally bring a penalty at any level. Most of the time the officials recognize it as acting.

Umm...did you watch the game, or are you simply talking out of your xazzx ?!?! The kicker's leg was still in the air when he was hit, he fell to the ground! If that ain't gettin' displaced, I honestly don't want to see what YOUR definition of displaced might be... :eyebrow: The acting came WHILE HE WAS ON THE GROUND. He was knocked down before the acting came into play, he then started to get up, realized he might get a personal foul out of it by making it look a little worse rather than running into the kicker, and stayed down for a few more seconds. You are wrong. End of discussion. :rolleyes:

[PantherMan]

the game is over. congrats UNI on your great win...you have a great team. Beat App St.! :nod:

Quite the game last night!! Good luck to the Bobcats in the future! xprost2x :hurray:

[JohnStOnge]

I think it was Weeb Eubank who once said something to the effect that even if things were equal he still wanted his "fair" advantage. There are teams who may use better equipment because they can afford it , but what about the other team who can't. Isn't that a form of "cheating" by tilting the playing field. The desire to have all things equal and equitable is wonderful, but the reality of even attaining such a state is not possible. The human element in terms of officiating makes that impossible. I am sure that the ref will regret his error, but what can be done? Hell, the fact of the imperfection of eyewitnesses who all saw the same crime not being able to agree on what happened shows the imperfection of such a system. Can you say he did not see what he saw to call the penalty? Armchair QBs always know what should have been done, but they don't have to do it at the moment it happened. All the rule changes in the world will not eliminate such "bad" calls.

1) My "proposal" is not intended to eliminate all bad calls. It's intended to discourage things like punters faking in order to draw a penalty. I believe that if there were a rule saying it's unsportslmanlike conduct to deceive the officials by acting like you got hit when you didn't, were hurt when you weren't, etc., you'd see less of that behavior. I don't think you'd see, for instance, kickers faking being run into or roughed if the practice was to penalize their teams for unsportsmanlike conduct if the officials judged they were faking.

2) Words mean things. The verb "Cheat" has a series of definitions. "to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice..." is one of them. "To use better equipment when the other guy can't afford it" is not. The crux of the word "cheat" is that it involves deceit and/or fraud. The objection to cheating is not based on egalitarianism. Discouraging dishonesty is not the same as insisting that all things be equal.

3) I don't think there is much eyewitness disagreement on what happened in terms of the level of contact, etc. What I'm seeing is people ignoring what the rule says and insisting that things like making any contact at all or contacting the kicker while his leg is in the air constitutes a violation. We'll get to the point of disagreeing about what actually happened is somebody argues that contact by the Texas State player displaced the kicker (as opponsed to the kicker "displacing" himself as part of his acting job).

[JohnStOnge]

Umm...did you watch the game, or are you simply talking out of your xazzx ?!?! The kicker's leg was still in the air when he was hit, he fell to the ground! If that ain't gettin' displaced, I honestly don't want to see what YOUR definition of displaced might be... :eyebrow: The acting came WHILE HE WAS ON THE GROUND. He was knocked down before the acting came into play, he then started to get up, realized he might get a personal foul out of it by making it look a little worse rather than running into the kicker, and stayed down for a few more seconds. You are wrong. End of discussion. :rolleyes:

Well, at least we've reached the point where we disagree on what actually happened. Yes, I watched the game. The kicker did not fall to the ground because he was contacted by the Texas State player. He took a dive. The guy barely touched him if he touched him at all. He was not "knocked down."

And I think the ovewhelming majority of people who saw the replays on TV including the guys calling the game, realize that.

"Knocked down." Good grief.


Oh...and he didn't just "stay down for a few more seconds." He rolled back and forth clutching his knee and grimacing like he was in pain.

[McNeese75]

Come on, the roughing the kicker call DID NOT lose the game for the Bobcats. There were plenty of opportunites for things to go differently in that game after that incident. :eyebrow:

[bunny]

So, what have we learned from this thread?

The Texas State player did not commit a penalty
The UNI punter took a dive.
The ref called the penalty.

We also know that...

This did NOT cost Texas State the game
This is "part of the game."


It's that last bit that's the only real item worth discussing. In an officiated game calls will be made by skilled and trained referees, but they won't always be right. So, in an attempt to maintain a "fair advantage" coaches and players will try to take advantage of the fact that referees are not 100%.

Think about it. By faking and acting a player is working agianst the ref. The ref now has to consider if he can trust what he sees because the players might be diving.

JohnStOnge and I seem to think that it's at least worth making it possible to penalize a player for intentionally trying to decieve a ref. There is plenty of precedent set in sports. Rules violations are inevitable, but should flagrant and deliberate violations be a part of sport.

I realise that it's hard to find the right place to draw the line. and it's a reflection of values of fans and society to some degree. For example, it's okay to cheat in baseball by using emery board, but it's not okay to cheat by taking steriods.

Regardless, it's a clear violation of the spirt of the game to deceive an official. It's not sportsmanlike at all, but it is part of the game. Will karma come back to get the punter in the finals?

[hedonjerry]

excellent posts. Lots of good thoughts put up for debate.

I think that all of you that jump to the argument about "dishonesty" seriously need to get laid, do a shot, burn a spliff, or whatever it is you do. But lighten the f up. Did any one here (stupid question) ever play on a basketball team? Did your coach ever teach you how to stand firm, take a charge, and fall to the ground thespian style? If so, what is the difference?

How 'bout baseball coaches bent on picking up signs from the opposing team?
Whether from third base to the batter or from catcher to pitcher.

Catchers learn a skill called framing. It is all about snapping the mitt into the strike zone on a close pitch....to deceive the ump.

When you reach a particular level of competition, deception is part of the game.

Advantages are important when one competes at such a level. It is the ref's job to see the game and call it as he sees it.

Good job #45. Way to be on your toes! If there is any poop to sling, it should go to the ref for missing the call.



I won't even mention the bluff in poker cuz its not a sport. But bluffing is part of every sport.

Get over it.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

It didn't look like he faked it to me. It only takes a little bit of force near the edge of the legl to knock someone over when they are in mid-air like that.

[SoCon48]

You might, I wouldn't coach that way.
Same here, WCU Raven.

[Purple Knight]

I would expect his response when being brushed. It was his making a mockery of the call on the sidelines with teammates and coaches which had the announcers going on and on.......

[ravens]

I would expect his response when being brushed. It was his making a mockery of the call on the sidelines with teammates and coaches which had the announcers going on and on.......

Yes, if the uni coaches aren't going to teach integrity you would think they would at least teach discretion??? :confused:

[McNeese75]

Yes, if the uni coaches aren't going to teach integrity you would think they would at least teach discretion??? :confused:

:bang: The idiot commentators were the ones that made such a big deal about it and blew it into something that is really not even worth debating over.