Now that we've cleared that up, I've simply got to talk a bit about how stupid the sports analysts are, pretty much universally, everywhere, even on other planets. Lest we forget, they make a point of reminding us every so often, when some type of controversy like this arises. It would be easier if they just said, "I can't actually think for myself, so let's just assume that my opinion lies completely contrary to common sense." That would be much quicker.
If you do not watch college football and are therefore not a half-badboy, I assume you are reading this blog because you are trying to repent. So for you folk, I will give you the basic rundown of the controversy:
- BYU played Washington at Washington on Sept. 6.
- Sports analysts are required to hate BYU, because they are not from a BCS conference and are therefore less of everything.
- Note - I do not have to like BYU. But seriously, how long do we have to put up with this BCS superiority garbage? Haven't we learned anything yet? Anyway.
- With time expiring in the fourth quarter, and BYU leading 28-21, Washington put together a heroic drive culminating in a touchdown with 0:02 left.
- After scoring, the Washington player threw the football up into the air. On TV it appeared to go some 20 feet or more into the air.
- Said throwing of the football into the air was clearly and without question an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty according to the rules (2008 NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations, Rule 9, Section 2, Article 1, Number 2), which state that
- After any play the player in possession must immediately return the ball to an official or leave the ball near the downed spot
- Among other acts, throwing the ball high into the air is prohibited (item c of said rule)
- As a result, the official flagged and penalized Washington 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct, as he is required to do by the rules.
- The ensuing 35-yard PAT try was blocked by BYU.
- Thus BYU ended up winning the game, 28-27.
- The player was clearly overcome by exuberance, and was not in control of himself, as could be expected.
- No harm was done or intended by the player, who was only celebrating the great play made, and not attempting to be unsportsmanlike.
- A penalty or other call by an official should never determine the outcome of a game.
First of all, it is the job of the officials to attempt to enforce the rules of the game in a fair and unbiased format. They do not weigh the gravity of each individual play and take that into consideration as to whether or not a rule was violated. If a rule is violated, it is their responsibility to enforce the rule. In this case, the ruling was clear. The rulebook clearly describes the inappropriate behavior, which obviously matches the actual behavior in this case. It is the responsibility of the official to enforce the penalty in this case.
At any rate, the plays at the end of the game are not the only ones that can determine the outcome of the game. If not so, then please let me know at what point in the game do the plays become relevant to the outcome? I'd say, potentially all plays are relevant from the opening kickoff onward. Officials should not be expected to guess or determine whether a play will be a determining factor in deciding the outcome, let alone allow this to factor into any decision regarding rule enforcement.
Furthermore, this is all based on the assumption that the ruling actually affected the play. Are you trying to convince me that a college-level placekicker in the PAC-10 does not have sufficient strength to reliably kick a 35-yard field goal with sufficient altitude to avoid a block? Or that BYU (am I actually saying this) is not capable of blocking a field goal except under extreme conditions?
Next point. What exactly was the player's intention is unknown and irrelevant. Intent is not a factor in determining whether to enforce a rule, at least not in NCAA football. If you are tackling someone, and you grab the face mask and turn the head while tackling them, that is a 15-yard personal foul penalty. Whether you meant to do it is not relevant. The same is true in this case. Whether the player intended to taunt the other team or otherwise exhibit unsportsmanlike conduct is not the issue. The issue is that the player did violate the rule, regardless of intent, and it is the job of the officials to enforce the rule.
Finally, the issue with the significance of the play and the resulting excitement meaning that the player obviously was overcome with emotion and could not control himself. Man, how I love that phrase: "Could not control himself." "Yes, Bob, the player is literally not in control of his own self! He cannot make responsible choices! His freedom to choose has been revoked due to extreme excitement!"
Give me a break. Let's suppose the penalty was more harsh. Suppose that he is told, "Look, go out there and score a touchdown. But if you do not hand the ball to the official after the play is over, I am going to cut your index finger off with this here old rusty wood rasp." Do you really think he would score, forget that his finger was in jeopardy, and throw the ball into the air anyway? And then come back and say, "Sorry! Please don't cut my finger off with that there old rusty wood rasp! I was excited and lost control! I literally could not choose otherwise!"
This last one actually gets me more than any of the others. This is not the first time I've heard sports analysts defending the players because they lost control. This is probably because a lot of them used to be players also, which also probably means they don't have much education, and also think they are better than everyone else. Well, in this little place I call "Realworldia," we are expected to maintain control of ourselves and make correct choices, even when it is hard.
In case you were wondering, this is a non-rusty wood rasp. Source: Wikipedia
