Running back penalized for gesture to God

[Dave Schwartz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIi2H4zMZW8&feature=aso

Title says it all

[newtothegame]

Yeah, I heard about this earlier on the radio. The high school associates (athletics and ref officials) were contacted and supposedly the rule says that any player who draws attention to himself can be penalized.

The player says he was giving attention to the lord....

Me personally, I say the ref should be seriously reprimanded and possibly lose a game or two check...

Its not like the kid was show boating or anything....:bang:

[cj's dad]

He was interviewed this AM on TV. Not sure which network as I was half asleep but the kid said he respects the refs decision and from now on will give thanks to God from the sidelines after a score. Classy young man !!

[Alacrity]

Ref mustve been an atheist.

[OTM Al]

If that's the rule, that's the rule. The ref doesn't know what the player is doing and frankly it doesn't matter. Gesture like that could mean anything from self promotion to a gang sign, but regardless it is still showing up the other team. For even if it was giving thanks to God, it is in effect saying he's on my side and not on yours. The kid should however be commended. He learned something and won't do it again. Give thanks to God on your own time but while on the field give respect to your opponents and to the rules.

[rastajenk]

Good lord Al, are you serious? He was on his knees. Showing up the other team? Did you watch the vid? He looked as humble as a player can get, especially in this age of chest bumps, group hugs, and all the other crap that goes on after scoring plays. Once upon a time, you had to do that after crossing the goal line; you know, touch down. The ref is an idiot for thinking that could be anything other than what it was, or for thinking that it somehow violated the spirit of the game.

[OTM Al]

Good lord Al, are you serious? He was on his knees. Showing up the other team? Did you watch the vid? He looked as humble as a player can get, especially in this age of chest bumps, group hugs, and all the other crap that goes on after scoring plays. Once upon a time, you had to do that after crossing the goal line; you know, touch down. The ref is an idiot for thinking that could be anything other than what it was, or for thinking that it somehow violated the spirit of the game.

Yes I am serious. And he wasn't only "just on his knees". He intentionally got on his knees and then raised his hand pointing a finger upward. This was a premeditated action regardless of its meaning. The rules of the game he was playing says that any such premeditated gestures will be penalized. He broke the rule. He was penalized. His intent is irrelevant. Yes, once upon a time you had to touch the ball down, though it didn't look anything like what the boy did. Oh yes, and it was a rule.

[DJofSD]

His first mistake was not putting down a prayer rug.

[rastajenk]

Al, you seem like a rational guy. Is everything so clearly black-and-white to you?

From the story accompanying the video on KOMO's site comes this quote:
Speaking to KOMO on Tuesday, Hastie said he's pointed up as a gesture to God after every touchdown he's scored in every game and never had a problem before.

"It's usually one or two seconds long," he said. "It's something I've done as a tradition." So isn't this more a matter of a particular ref's interpretation than the action itself? Should all the other refs that ever witnessed that or anything like it, and I won't believe he's the only kid in Washington that has ever done it, get some remedial refereeing education about what is or isn't a 'an excessive or prolonged act'?

[JustRalph]

His first mistake was not putting down a prayer rug.

post of the day!! :ThmbUp:

[OTM Al]

Al, you seem like a rational guy. Is everything so clearly black-and-white to you?

From the story accompanying the video on KOMO's site comes this quote:
So isn't this more a matter of a particular ref's interpretation than the action itself? Should all the other refs that ever witnessed that or anything like it, and I won't believe he's the only kid in Washington that has ever done it, get some remedial refereeing education about what is or isn't a 'an excessive or prolonged act'?

It is when there is a rule. Perhaps other refs made a judgement not to call it but each one could have and maybe should have. Anything non spontaneous (ie the kid is excited and jumps up and down or something of the like), beyond handing the ball to the ref and receiving congrats from your teammates is an excessive and premeditated action. If there is a rule against that (and I'm not arguing if there should or shouldn't be here either), then a rule has been broken. I have no intent to insult people's faith here because of what the kid claims to have been doing. As I've said, whatever his intent was is irrelevent to the arguement.

[Dave Schwartz]

Al,

I must disagree.

In all officiating there is the rule and then there is the "customary" interpretation of the rule.

What you have described is that the official could "do what he wanted" and still be within the rules. That is not how officiating is either done nor taught. Please note that I speak from experience.

As an example, consider the strike zone in baseball. It has always (to my knowledge) been knees-to-armpits. In spite of that, until the most recent decade or so it was more like knees to just above the belt. The upper margin increased as the level went down. That is, Little Leaguers used the full strike zone.

The "customary interpretation" of the rule that governs this young man's actions has certainly not been to penalize a "thank you to God" or else we would have this as a common occurrence.

Therefore, I suggest to you that the official is "anti-something;" that he was making a personal statement of what was not okay with him.

IMHO, this is the worst possible officiating because it inserts the official into the game as a participant. A good and proper official should have no effect on the outcome of a game beyond his "judgement." This is absolutely not a "judgement" call. It is a rule interpretation.

I would ask that others on this board with significant officiating experience respond with regards to this as well.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Greyfox]

That is one silly rule and should be struck down.
For Cripes sake, look at all of the Jockeys that cross themselves and point skyward after winning a race.
If that rule were in racing, would they take down the win.
Any ref that would enforce that rule is a sheep.

[OTM Al]

Al,

I must disagree.

In all officiating there is the rule and then there is the "customary" interpretation of the rule.

What you have described is that the official could "do what he wanted" and still be within the rules. That is not how officiating is either done nor taught. Please note that I speak from experience.

As an example, consider the strike zone in baseball. It has always (to my knowledge) been knees-to-armpits. In spite of that, until the most recent decade or so it was more like knees to just above the belt. The upper margin increased as the level went down. That is, Little Leaguers used the full strike zone.

The "customary interpretation" of the rule that governs this young man's actions has certainly not been to penalize a "thank you to God" or else we would have this as a common occurrence.

Therefore, I suggest to you that the official is "anti-something;" that he was making a personal statement of what was not okay with him.

IMHO, this is the worst possible officiating because it inserts the official into the game as a participant. A good and proper official should have no effect on the outcome of a game beyond his "judgement." This is absolutely not a "judgement" call. It is a rule interpretation.

I would ask that others on this board with significant officiating experience respond with regards to this as well.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I'm not saying maybe it wasn't something personal either. Had nothing to do with my argument. The only thing I take issue with in what you say is that the official made a rule interpretation. Seems that's what they do on every play to me.

My only point is that if there is a rule about premeditated celebratory actions (whether you disagree with the rule or not), and a premeditated celebration occurs, no matter what it is, it should be penalized. If the rule isn't being followed because of custom, then what sort of lesson is that? Here's the rules kids, but some don't count. Well, if some don't count then why should any of them?

You want to do something like that, fine. Do it when you get off the field. To me, doing it any other way is disrespectful to the game and to the opponent, no matter what your intent is.

[Dave Schwartz]

Al,

The only thing I take issue with in what you say is that the official made a rule interpretation. Seems that's what they do on every play to me.

No, they make "calls" on most plays. It is an important distinction.

"Calls" are based upon the individual official's judgment of what happened.

"Interpretation" is based upon what is "reasonable and customary" for a rule.

For example, consider a fly ball to the outfield. The umpire adjudicates on whether or not the fielder caught the ball before it touched the ground. That is a "judgement call."

On the other hand, imagine that the fielder fell down and during the fall the ball popped out of his glove. In umpire's school the teach you that he must voluntarily remove the ball from the glove.

The interpretation of that was always something that resembles "he reached into his glove to remove the ball." That is absolutely what they teach.

So, imagine a guy makes a diving glove-hand-only catch, comes up with the ball, takes 5 more steps and the ball drops out of the glove. (Seriously, I have seen this dozens of times.) According to the strict interpretation it is "No Catch!" because he clearly did not reach into the glove with his throwing hand to voluntarily remove the ball.

However, in practice this call is never made. The customary application is that control can override the "voluntary removal" part.


Okay, the short version of what I am saying is that the fact that this official chose to interpret differently makes his interpretation absolutely wrong.

Think of it this way: Officials are supposed to give the game consistency. If each official adds his own interpretation to every rule, instead of consistency, you have chaos.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[OTM Al]

Ok Dave, I see what you are saying so it seems I have used a word that has a specific meaning in officiating incorrectly. However, I still have objection here.

Baseball has a rule book. They also have a book of rule interpretation based on the instances when an interpretation has had to be made by an umpire, so officials do have to make interpretations at times, though as you point out, it doesn't happen on every play.

I also think the representation you give about going with a customary response is what has been referred to as the "12 Angry Men" argument. I'm sure you've seen the movie or play. Classic Henry Fonda. Anyway, the point is, because someone does something different, it does not mean that it must be wrong. It could be that the custom is wrong and the person going against it is right and is right to do so.

Would you feel different about what the boy did if he fell to his knees in exactly the same manner, but instead of pointing, he had given a black power salute? What if he had given a hang loose signal, or had "flashed the horns" in the heavy metal parlance? Would it have been different? Even with what the boy did, how did the official know that he wasn't pointing at someone in the crowd or on the other team? He wasn't the only official on the field either. If the others thought he was wrong, should not his fellow officials overruled him? They did not, which says they must have agreed.

The point of the discussion to me is not "is the rule wrong" or "should the rule be ignored in part or whole". To me, it is a rule and to lay blame on an official for complying with the rule is wrong. Honestly I think the rule is a bad one. Kids should be able to celebrate spontaneously as long as it does not cause a delay or is done in an unsportsmanlike way. Far better though they do it when they get off the field. As I said, show respect for the rules and your opponents before all else. Sounds to me like this is a pretty good kid who does get that now. What he was doing was a premeditated and self promoting action.

[PhantomOnTour]

His first mistake was not putting down a prayer rug.
Score one for DJ...nice :lol:
What if this kid had lost a family member and was pointing to the heavens in remembrance...still a penalty? Ref had no idea if the gesture was religious or the kid was grieving in his own way.
Bad call ref.

[Greyfox]

Honestly I think the rule is a bad one. Kids should be able to celebrate spontaneously as long as it does not cause a delay or is done in an unsportsmanlike way. Far better though they do it when they get off the field. As I said, show respect for the rules and your opponents before all else. .

Agreed. There needs to be rules. So the rule as written needs to be looked at.
Personally I find the gestures and gyrations of many pro football players to be quite annoying and distracting from the game.
I wouldn't want to see high schoolers doing pelvic thrusts, black power salutes etc. etc.
So you are right. There needs to be rules prohibiting celebratory gestures.
However, there also needs to be a discretion as to what is tolerable within reason. In this instance the lad's thanks to God, would be within my tolerance limits for sure as it is not necessarily celebratory.
Behind every rule, there has to be a reason as to what is the "spirit" of the intended law. In this instance, I suspect the ref applied the letter of the law and totally ignored the spirit of it. Undoubtedly that rule will be reviewed and modified I would suspect.

[OTM Al]

Agreed. There needs to be rules. So the rule as written needs to be looked at.
Personally I find the gestures and gyrations of many pro football players to be quite annoying and distracting from the game.
I wouldn't want to see high schoolers doing pelvic thrusts, black power salutes etc. etc.
So you are right. There needs to be rules prohibiting celebratory gestures.
However, there also needs to be a discretion as to what is tolerable within reason. In this instance the lad's thanks to God, would be within my tolerance limits for sure as it is not necessarily celebratory.
Behind every rule, there has to be a reason as to what is the "spirit" of the intended law. In this instance, I suspect the ref applied the letter of the law and totally ignored the spirit of it. Undoubtedly that rule will be reviewed and modified I would suspect.

And that is the proper response, not blaming the ref.

[Greyfox]

I should have added to the above that there have been a number of situations in life where I have been in an "authority position" and made to call judgements, including refereeing basketball, fastball umping, life etc etc.
I learned many many years ago the importance of having:
"ONE GOOD EYE AND ONE BLIND EYE."

There is a true art in knowing which eye should be used in many situations.
Your best teachers, your best judges, your best sport refs etc will have that
"ONE GOOD EYE AND ONE BLIND EYE."

(If you watch football closely, a flag could likely be thrown on virtually every play. An field umpire who does that can ruin any contest. School teachers who spot everything that is going on in their class rooms won't usually last a year.)

[Dave Schwartz]

Al,

Black power salute? Doesn't matter. The issue is "Did the player break a rule?" My contention is that because of what is customarily permitted, he broke no rule. He certainly did not "excessively" celebrate nor did he taunt anyone.

Perhaps your black power salute is a good example. If he had raised his fist in the air would the official have flagged him? I think not.


There is no written book of interpretations. The point is that what is "customary" becomes the common interpretation and should always be applied.

IMHO , to move away from customary makes the interpretation wrong unless, ahead of time, a statement has been made like, "From now on we're going to do it this way."

I think we've both stated our opinions. Let's turn the page, shall we?


Dave

[OTM Al]

Hey Dave, what's there to turn the page on? We debated a point civilly. I thought you had completely valid points to make. I don't even think we differ in opinion all that much. Nothing wrong with a little discourse. No one has to "win" and no one should be mad because someone else has a different opinion. Good mental exercise I think.

[Dave Schwartz]

Totally agree, Al.

I just didn't want to bore all the readers with the whole "yes, but..." thing.

It is always a pleasure to discuss with you.

Dave

[Greyfox]

The discourse in this forum's thread between Dave and OTM Al so far has been exemplary as to what posters on this board who entertain different positions should give "reasoned thought" about. Very nice to read. Very nice to see resolution. Both gave great arguments to chew over, think and digest.
Congrats to both of you.
Ah.... but so rare.....

[cj's dad]

The discourse in this forum's thread between Dave and OTM Al so far has been exemplary as to what posters on this board who entertain different positions should give "reasoned thought" about. Very nice to read. Very nice to see resolution. Both gave great arguments to chew over, think and digest.
Congrats to both of you.
Ah.... but so rare.....

What the #%&* you talkin' 'bout - common courtesy, patience, and civil dialogue have long been a part of this G%&D*%# site !!;)

[Dave Schwartz]

Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about! Yeah, give it to us, Dad!

[Greyfox]

What the #%&* you talkin' 'bout - common courtesy, patience, and civil dialogue have long been a part of this G%&D*%# site !!;)

Good on you. :lol:

[OTM Al]

What the #%&* you talkin' 'bout - common courtesy, patience, and civil dialogue have long been a part of this G%&D*%# site !!;)

Damn I knew there was a reason we got on so well! :)