Bogey
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,784
Simply this.The way tostopcontrol it is to make the player sit for a minimum of 3 plays.
Simply this.The way tostopcontrol it is to make the player sit for a minimum of 3 plays.
Just let the DLs, who are rotating in and out anyway, fake the injuries. Problem solved.Simply this.
That is, in fact, against the law, and if caught, punishable with fines or even jail time. No analogy with "faking" injuries.If you knowingly and willingly claim an exemption or advantage that you're not entitled to, or if you conceal a tax liability
It’s a big FU to the opposing fans, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. What if without those extra breaks our defense would have been too gassed to hold UNC to a fieldgoal at the end or gotten beaten on the hail-mary play, is a win worth it for you?It would not have been so bad if the camera hadn't caught Efford about to go down grabbing his hammy, but to see the DE stop drop and roll. Optics are terrible.
The only difference is the likelihood of punishment by the corresponding authorities, which is obviously the only concern for some people.That is, in fact, against the law, and if caught, punishable with fines or even jail time. No analogy with "faking" injuries.
The NCAA rules basically say there is no punishment for faking an injury.The only difference is the likelihood of punishment by the corresponding authorities, which is obviously the only concern for some people.
One is against the rules/law, one isn't. Not sure how I could spell it out any clearer to you. Yet you think the only difference is punishment.The only difference is the likelihood of punishment by the corresponding authorities, which is obviously the only concern for some people.
That's what a rule is. When you have the rule "don't fake an injury to get a free timeout" there is a punishment for faking an injury to get a free timeout. When you don't have that rule there isn't a punishment, there is just an expectation of sportsmanship.One is against the rules/law, one isn't. Not sure how I could spell it out any clearer to you. Yet you think the only difference is punishment.
I’m all for integrity in sports. How is it a lack of integrity to do what is not illegal? Are we saying that tactic may not be illegal, but it is unethical? If so, I can understand that - especially to the extent it was employed by us yesterday.Integrity. Character. Sportsmanship. Ethics. … ‘89 alum here, and I was embarrassed of our team. Reflects poorly on our university. “Just because others do it” is a lame argument - and reflects poorly on those making this excuse. Ask yourself what it teaches the players about life and how to conduct themselves. What example are we setting for the students (and all other fans) that witness this? We are supposed to be developing leaders, right? We are better than this, or we should be…. All alums should call on the administration to FIX IT!
The NCAA rules basically say there is no punishment for faking an injury.
You are totally misunderstanding my position. I am not in favor of using this tactic
Its pretty ridiculous to demand that the NCAA explicitly ban every conceivable act of unsportsmanlike conduct. Pausing the game when an athlete is injured doesn't need clarification to exclude fake injuries. You've been pretty clear in your position that if anyone gets away with an unsportsmanlike practice, we should do it too, and take no responsibility for our own behavior because if we do something embarrassing and don't get punished then the issue is with the rules. I understand your position and I disagree.My position is that the issue is with the rules, not the way teams are exploiting the rules.
Huh? So in your analogy, a violation of the tax code which can result in punishment is the same as faking an injury, which doesn't, so they are equivalent? I can not understand your logic here.That's what a rule is. When you have the rule "don't fake an injury to get a free timeout" there is a punishment for faking an injury to get a free timeout. When you don't have that rule there isn't a punishment, there is just an expectation of sportsmanship.
That's not equivalent to faking an injury. When an athlete claims he is unable to get off the field promptly and needs officials to suspend play for his own safety, there should be no doubt whether the claim is legitimate.So here’s my companion question: It is not illegal for an offense to run pre-called plays at such a rate that doesn’t allow a defense to call its own plays and get set for the next play. However, is that ethical?
To me, the core issue is a substitution rule and putting the ball in play rule issue. That could be fixed by having the umpire stand over the ball for a certain time to allow for both units to get set. This could be suspended in the final minute when seconds are critical.
Did I say it was equivalent? I said they are both potentially unethical. How is it ethical not to give your opponent an opportunity to get set? It’s desired by the rules - that’s the purpose of substitution rules. Running extreme tempo is (pretty clearly) subverting the spirit of the rules.That's not equivalent to faking an injury. When an athlete claims he is unable to get off the field promptly and needs officials to suspend play for his own safety, there should be no doubt whether the claim is legitimate.
You're trying a little too hard. I said that claiming an exemption under false pretenses and claiming an injury timeout under false pretenses are only different in the expectation of punishment for the cheater. If that's all that matters to you, then they are the same.Huh? So in your analogy, a violation of the tax code which can result in punishment is the same as faking an injury, which doesn't, so they are equivalent? I can not understand your logic here.