High School Track Team Disqualified When Runner Gestures Thanks to God (1 Viewer)

[Mason66]

It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what the rule is. And, for example, they have this same rule in football, where if you raise your arm it's a penalty and the touchdown does not count. This was done because of how much taunting was occurring.

It's not the raising of the arm, it's the taunting. By banning raised arms, you ban taunting and any subjective interpretation of what might be taunting.

What do you mean by taunting?

 

[Slyfox696]

What do you mean by taunting?

...I mean the definition of taunting.

 

[Mason66]

...I mean the definition of taunting.

If you don't know the answer please just say so.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I'm sure we can merge the two.

I'd like to point out that although it might seem a little petty to DQ the team because of raising an arm, a rule is a rule.

I often see athletes interviewed seconds after a victory. The first thing they say is "I've got to thank God." Now, how do the athletes on the losing team feel?... It would seem it is irrelevant to even raise an arm.

What does this have to do with the losers? Apparently you have never been in the position to celebrate a victory if it seems irrelevant to you; especially one of this magnitude.

 

[apdst]

God hates everybody who runs a little bit slower. Didn't you know that? :lol:

I have a feeling that this wouldn't be appearing on breitbart.com if the kid said he was thanking Allah.

It wouldn't appear on Breitbsrt, because there wouldn't have been s fuss msde by the offucials.

 

[rocket88]

It wouldn't appear on Breitbsrt, because there wouldn't have been s fuss msde by the offucials.

Even if they did, Breitbart wouldn't cover it because it doesn't further their narrative about how Christians are being persecuted. A narrative that you've bought hook, line and sinker.

 

[apdst]

Even if they did, Breitbart wouldn't cover it because it doesn't further their narrative about how Christians are being persecuted. A narrative that you've bought hook, line and sinker.

But, they wouldn't DQ the team, for fear of offending Muslims, so Breitbart's coverage of it is irrelevant.

 

[Slyfox696]

If you don't know the answer please just say so.

If you don't know what taunting means, or how to look it up in a dictionary, it's really more on you to figure it out. How about you consult a dictionary, instead of being rude?

 

[radcen]

To me, this thread is a perfect example of how easily distracted from the real issue people can get. Whether anybody would have reported the story if Islam were the religion is completely 100% irrelevant.

 

[tererun]

But, they wouldn't DQ the team, for fear of offending Muslims, so Breitbart's coverage of it is irrelevant.

And you know that because? Oh wait, you don't know that, you are just saying that absurdity because you want to pretend it happened to justify your warped world view.

 

[Slyfox696]

To me, this thread is a perfect example of how easily distracted from the real issue people can get. Whether anybody would have reported the story if Islam were the religion is completely 100% irrelevant.

Especially since Muslims have been disqualified for religious actions which violated the rules and it has been reported.

 

[Mason66]

If you don't know what taunting means, or how to look it up in a dictionary, it's really more on you to figure it out. How about you consult a dictionary, instead of being rude?

What taunting goes on at a sports event?

Is it when the winning team says they won?

 

[Muhammed]

I often see athletes interviewed seconds after a victory. The first thing they say is "I've got to thank God." Now, how do the athletes on the losing team feel?... It would seem it is irrelevant to even raise an arm.

I hear that a lot too. They thank God for victory but the funny thing is, you'll never hear anyone on the losing team say "We would have won the game if God didn't make me fumble the ball".

 

[Slyfox696]

What taunting goes on at a sports event?

Is it when the winning team says they won?

I really don't understand why you cannot do your own research on this.

 

[rocket88]

But, they wouldn't DQ the team, for fear of offending Muslims, so Breitbart's coverage of it is irrelevant.

Like I said, you buy the narrative.

 

[Zyphlin]

1. How do they know it was God?

According to the story it could've been pointing to Elvis. Raising ones hand directly after winning is considered excessive celebration. Stupid, but not specific to the fact he did to due to "god"

2. Did they ask him?

Officials? Probalby not because it didn't matter WHY he pointed. The writers? Probably not, because they couldn't paint it as him being disqualified "thanks to god" if he was pointing to a dead grandparent or something.

3. And what does it matter if he had?

It doesn't matter who or what he was pointing up to. What mattered he was pointing, and that violated the stupid state rules.

Stupid rules are still rules. I think the rules against celebrations in the NFL have gotten to ridiculous levels...I don't blame ref's for enforcing them. They're dumb, as this state rule is, but they're not oppressive to the levle I expect Ref's to somehow risk their positions over it.

 

[Zyphlin]

This wasn't about suppressing success, it's about suppressing taunting and teaching good sportsmanship. This rule removes the subjectivity aspect, and sets a firm black and white rule. There is no indication of taunting here, but what about all the times there was taunting? Why should the official be forced to subjectively decide whether a team can advance to state or not?

No, this is just about "suppressing taunting". You don't teach good sportsmanship by forcing any and all celebration out of a game. At best you're forcing "good" sportsmanship to an absolute extreme, which doesn't really teach anything other than "you have to do it".

It's not a stupid rule, it's a rule which has come about because of a very real lack of sportsmanship in sports. Contrary to popular opinion, sports are not about winning, but in this "win at all costs" culture we now have, we seen taunting on a regular basis. I have no problem with a rule which cracks down on unsportsmanship like behavior.

Yes, sports are about winning. They're not ONLY about winning, but they are absolutely in large part ARe about winning. Black and white rulings like this are ridiculous. It's a sad sign of our culture that we have to keep putting these in...not because people taunt, but generally because you have individuals (parents) who believe their children are special little snow flakes that can do no wrong and raise holy hell when they get called for legitimate taunting, thus making it easier for these type of rulings rather than dealing with the fall out each and every time. Doesn't make the rule any less ridiculous dumb, just a bit more understandable.

 

[mak2]

I think at least there is some truth to this. I think it is cultural but maybe not a black and white thing, but more socioeconomical.

No but dancing and celebrating are a part of black sports culture, and not a part of the white sports culture embodied by Joe Paterno or Mike Ditka.

Go to any high school football game in a black neighborhood and you will see what I'm saying.

These "sportsmanship" penalties are nothing but cultural whitewashing. YOU think sports should be one way (no dancing, pointing, etc) and so you put that in the rules. I say that's a garbage. There's nothing wrong with a little celebration and having fun.

It doesn't harm anyone. The only reason it's banned is because it makes white america uncomfortable.

 

[radcen]

I don't think many of you are correct in saying "a rule's a rule" and letting the officials off the hook. First, officials have discretion, whether officially or not, just like police in who to pull over for a ticket, etc.

Second, while the rule may say something like "no excessive celebration", has the intent of exactly what that means been clearly defined and conveyed to the officials? The story doesn't say, but I doubt it.

 

[Deuce]

I don't think many of you are correct in saying "a rule's a rule" and letting the officials off the hook. First, officials have discretion, whether officially or not, just like police in who to pull over for a ticket, etc.

Second, while the rule may say something like "no excessive celebration", has the intent of exactly what that means been clearly defined and conveyed to the officials? The story doesn't say, but I doubt it.

I don't doubt it. Those rulebooks can get ridiculously specific. Just look at how NFL celebration rules have evolved.

 

[Slyfox696]

No, this is just about "suppressing taunting". You don't teach good sportsmanship by forcing any and all celebration out of a game. At best you're forcing "good" sportsmanship to an absolute extreme, which doesn't really teach anything other than "you have to do it".

Teaching students taunting is not socially acceptable is teaching them an aspect of sportsmanship.

Yes, sports are about winning.

No, sports are about success (at least on every level but professional). Success and winning are not the same thing. You can be successful and not win, just like you can win and not be successful. Sports, particularly at the high school level and below, should be about achieving success, achieving the absolutely maximum of an individual's and teams ability.

The example I always like to give is I could play LeBron James in a game of 1 on 1 fifty times and I would never win once. Does that mean I can never be successful? Of course not. If each game I keep shrinking the margin of victory, if I force James to take difficult outside shots, if I learn his defensive tendencies to create better shots for myself, that's being successful. I cannot control how good he is, all I can control is what I do. To argue my success is dependent upon factors outside of my control seems silly.

Sports are about achieving success, both on an individual and team level. They are not about winning.

I don't think many of you are correct in saying "a rule's a rule" and letting the officials off the hook. First, officials have discretion, whether officially or not, just like police in who to pull over for a ticket, etc.

Technically, no they don't.

Second, while the rule may say something like "no excessive celebration", has the intent of exactly what that means been clearly defined and conveyed to the officials? The story doesn't say, but I doubt it.

I cannot speak for other states, but here officials have to attend a rules meeting. The rules meeting covers points of emphasis for the upcoming year and provides explanation for rules which may be unclear.

So my guess is, if Texas is like my state, the officials have been given explanation. In fact, I'd be surprised if the official would even have known the rule if it hadn't been explained to them.

 

[Knowledge=power]

What does this have to do with the losers? Apparently you have never been in the position to celebrate a victory if it seems irrelevant to you; especially one of this magnitude.

The losers surely asked God to help them win too. When the other team won, was it because God liked them more?

 

[zimmer]

According to the story it could've been pointing to Elvis. Raising ones hand directly after winning is considered excessive celebration. Stupid, but not specific to the fact he did to due to "god"



Officials? Probalby not because it didn't matter WHY he pointed. The writers? Probably not, because they couldn't paint it as him being disqualified "thanks to god" if he was pointing to a dead grandparent or something.



It doesn't matter who or what he was pointing up to. What mattered he was pointing, and that violated the stupid state rules.

Stupid rules are still rules. I think the rules against celebrations in the NFL have gotten to ridiculous levels...I don't blame ref's for enforcing them. They're dumb, as this state rule is, but they're not oppressive to the levle I expect Ref's to somehow risk their positions over it.

I understand why the NFL has their rules. It's a business, and all the prance and dance crap was getting out of hand... turning folks off.

 

[danarhea]

You can't prove a negative. Given the hypothetical, how about you prove that they would.

If you need proof that breitbart is biased....well that should be fairly obvious to anyone.

Ahh, yes, Breitbart.com's tired old meme about a war on Christianity. And with that, I post this:

 

[apdst]

Like I said, you buy the narrative.

So do you, my friend.