I dunno, I guess it's popular or something. They could not act that way, but old ideas like sportsmanship and fair play are so last century.

Dimson, if I have misinterpreted your question, please correct me, but I believe the question, within context, is better expressed "Why are they perceived or labeled as hoodlums by you?  

Am I correct?

If so, I join you in your inquiry.

Taunting is in no way new to the NFL or football overall.

Take one of the all time classic NFL films clips of Chuck Bednarik leveling Frank Gifford.

https://youtu.be/o1EHius5Y88

Even though many thought Bednarik taunted Gifford, I have seen interviews where he indicated he wasn't trying to taunt Gifford.  Assuming his denial of unsportsmanlike behavior or intent is honest, yet people have accused him of taunting on the play, can we conclude it's possible he could have been flagged for taunting under the current rules?  If it's possible what was perceived to be taunting was competitive heat of the moment exuberance and he could have been flagged irrespective of intent, is it fair to label him a "hoodlum" under those circumstances?

If it's possible his intentions could be mistaken by observers, who is to say that a player today, in a helmet on tv possibly a hundred feet from a camera or field mike can't have his actions misconstrued by officials or other observers?  If so, and his intent was misconstrued, is it similarly fair or unfair to label him a "hoodlum" too?


There' are also a couple of noteworthy instances involving Steelers HOF LB Jack Lambert. Vs the Cowboys.  The first happened in Super Bowl X.  Steelers K Roy Gerela missed a FG, and HOF Dallas S Cliff Harris went over and patted him on the helmet.  Lambert saw it as taunting, took offense to it, threw Harris to the ground and pointed at him.  Both Harris and Lambert both taunted on that play.  A few years later, circa 1982, Lambert played against Dallas in an early season MNF game.  He tackled Dallas RB Tony Dorset, stood over him, pointed, and said, "That oughta calm your [BLEEP] down!" In another famous NFL films clip.  That, too would have been a clear violation of the current rule against taunting..  Yet in the decades since those interactions, I have never heard or read Harris, or Lambert or Dorset (spike the ball against Washington DT Darrell Grant's head) and many others called "hoodlums" simply because they taunted an opponent on the field.

Why?  Was the act of taunting somehow less egregious in the 70s and 80s than a similar act now?

Did "unsportsmanlike" somehow become a synonym for "violent" or "criminally inclined?"


Former Raiders CB Damon Arnette?  If he taunted, yes, the term Hoodlum" would be appropriate because there's other activities that makes the adjective fit.  In the absence of definitive proof of hoodlum activity, it's rhetorical, logical and factual leap to conflate one who taunts with a hoodlum and it's patently unfair.

Geesh!  It was a tongue in cheek comment.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Dimson, if I have misinterpreted your question, please correct me, but I believe the question, within context, is better expressed "Why are they perceived or labeled as hoodlums by you?  

Am I correct?

If so, I join you in your inquiry.

Taunting is in no way new to the NFL or football overall.

Take one of the all time classic NFL films clips of Chuck Bednarik leveling Frank Gifford.

https://youtu.be/o1EHius5Y88

Even though many thought Bednarik taunted Gifford, I have seen interviews where he indicated he wasn't trying to taunt Gifford.  Assuming his denial of unsportsmanlike behavior or intent is honest, yet people have accused him of taunting on the play, can we conclude it's possible he could have been flagged for taunting under the current rules?  If it's possible what was perceived to be taunting was competitive heat of the moment exuberance and he could have been flagged irrespective of intent, is it fair to label him a "hoodlum" under those circumstances?

If it's possible his intentions could be mistaken by observers, who is to say that a player today, in a helmet on tv possibly a hundred feet from a camera or field mike can't have his actions misconstrued by officials or other observers?  If so, and his intent was misconstrued, is it similarly fair or unfair to label him a "hoodlum" too?


There' are also a couple of noteworthy instances involving Steelers HOF LB Jack Lambert. Vs the Cowboys.  The first happened in Super Bowl X.  Steelers K Roy Gerela missed a FG, and HOF Dallas S Cliff Harris went over and patted him on the helmet.  Lambert saw it as taunting, took offense to it, threw Harris to the ground and pointed at him.  Both Harris and Lambert both taunted on that play.  A few years later, circa 1982, Lambert played against Dallas in an early season MNF game.  He tackled Dallas RB Tony Dorset, stood over him, pointed, and said, "That oughta calm your [BLEEP] down!" In another famous NFL films clip.  That, too would have been a clear violation of the current rule against taunting..  Yet in the decades since those interactions, I have never heard or read Harris, or Lambert or Dorset (spike the ball against Washington DT Darrell Grant's head) and many others called "hoodlums" simply because they taunted an opponent on the field.

Why?  Was the act of taunting somehow less egregious in the 70s and 80s than a similar act now?

Did "unsportsmanlike" somehow become a synonym for "violent" or "criminally inclined?"


Former Raiders CB Damon Arnette?  If he taunted, yes, the term Hoodlum" would be appropriate because there's other activities that makes the adjective fit.  In the absence of definitive proof of hoodlum activity, it's rhetorical, logical and factual leap to conflate one who taunts with a hoodlum and it's patently unfair.

Geesh!  It was a tongue in cheek comment.

Apologies for not discerning humorous intent.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

This is a violent, contact sport. I guess they should quit being "hoodlums" and stop being so excited

I get excited when something I work hard toward is realized. I've never felt the urge to do a pelvic thrust in an all-hands meeting calling for a championship belt around my waist while screaming IN YO FACE at my coworkers.

You can high-five a teammate and head back to the huddle with the same level of excitement. I promise you beating that OT for another sack is gonna drown their spirits more than any other choreography you can imagine would.

---

I just dont want to see refs using taunting penalties to decide games. This is football. Intimidation and trash talk is part of the fun of game.  They arent robots. This isn't baseball. That's part of the mind games that go on in an exciting extremely competitive sport.

Wanna know the easiest way to avoid taunting penalties deciding a game?  

---

Dude. 

The NFL has added a few rules that may have eluded you over the decades. 

The players have to adhere to them.

Do you remember when the nfl outlawed celebrating, and it started getting called the No Fun League? Then they fixed that mistake. I think they need to clean up this taunting rule.  Its stupid and petty and way to subjective. I'm all for a penalty for cheap shots or fighting but dont try to legislate emotion out of the game.

Who said they are taking emotion out of the game?

Does a player HAVE to mimic slitting a throat to get their exuberance across to the opposition?

You can still be enthusiastic. You can still celebrate great plays. Just don't be foolish about how you do that. Is that so very difficult?

---

I still don't get the need for the clutching of pearls over taunting.

Taunting is pretty prevalent in society.

I can guarantee there's taunting going on in the stands. There is taunting in sports bars, taunting in playgrounds, taunting in politics, taunting, in front of televisions over video games, between total strangers, best friends, and siblings.

Taunting was certainly not invented by football players.

Why is it so important to clamp down on it in football?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I still don't get the need for the clutching of pearls over taunting.

Taunting is pretty prevalent in society.

I can guarantee there's taunting going on in the stands.  There is taunting in sports bars, taunting in playgrounds, taunting in politics, taunting, in front of televisions over video games, between total strangers, best friends, and siblings.

Taunting was certainly not invented by football players.

Why is it so important to clamp down on it in football?

maybe so that we don't have headlines like "[tacks] fan dragged down steps in fight at Rams game"

Not saying in the least that taking the on-field encouragement away isn't going to cause fans not to be buttholes to each other, but might not hurt to remove fuel from potential conflagration.

It's also usually something that begins a cycle. One player disrespects another, and the other team has to return the favor, whether that's in the form of a cheap shot, escalated argument, punches thrown, what have you.

Let's put it this way - is the game negatively impacted by taking the chest-thumping out of the equation?

---

I still don't get the need for the clutching of pearls over taunting.

Taunting is pretty prevalent in society.

I can guarantee there's taunting going on in the stands.  There is taunting in sports bars, taunting in playgrounds, taunting in politics, taunting, in front of televisions over video games, between total strangers, best friends, and siblings.

Taunting was certainly not invented by football players.

Why is it so important to clamp down on it in football?

maybe so that we don't have headlines like "[tacks] fan dragged down steps in fight at Rams game"

Not saying in the least that taking the on-field encouragement away isn't going to cause fans not to be buttholes to each other, but might not hurt to remove fuel from potential conflagration.

It's also usually something that begins a cycle. One player disrespects another, and the other team has to return the favor, whether that's in the form of a cheap shot, escalated argument, punches thrown, what have you.

Let's put it this way - is the game negatively impacted by taking the chest-thumping out of the equation?

Eliminating alcohol sales in the stadium would go a lot further in reducing those headlines.  But there's money in booze.  No money in taunting...so that's what gets penalized.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

maybe so that we don't have headlines like "[tacks] fan dragged down steps in fight at Rams game"

Not saying in the least that taking the on-field encouragement away isn't going to cause fans not to be buttholes to each other, but might not hurt to remove fuel from potential conflagration.

It's also usually something that begins a cycle. One player disrespects another, and the other team has to return the favor, whether that's in the form of a cheap shot, escalated argument, punches thrown, what have you.

Let's put it this way - is the game negatively impacted by taking the chest-thumping out of the equation?

Eliminating alcohol sales in the stadium would go a lot further in reducing those headlines.  But there's money in booze.  No money in taunting...so that's what gets penalized.

What is the negative impact of removing taunting from the game? It's clear we disagree about this, I just don't know why you're defending it?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Do you remember when the nfl outlawed celebrating, and it started getting called the No Fun League? Then they fixed that mistake. I think they need to clean up this taunting rule.  Its stupid and petty and way to subjective. I'm all for a penalty for cheap shots or fighting but dont try to legislate emotion out of the game.

Is that so very difficult?

Apparently.

It's simple and I don't know why so many can't get it.
Celebrations are allowed. Taunting is not.

Taunting is stupid and immature. 
Spin kicks, lightning dance, hair twirl, hell even the whole damn defense running to the camera to celebrate an int.
All good. Even if a little extra and silly.

Suck it signs, throat slashes, barking at opponents sideline, it's taunting and unnecessary.

One is emotion and okay. The other one makes you look like a punk, child, or idiot.

If a player can't discern the difference they should do nothing.

---

The negative impact of removing a stupid unnecessary subjective penalty is that it's human nature to show emotion after a great play. If you have someone talking trash to you all game and you finally beat him, you might let off some emotion. Like stated before, all that "taunting" after a touch down is ok though. Just throw a penalty if there is a fight. Dont overreact to everything a player does before he goes back to the huddle. I think football has been just great for 50 plus years before they put in this taunting crap. Someone is taunting all the time. Its football haha

---

This is a violent, contact sport. I guess they should quit being "hoodlums" and stop being so excited

I get excited when something I work hard toward is realized. I've never felt the urge to do a pelvic thrust in an all-hands meeting calling for a championship belt around my waist while screaming IN YO FACE at my coworkers.

You can high-five a teammate and head back to the huddle with the same level of excitement. I promise you beating that OT for another sack is gonna drown their spirits more than any other choreography you can imagine would.

---

I just dont want to see refs using taunting penalties to decide games. This is football. Intimidation and trash talk is part of the fun of game.  They arent robots. This isn't baseball. That's part of the mind games that go on in an exciting extremely competitive sport.

Wanna know the easiest way to avoid taunting penalties deciding a game?  

Your first point isn't a valid comparison.  Of course you're not going to taunt and scream IN YO FACE at your own coworkers.  In that scenario, those are your teammates.  I would imagine if you were competing with another company for some piece of work, and it became contested and was up for grabs - I can see some people being excited to the point of doing some of those things - and add in the fact that football is a violent athletic game, that tends to make it more likely to want to celebrate.  While I never played at the NFL level (obviously), there certainly was trash talk and some celebrating/taunting in the sports that I did play.

This isn't to say that I'm in favor of taunting, I guess I'm actually kind of ambivalent about this whole topic. I probably land on letting them play, and have fun.  But I know there has to be a rule to keep some order and prevent things from getting out of hand.  The issue becomes when that rule isn't applied consistently or fairly by the officials.  The answer shouldn't be to just eliminate all celebrations so they aren't seen as taunting.

---

Eliminating alcohol sales in the stadium would go a lot further in reducing those headlines.  But there's money in booze.  No money in taunting...so that's what gets penalized.

What is the negative impact of removing taunting from the game? It's clear we disagree about this, I just don't know why you're defending it?

Not so much defending taunting, per se.


As long as I can remember, taunting was covered under the unsportsmanlike conduct penalties (see Telvin Smith in playoffs vs Steelers 2017 season).

But with an emphasis on it, officials are now actively looking for it, which will lead to more penalties called whether truly warranted or not.  The flow of the games will be disrupted even more than it is now.  There will be more 8nstances of officials determining the outcomes of games, and more suspicions of referee and league bias, as evidenced by this past Bears Steelers matchup.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

What is the negative impact of removing taunting from the game? It's clear we disagree about this, I just don't know why you're defending it?

Not so much defending taunting, per se.


As long as I can remember, taunting was covered under the unsportsmanlike conduct penalties (see Telvin Smith in playoffs vs Steelers 2017 season).

But with an emphasis on it, officials are now actively looking for it, which will lead to more penalties called whether truly warranted or not.  The flow of the games will be disrupted even more than it is now.  There will be more 8nstances of officials determining the outcomes of games, and more suspicions of referee and league bias, as evidenced by this past Bears Steelers matchup.

Ok, but if they are penalizing then why must they keep doing it? What is so important about being able to taunt that it warrants a defense? As someone else said, there's a pretty easy way to not get a taunting penalty, why do it?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Not so much defending taunting, per se.


As long as I can remember, taunting was covered under the unsportsmanlike conduct penalties (see Telvin Smith in playoffs vs Steelers 2017 season).

But with an emphasis on it, officials are now actively looking for it, which will lead to more penalties called whether truly warranted or not.  The flow of the games will be disrupted even more than it is now.  There will be more 8nstances of officials determining the outcomes of games, and more suspicions of referee and league bias, as evidenced by this past Bears Steelers matchup.

Ok, but if they are penalizing then why must they keep doing it? What is so important about being able to taunt that it warrants a defense? As someone else said, there's a pretty easy way to not get a taunting penalty, why do it?

Again not defending taunting, per se.  It's more an aversion to giving officials an excuse to throw more flags.

That said, given the possibility of misinterpreting intent, and given the competitive and emotional nature of football, I am unsure an increased emphasis on taunting is altogether productive.  How does a ref distinguish between fun, good natured smack talk or banter, an emotional outburst after an important play, and mean spirited taunting?

I don't see the advantage 8n censoring the people who have the most influence over the outcome of the game.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Yes I misspelled it. If you read on through the post, you see that I already asked for forgiveness. Spoiler alert: I will make more spelling mistakes. Thank you ahead of time for your concern

I kan reed wut yoo riet just fien.  Dont wurry abowt it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yes I misspelled it. If you read on through the post, you see that I already asked for forgiveness. Spoiler alert: I will make more spelling mistakes. Thank you ahead of time for your concern

I kan reed wut yoo riet just fien.  Dont wurry abowt it.

Good one. You are super funny. Great job coming up with that!  I'm taking notes. We have are very own kevin hart posting here.

---

[A]signment. Oh! I thought it was about Blake Cleatman and his controversial decision he made  in 2017 when he obviously wanted to have intercourse with the Jags.

---

I kan reed wut yoo riet just fien.  Dont wurry abowt it.

Good one. You are super funny. Great job coming up with that!  I'm taking notes. We have are very own kevin hart posting here.

our*

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I kan reed wut yoo riet just fien.  Dont wurry abowt it.

Good one. You are super funny. Great job coming up with that!  I'm taking notes. We have are very own kevin hart posting here.

Dang dude, who peed on your Cheerios this morning?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Good one. You are super funny. Great job coming up with that!  I'm taking notes. We have are very own kevin hart posting here.

Dang dude, who peed on your Cheerios this morning?

I guess,
I'm just feeling the heat from the punctuation police in this thread. Spelling police and so on. I'm not here to win a spelling or grammar contest. I'm here for fun to talk about OUR favorite team. Im not fresh out of college. I'm not a rookie. I'm an accomplished young gentleman who can give two Wentz's fumbles about it unless I'm writing to my wife. Then I better make sure I tripple check all my spelling and sentence structure. However, we are on a jags message board. The obsession with some people correcting others while they make their own mistakes is comical. You stick up your [BLEEP] hypocrite. I'm not calling out anyone in particular, but you know who you are.

haha

---