Is it too far a stretch to cite yesterday's Kansas State - Syracuse Pinstripe Bowl game as an example of the evils of big-government, excessive regulation and lowest-common-denominator political-correctness?
For those who missed the game, KS's Adrian Hilburn quickly saluted the crowd / American flag following a touchdown which could have (following a 2-point conversion) tied the game. However, for his "excessive celebration," Hilburn was penalized and KS subsequently lost the game.
The decision to criminalize celebration during a sporting event is unbelievably absurd. Pittsburgh's Jack Lambert didn't go far enough when he lamented "they should just put a skirt on the quarterback." The nanny-state sissies running football would have the entire team in bows and ribbons.
Unsportsmanlike conduct was an honorable penalty. Intentionally attempting to unnecessarily harm another player is contrary to the standards of gamesmanship. Spearing, late-hits and the like should be punished, as they demean the game and cross the line of decency.
But celebration? Combined with the proliferation of "illegal" hits - which really only means tackling a highly paid QB or wide receiver - the game has been neutered by administrators who have lost the love of sport and succumbed to the gradual enervation of joyless regulation. How can it be that Europe and (post-) Communist countries like Russia allow celebration on the field, whereas America has legislated the suppression of emotion?
This is America. For God's sake, let the boys play!
You never would've caught Jack Lambert dancing in the end zone.
Well the damn NCAA isn't exactly the nanny state, but it does have a monopoly on big school college football and it can "pre-empt" state legistlatures, since it falls back on Article 1 section 10 clause 1 of the contract clause of the constitution. Universities with football teams like Kansas State might be state actors, but the NCAA is not.The NCAA makes its own damn rules. In fact the NCAA would make a liar of any professor of Locke who suggested the alienability of property as a natural right. Ha, just because you own it you think you can sell it? Are you the joker responsible for Pryor's mistake? (democrats gain 2 points in Ohio on the generic ballot?) Making that assumption will get you apology face time on ESPN, which is basically the CNN of sports law(that is not even a joke, half of it is about contracts, labor law, fines and "ethical" violations.)
"Is it too far a stretch to cite yesterday's Kansas State - Syracuse Pinstripe Bowl game as an example of the evils of big-government, excessive regulation and lowest-common-denominator political-correctness?"
Probably...but it is only a slight stretch too far. Its enough of a stretch to make everything sound like hyperbole, posturing and general absurdity to anyone with common sense. It makes Sarah Palin look completly absurd for giving out cookies to foil Michelle Obama's obesity campaign. Only she is much less absurd than the folks who follow her, since at least she has figured out a way to get paid with book deals, an anchor spot and a reality tv series, while enjoying the scenic beauty of alaska. My ridiculous suggestion that you sue your opthamologist for writting a perscription that expires in only one year, well its an idea that may or may not be possible.
You can get mad at the TSA guy, or at the refs, or congress or the nanny state, the tech support guy, Obama...its all senseless, because its the God Damn end of History, we are probably spoiled and lucky to be here, and everything has at least some sort of "rational basis", and no one makes the rules they just "work here".
The only conduct that was unsportsmanlike was the act of pitting Syracuse and Kansas State against each other in a bowl game.
"Combined with the proliferation of "illegal" hits - which really only means tackling a highly paid QB or wide receiver..."
While I kind of agree that penalties like roughing the passer or running into the kicker are a little dumb, I think criticizing new rules that protect players from head injuries is wrong.
I think outlawing helmet-to-helmet contact is a good thing because the football helmet unexpectedly became a tool used to alter the way the game is played. If you look back at the old reels from the time before the NFL wore plastic helmets, you'll see that the tackling technique was much more focused on leading with the shoulder. Players obviously saw the danger of leading with the head because they knew they'd get their brains knocked out if they did. Today, players have a sense that their padded helmet can really protect their noggins, and this is not true. The situation is similar to testing out the effectiveness of car seatbelts and airbags by driving your car into a brick wall.
Maybe we should outlaw the helmets and see what happens?