New Rules

#3
#3
Allowing religious headwear is a dumb decision and a mistake. It's more of this "It's part of my identity" nonsense. It will
open a can of worms and we'll just see more players wanting to wear crap that's part of their "identity." Players represent
their schools and their teams--NOT themselves. It's time the players--and the NCAA--understood this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Remy, Franklin Pierce, UTtoDC and 3 others
#4
#4
turbovol said:
Allowing religious headwear is a dumb decision and a mistake. It's more of this "It's part of my identity" nonsense. It will
open a can of worms and we'll just see more players wanting to wear crap that's part of their "identity." Players represent
their schools and their teams--NOT themselves. It's time the players--and the NCAA--understood this.
Click to expand...
I've heard what typically happens is that an organization receives a "friendly tip" from someone down the chain at DOJ who informs them that "if you were taken to court on such-and-such an issue, we might no longer be able to provide support for you at the trial."

It's not really a threat... it's more of a weather forecast, leaving it up to the organization whether they'd be wise to carry an umbrella.
 
#5
#5
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#7
#7
What's your point with the Clark video? Looks like a real shove.

How are officials going to know if a play is a real shove/foul or a flop? Nobody has ever forced them to call a foul if they think the opposition
player has flopped. They can ignore it--but apparently often don't because they haven't gotten a good look at the play and assume that a shove
has occurred. Are they going to get better looks now? No! So now what will happen is that they will call fouls on players whom they think have flopped, but, again, they in many cases won't really know because it's not easy to tell amid the action and 10 players in a smallish area to //what degree// physical contact occurred.
 
#8
#8
Clark wasn't mentioned in the article for flopping.

"In a critical moment late in the third quarter, Clark failed to pass the ball to an official after a foul was called, which was deemed a delay of game by the officials. Since it was Iowa's second delay-of-game violation, Clark was charged with a technical foul. In college basketball, players receive a personal foul when assessed a technical foul, resulting in Clark's fourth foul of the game. However, under the new rule, the team would now receive the technical foul in such situations, alleviating the burden on individual players and potentially altering the dynamics of critical game moments."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1reVOLver, mudcat1973 and Volfaninfl2
#10
#10
volunator said:
Although the Ohio State player did extend her arm, I'm pretty sure that was some dramatic acting on Clarks part. jmo
Click to expand...

It was definitely a push--and Clark's reaction may have been embellished somewhat, probably was. It's hard for anyone to know unless they're close and get a good look at the play, which is why enforcing the new rule could be problematic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smallvol#1
#11
#11
The last thing the beseiged refs need is another judgement call. But usually these "point of emphasis" type rules are more warnings to coaches and players that they're now looking for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#12
#12
turbovol said:
Allowing religious headwear is a dumb decision and a mistake. It's more of this "It's part of my identity" nonsense. It will
open a can of worms and we'll just see more players wanting to wear crap that's part of their "identity." Players represent
their schools and their teams--NOT themselves. It's time the players--and the NCAA--understood this.
Click to expand...
I think it is a good rule. Many religions require women to wear a head covering. It is an expression of faith. Are you opposed to student athletes thanking Jesus in interviews? Would you outlaw pointing to the sky or catholic student athletes crossing themselves?
This canā€™t be a matter of whoā€™s ox is getting gored.
The discussion of how some religions treat women is a conversation for another day and another place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nickid1975, madtownvol, volinjax and 7 others
#14
#14
Lucy said:
I think it is a good rule. Many religions require women to wear a head covering. It is an expression of faith. Are you opposed to student athletes thanking Jesus in interviews? Would you outlaw pointing to the sky or catholic student athletes crossing themselves?
This canā€™t be a matter of whoā€™s ox is getting gored.
The discussion of how some religions treat women is a conversation for another day and another place.
Click to expand...

I think you can accommodate as long as there isn't a competitive advantage or safety issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: madtownvol, Lucy, mudcat1973 and 2 others
#15
#15
Lucy said:
I think it is a good rule. Many religions require women to wear a head covering. It is an expression of faith. Are you opposed to student athletes thanking Jesus in interviews? Would you outlaw pointing to the sky or catholic student athletes crossing themselves?
This canā€™t be a matter of whoā€™s ox is getting gored.
The discussion of how some religions treat women is a conversation for another day and another place.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with your stance that everyone should have the same rights. But, can you imagine the reaction here if one of the UT players, being interviewed after the game, says "Allahu Akbar".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy
#18
#18
Lucy said:
I think it is a good rule. Many religions require women to wear a head covering. It is an expression of faith. Are you opposed to student athletes thanking Jesus in interviews? Would you outlaw pointing to the sky or catholic student athletes crossing themselves?
This canā€™t be a matter of whoā€™s ox is getting gored.
The discussion of how some religions treat women is a conversation for another day and another place.
Click to expand...

Religion has no place in sports--which are played in public venues. First, head-coverings for women are demeaning. Second, those who do wear them don't wear them 24/7. They don't shower in them. Sports is about your team and your school--not you and your "identity" or your faith. That's what home and church are for, if you are into religion. No, I wouldn't outlaw pointing to the sky, of course--it's just silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcannon1
#19
#19
What about the headgear of the Pastafarians?
If you really believe in freedom of religionā€¦

IMG_1383.jpeg

www.usatoday.com

Pastafarian can wear strainer on head in license photo

A woman who belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is allowed to wear a pasta strainer on her head in her driver's license photo due to religious beliefs, the AP reports.
www.usatoday.com
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#20
#20
1reVOLver said:
What about the headgear of the Pastafarians?
If you really believe in freedom of religionā€¦

View attachment 590611

www.usatoday.com

Pastafarian can wear strainer on head in license photo

A woman who belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is allowed to wear a pasta strainer on her head in her driver's license photo due to religious beliefs, the AP reports.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...

Ha, ha: There's no telling what nonsense will be coming once you start letting players wear stuff because of their faith or their identity. I mean, we already see a lot of fake eyelashes, which seem silly for athletes to be wearing in games but whatevs--at least they're not very conspicuous; noticeable but not conspicuous. A lot of indulging of student-athletes these days...I think coaches pretty much lets pot smoking go without punishment as well. It's a party!
 
#21
#21
turbovol said:
Religion has no place in sports--which are played in public venues. First, head-coverings for women are demeaning. Second, those who do wear them don't wear them 24/7. They don't shower in them. Sports is about your team and your school--not you and your "identity" or your faith. That's what home and church are for, if you are into religion. No, I wouldn't outlaw pointing to the sky, of course--it's just silly.
Click to expand...
Terrible take on NOT allowing players head-coverings etc. Small minded crap. SMH..........
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinjax
#23
#23
Tara Newhole said:
Terrible take on NOT allowing players head-coverings etc. Small minded crap. SMH..........
Click to expand...
Ad hominem much?

When you disagree with something posted here, you may rebut it with fact, logic or contrary opinion. Vigorous, civil, disagreement makes the forum lively and interesting.

Or, you may choose to yell, ā€œNegavol!ā€ and reveal a lack of much beyond a contrary opinion and perhaps a lack of manners.

As our fine colleague said, ā€˜Welcome to the forum.ā€™
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#24
#24
There is a distinction between disagreeing on a decision based on the possible impact to the game of basketball and not recognizing that world-wide their are countries where women play with religious headcoverings. A decade ago the SEC had a player who wore a skirt based on her religious unbringing.

We can discuss whether the women playing two-person volleyball should be wearing the clothing they wear. Or whether an WNBA player or an LSU player should be posing in fewer clothes than their uniforms.

a recent story where a high school English teacher in St. Louis was identified as being on a subscription site providing what classy porn. The school system had to review on what impact that had on her being a teacher. She resigned as the publicity increased her and her husband's income to much over the previous $10k per month. Duke University some years back had a woman acknowledge she paid her tuition from income earned doing porn films. Extrapolate those examples to a basketplayer's NIL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and brittannica
#25
#25
turbovol said:
What's your point with the Clark video? Looks like a real shove.

How are officials going to know if a play is a real shove/foul or a flop? Nobody has ever forced them to call a foul if they think the opposition
player has flopped. They can ignore it--but apparently often don't because they haven't gotten a good look at the play and assume that a shove
has occurred. Are they going to get better looks now? No! So now what will happen is that they will call fouls on players whom they think have flopped, but, again, they in many cases won't really know because it's not easy to tell amid the action and 10 players in a smallish area to //what degree// physical contact occurred.
Click to expand...
That was a big time flop, and she does this all the time, but nothing surprises me with this diva.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Remy and Coach Jumper
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top