JC Tretter: NFLPA didn’t ask for renewed emphasis on taunting

USA TODAY Sports

Rich McKay, the chair of the NFL’s Competition Committee, recently explained that the league made the taunting rule a point of emphasis at the request of the NFL Players Association and the NCAA. The president of the NFLPA says that’s not the case.

JC Tretter, in a column published Tuesday, said the union didn’t ask for an emphasis on the enforcement of the rule against taunting.

“I can assure you, as an attendee of the competition committee meeting myself, that was not the case,” Tretter said. “On the contrary, we would support the removal of this point of emphasis immediately.”

The rule, however, has been in place for a long time. It’s not an issue of eliminating celebrations. It’s about removing from the game displays directed at the opponents — the “in your face” stuff that happens from time to time. The point of emphasis comes from the fact that the officials weren’t calling it consistently.

Regardless, to the extent that McKay claims the union wanted it, the president of the union says it didn’t. It’s an important point, because it’s a lot easier to get the fans and media on board with the point of emphasis if the league can convince everyone that the players wanted it. According to Tretter, they did not.

17 responses to “JC Tretter: NFLPA didn’t ask for renewed emphasis on taunting

  1. I wish there wasn’t as much taunting, but if they start deciding games with flags for it…who wants that??? They approved these elaborate celebrations after any turnover or TD, which is all fine and legal, but any sign of getting in someone’s face after a normal play is 15 yards? Just like the catch rule, they’re gonna keep tweaking stuff that really didn’t need tweaking and it’s gonna get called completely inconsistently and badly and rinse and repeat.

  2. Regardless of the exact wording, nobody is in favor of in your face taunting. The he said, she said, or whoever said, doesn’t really matter.

  3. There is no way in hell that the players would want this rule put into effect. As dudes we’re all wired to want to be the alpha and we like to talk s**t. Just like how the alpha needs to let the betas know who’s boss. Also just like sometimes when you score, you’re pumped enough to let the other team know it…and I don’t think that’s something that should be penalized.

  4. why does NFLPA even exists? CBA’s have been a joke, always tilting towards the league . They are just there to sign the papers, more or less. I bet it’s something to do with some weird legal technicalities that require there to be a player representation in order to protect the league from being sued for various things. Like a buffer.

  5. Dude, they make millions and are the best in the world. Do you think they haven’t trash talked their whole lives? They can take it as it’s part of the game. A good trash talker is hillarious.

  6. i’m fine with the emphasis on reducing taunting, if it eliminates the really bush-league stuff. but, it is a highly physical, highly emotional game: you can’t expect these guys to be robots when they make a great play (like the one called agains the RB who carried 11 guys 10 yards or whatefer in the Colts’ 1st exhibition game. his celebration was in no way taunting IMO).

  7. Tretter fails to recognize that when committees make decisions, they label them as representative of all attendees. Dissent is often buried. Besides, who would argue FOR blatant shows of poor sportsmanship and taunting?

  8. To me, it’s simple. The NFL has a product it sells, and taunting makes that product much less attractive to some (actually many). Because of the “hero” worship and trickle-down effect that goes all the way to peewee football(and impacts the decisions of football-parents), moreover, the effect is magnified. Why do you think the “Miami Rule” went into effect after the 1991 college football season?

  9. Since the NFLPA is one of the worst union in the history of this country, guessing the idiot(s) probably realized after the meetings that two taunting penalties and ejection from a game may nullify contracts and guaranteed money. So now they back-track to cover a certain part of the anatomy.

  10. It’s not hard at all to avoid taunting. It’s only permissiveness that has made it seem that way.

  11. Even McKay’s statement about the NCAA seemed kind of strange. I get the NCAA may want taunting decreased because what the pros do inevitably flows down into their games but why would the NFL really care what the NCAA wants? He’d have been much better off saying the owners saw this as a problem instead of claiming all sorts of outside groups wanted the change.

  12. NCAA is rooming with the last DoDo bird. Cause they both are in the process of extinction or already are. So why is anything the NCAA says to the NFL have ANY relevance??

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.