ShareThis Page
Rooney against eliminating celebrations |

Rooney against eliminating celebrations

Jerry DiPaola
| Friday, March 26, 2004 12:00 a.m

Steelers chairman Dan Rooney remembers the 1970s with pride and fondness. He recalls, with a smile, how Hall of Fame wide receivers Lynn Swann and John Stallworth celebrated after a touchdown, jumping in the air and creating one of the first acrobatic high-fives.

Maybe it’s not what Rooney did when he scored a touchdown for North Catholic High School in 1949, but he liked it, anyway.

“I could say the crazy stuff they did,” he said. “But it was good. It added to the (game). People liked it. They saw it. It wasn’t bad.”

Now, the NFL competition committee wants to eliminate such activity and owners will vote next week at their meetings in Palm Beach, Fla., to allow game officials to penalize such celebrations with a 15-yard loss of yardage, in addition to a possible fine from league officials.

“I have problems with that,” Rooney said. “I don’t know that it’s the biggest thing in this league that’s a problem, to be making it like it’s the biggest thing we are going to this meeting for.

“Everybody is talking about it, and it scares me. You get into an area that you don’t belong.”

Competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay, the general manager of the Atlanta Falcons, said the league wants to penalize “group celebrations, (for example) the five guys circling around, all falling to the ground at the same time.”

He said more than 50 players were fined last year for such acts through a league by-law, but the new proposal will make it a part of the NFL rulebook.

“We have letters from high school and colleges saying, ‘Throw flags,’ ” McKay said. “We thought they made a good point.”

Rooney, however, believes it’s not foolproof, and he cited the case of Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward, who was penalized and fined $5,000 last season for spiking the football after a touchdown in Seattle. Officials believed Ward was taunting Seahawks cornerback Ken Lucas, but Ward said he was directing the spike toward the Steelers bench as a rallying gesture.

“They said it was taunting,” Rooney said. “It wasn’t. It was an official. They are not perfect. They’ll call something on you and you say this is the way it’s supposed to work and it may not be how it works.”

Rooney remains steadfastly against taunting and the use of extraneous objects in celebrations, such as Joe Horn’s cell phone and Terrell Owens’ Sharpie.

“That’s terrible,” he said.

Choreographed displays that remain within the bounds of good taste, however, don’t bother him.

“I don’t have a feeling one way or another,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a terrible thing.”

Rooney said he supports the committee’s proposal to make replay review permanent and to give the coach an extra challenge if his first two are successful. He also said that he wouldn’t be against giving back the challenge if the coach is right, something that Steelers coach Bill Cowher supports.

“Right now, people expect it,” Rooney said, pointing out that it’s become a part of the landscape that defines the game.

The only other twist he supports is making the replay assistant in the booth part of the crew.

“He should travel with them,” Rooney said. “He should be talking to the referee, the same as everybody.”

The NFL normally awards those jobs to retired officials who live near the cities where they work.

“I think the league likes it the way it is,” he said.

He also said the competition committee voting against playoff expansion “was the best thing they ever did.”

Jerry DiPaola is a Tribune-Review pitt football reporter. You can contact Jerry at 412-320-7997, or via Twitter .

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.