Originally Posted by
Troublemaker
Oh, I don't think so. We're talking about testosterone-filled, well-built, 18-22 year-old athletes here. It's not exactly a demographic that's going to back down from a racial slur, for example. And even if the target of the abuse just happens to be shy, it's unrealistic to expect that no teammate throws a punch on his behalf. If the problem were rampant or anywhere close, there would be many more fights and also news reporting on the incidents. There would be many more players suspended by their own school because most schools wouldn't put up with that behavior even if the referees do. There would maybe also be lawsuits to point to if NCAA referees were really regularly allowing such conduct to go unpunished instead of ejecting the offenders for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's just unrealistic to think the incidents are anything but extremely rare.
I can hear you asking what the NCAA's motivation for this rule would be then. I think positive news coverage is a sufficient explanation. Certainly I've seen people who would usually be very critical of the NCAA (I believe you're one, right?) praise the NCAA for this rule. And such critics have also probably subconsciously raised their opinion of the NCAA, however slight the raise is. Also, if one were uncynical, one could buy that the NCAA believes it's worth officially codifying this new rule even if the incidents that occur are extremely rare (and despite unsportsmanlike conduct already being on the books). If just one slur is potentially eliminated because of this new rule...