Pedro Banda, a senior football player from Dysart High School claimed that he was kicked out of the game for 'praising God' last Friday after scoring a touchdown.
Since his team won the game, Dysart will advance to the playoff round, and Banda will be suspended one game for 'excessive celebration'.
“I was running to my brother who was also on the field, and I put my hand to my face mask and pointed up to the sky," Banda said.
“I had no idea if it is a rule of him pointing to the sky, and it's a thing him and his brother do. They always do it to thank God for everything they've been through. If it is a rule, I would have liked to have been informed of it,” said mom Angela Franco.
The young man's parents are asking for a repeal of the penalty, and social media is full of support for the young man. However, even though at first I was supportive of a young man 'misunderstanding the interpretation of the rule', I have changed my mind and think the rule should stand.
I will explain my opinion after this statement by the AIA was made to the news station after the station enquired about this incident.
"We are already reviewing this ejection and associated video, and are awaiting an appeal request from Dysart.
Our by-laws allow for an appeal of an ejection that impact a team advancing in the state tournament. Since this victory placed Dysart into the state tournament, the ejection is reviewable by our appeal committee.
"The unsportsmanlike penalty given to #15 on the touchdown at 4:40 left in the game was his second of the game, which, by rule, is an automatic ejection. That is the reason he was ejected on the call. The call by itself would not warrant an ejection.
Both teams had been warned during the game about taunting, and the flag was a reaction to the behaviors that had already been patterned in the game, not for the reasons given in the media.
We should reach a decision late Monday, pending request.
Read more:
http://www.kpho.com/...
Now my two cents:
When I thought Mr. Banda did it one time, I was sympathetic to his plight. I thought that it was a 'misinterpretation' of the rules by him. I thought that it was overkill, even if he was 'taunting', or 'excessively celebrating'. to throw him out of the game after once time.
When the lies and exaggerations come out, it began to look like Christian professional victimhood to me. You could almost feel the right wing Christian activist hands writing the script and coaching the young man and his family behind the scenes to cry into the cameras and make speeches on the radio.
However, according to the rule book, a player must commit the offence twice in the same game to get kicked out. He is only suspended for one game, unlike the parents claim that he would be kicked out for the season, should they advance further in the championship rounds. I am sure Mr. Banda is familiar with the rule book, and knew that he was flagged before he was kicked out for the same offence.
Although he claims he was not aware he was penalized once before, it is irrelevant because 'ignorance of the law is not an excuse'.
Remember, the offence is 'excessive celebration', and has nothing to do with expressing himself in a personal manner. He was not thrown out of the game because of religion, nor was he discriminated against because he is Christian. He committed the offence twice, taunting the rules and the referees, and creating a situation that would force us to pit our sense of fairness against his wanting of special pleading to accommodate his religion.
To me, the ruling should stand because he allowed a simple infraction of the rule drive him to make it into a political issue. He should learn to stand on his own in both the natural world, and recognize that it is his skill, his practice and hard work is the reason he made the team and any contributions to it, and not some transcendent being who is going to wait on him hand and foot when he calls.
2:56 PM PT: Mr. Banda's appeal to the AIA was heard, and although his penalty was not overturned, he is allowed to play in the playoff game this Friday.
I think this is fair, and a good compromise. It still holds him accountable for his actions, but that suspending him, now that we know what his intention was without malice. He was not punished too harshly.
What I hope this young man takes away from this is, that his 'god' dispenses justice, and had he stood before his god, he would have been punished to the letter of the law. Appealing to a secular court, and using our senses and reasoning skills to reach a conclusion, the court took his intention into account, and rendered mercy, which in any amount is the suspension of justice.
In other words, subjective morality is more humane than his god's morality.