Joe Burrow explains his pro-taunting position
Joe Burrow continues to taunt the NFL regarding its stance on taunting.
During the AFC Championship, when Ravens receiver Zay Flowers blatantly taunted a Chiefs defender following a key catch, Burrow posted on X: "Let the guys taunt."
Appearing on the podcast co-hosted by a player whose team benefited from that call, Burrow elaborated on his stance.
“Yea, I’m pro taunting," Burrow said on the New Heights podcast with Travis and Jason Kelce, via Olivia Ray of WLWT. "We're all grown adults that work really hard at what we do. And sometimes we’d like to show it. I'm not gonna get my feelings hurt if somebody sacks me and taunts me, like, you made a play. I get it. Like good for you."
He's not wrong, but his mindset is far from universal. Plenty of players get pissed when another player taunts them after a big play. The league's goal in restricting taunting is to ensure that there won't be a pissed-off opponent who's lurking later in the game, waiting for the chance to deliver a clean, legal, and wholly unnecessary hit that will potentially get a guy injured. Likewise, the league doesn't want taunting to be met with more taunting and to eventually spark a helmet-swinging fight.
The problem is that the officials have stopped calling it the way they did when it was a "point of emphasis" in 2021. Before the Flowers flag, which came after blatant taunting, guys were getting away with less severe taunts that nevertheless would have drawn a flag when the officials were constantly looking for it.
The 2021 point of emphasis on taunting followed a 2014 point of emphasis on taunting. Which further proves that the term "point of emphasis" is a fancy way of saying to the officials, "We've noticed you're not doing your job the way we'd like you to do your job. Please do your job better."
Regardless of Burrow's opinion, the league doesn't share it because most players don't share his disposition. If every player on the wrong end of taunting reacted by saying, "Good for you, Jack," there would be no rule against it.
