Author Topic: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals  (Read 12084 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2018, 02:16:23 PM »
By flailing his left arm to the side?

If that's not an invalid fair catch signal in NCAA, it should be. In my opinion, it is in NF, and it certainly is on my field 25 times out of 10.
“Your field”?

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-52
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2018, 03:27:38 PM »
I have the solution to this problem.

Kick return players should have a hockey goal siren mounted on the top of their helmet. They have a button on their shoulders they press to activate it, letting everyone know they called for fair catch.


Offline OSU65

  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • FAN REACTION: +65534/-2
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2018, 09:52:16 AM »
So the left hand flailing outward before the catch was a non-wave.

RR or no RR, that's nuts.


Was his hand ABOVE his head.....

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2018, 10:05:35 AM »
Doesn’t have to be but Wasn’t a wave anyway

Offline OSU65

  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • FAN REACTION: +65534/-2
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2018, 01:45:22 PM »
Doesn’t have to be but Wasn’t a wave anyway

This definition from the rule book seems pretty unambiguous to me. Not sure how it can be interpreted to say that the hand does not have to clearly be above the receivers head to be a valid signal. I can understand the idea that it has been interpreted in different ways by different officials, but I would think that a rules test would say that it does. If not then someone needs to change the definition.

Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B: a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above);

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2018, 01:55:07 PM »
There is an AR That speaks directly to it and videos and clinics with Redding reinforced, the get away signal is an invalid fair catch signal

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3406
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2018, 07:09:24 PM »
This definition from the rule book seems pretty unambiguous to me. Not sure how it can be interpreted to say that the hand does not have to clearly be above the receivers head to be a valid signal. I can understand the idea that it has been interpreted in different ways by different officials, but I would think that a rules test would say that it does. If not then someone needs to change the definition.

Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B: a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above);

OSU, I'm not getting your point.  Nobody is saying that a signal below the head is valid.  It isn't.  But, it would still be a signal, and any signal that isn't valid is invalid, and makes the ball dead when caught or recovered by the receiving team.  It is true that the invalid signal rule uses the language "waving." However, since that interpretation was issued many years ago, the "get away" signal has been modified by receivers to be only extending the arms, without the big waving we used to see.  Why?  There is no other reason than to try to confuse the kicking team.  It is still a "get away" signal.  While 6-5-3-V addresses a signal after the ball has hit the ground, this interpretation applies to any situation, before or after the ball has hit the ground or touched a player.  If a receiving team player makes a "get away" signal, I assure you, the coordinators will fully support their officials in declaring the ball dead when it comes into possession.

That doesn't at all address the NT/UA play.  That receiver did nothing but lift his arms to be in position to make the catch.  There was no "flailing," despite claims to the contrary.  The only issue is what happened after the catch.  By design, he made it look, for all the world, like he had made a fair catch signal and the play was over.  Kicking team players have been accustomed to easing up and not risking a foul when they see the receiver give himself up.  NT took advantage of that.  The NCAA powers have ruled this tactic - if executed this way - to be legal.  The Rules Committee will, undoubtedly, review this in the off season, on two accounts: 1) player safety (which may be dependent upon what happens during the remainder of this season), and 2) fairness and sportsmanship.  On this issue, metaphorically, the Committee has the ball, 1/10.

Robert
       

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-52
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2018, 08:41:43 AM »
The NCAA powers have ruled this tactic - if executed this way - to be legal.  The Rules Committee will, undoubtedly, review this in the off season, on two accounts: 1) player safety (which may be dependent upon what happens during the remainder of this season), and 2) fairness and sportsmanship.

This rule will change when a kick receiver thinks he called fair catch, but didn't. He catches the ball and acts the same way as the player in this video.... stands there for 2 seconds... then he gets blown up by one of the kick returners and gets injured.

Basically, I think a rule change should be added that if a player is acting like the play is over, the play should be whistled dead, and a flag thrown for an illegal fair catch.

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3406
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #33 on: September 25, 2018, 09:28:58 AM »
This rule will change when a kick receiver thinks he called fair catch, but didn't. He catches the ball and acts the same way as the player in this video.... stands there for 2 seconds... then he gets blown up by one of the kick returners and gets injured.

Basically, I think a rule change should be added that if a player is acting like the play is over, the play should be whistled dead, and a flag thrown for an illegal fair catch.

It will look something like:
4-1-3-s
When a player makes no attempt to advance or evade opponents after completing a catch or recovery of a kick.

Offline goodgrr

  • Roger Goodgroves
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-12
  • We are always learning
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #34 on: September 25, 2018, 10:28:51 AM »
Would you want it only to apply to kicks?

The IFAF s rule "When all players in the vicinity of the ball stop playing and/or believe it to be dead"

It covers other situations where it should be apparent the play is over, or when it isn't by rule but both teams treat it like it is.

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3406
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #35 on: September 25, 2018, 11:22:04 AM »
Would you want it only to apply to kicks?

The IFAF s rule "When all players in the vicinity of the ball stop playing and/or believe it to be dead"

It covers other situations where it should be apparent the play is over, or when it isn't by rule but both teams treat it like it is.

Haven't needed a rule for other situations, and still don't.  Right now, the only situation that needs another rule is the kick catches.
Robert

Offline NoVaBJ

  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-8
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2018, 04:32:42 PM »
Haven't needed a rule for other situations, and still don't.  Right now, the only situation that needs another rule is the kick catches.
Robert

Not sure we need another rule for that. We just need to treat hand movements that look like invalid fair catch signals as invalid fair catch signals.

Offline TxBJ

  • *
  • Posts: 390
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-6
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2018, 06:09:25 PM »
Not sure we need another rule for that. We just need to treat hand movements that look like invalid fair catch signals as invalid fair catch signals.
You seem to be alone here, posting the same opinion multiple times while everyone else believes there was no signal of any kind.

Offline OSU65

  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • FAN REACTION: +65534/-2
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2018, 04:41:43 PM »
OSU, I'm not getting your point.  Nobody is saying that a signal below the head is valid.  It isn't.  But, it would still be a signal, and any signal that isn't valid is invalid, and makes the ball dead when caught or recovered by the receiving team.  It is true that the invalid signal rule uses the language "waving." However, since that interpretation was issued many years ago, the "get away" signal has been modified by receivers to be only extending the arms, without the big waving we used to see.  Why?  There is no other reason than to try to confuse the kicking team.  It is still a "get away" signal.  While 6-5-3-V addresses a signal after the ball has hit the ground, this interpretation applies to any situation, before or after the ball has hit the ground or touched a player.  If a receiving team player makes a "get away" signal, I assure you, the coordinators will fully support their officials in declaring the ball dead when it comes into possession.

That doesn't at all address the NT/UA play.  That receiver did nothing but lift his arms to be in position to make the catch.  There was no "flailing," despite claims to the contrary.  The only issue is what happened after the catch.  By design, he made it look, for all the world, like he had made a fair catch signal and the play was over.  Kicking team players have been accustomed to easing up and not risking a foul when they see the receiver give himself up.  NT took advantage of that.  The NCAA powers have ruled this tactic - if executed this way - to be legal.  The Rules Committee will, undoubtedly, review this in the off season, on two accounts: 1) player safety (which may be dependent upon what happens during the remainder of this season), and 2) fairness and sportsmanship.  On this issue, metaphorically, the Committee has the ball, 1/10.

Robert
     

Offline OSU65

  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • FAN REACTION: +65534/-2
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2018, 05:00:43 PM »
...I had a nice written reply then magically I hit the wrong key and it disappeared out into the ether.
Trying again.
...I see something I don't understand; fair catch signal for example. I read the rules and they are pretty clear to me.
...I come to this board and it is certainly fair to say that there is a wide range of opinions on what is/isn't a fair catch signal and in fact what is/isn't an invalid signal.
...Using this site I post my confusion and people take the time to respond so I understand it a bit better, although there is a lot of different interpretations among other posters.
...I sort of came to the conclusion that the "waving" requirement for an invalid signal is not being interpreted to the "letter of the law" because of a "consensus" ( not sure about that ) amongst officials.
...Next I went to the 2018 edition of the rules and interpretations, and the 2018 Instant Play Replay Casebook. The rule still has the waving requirement to be invalid, and a waving hand over the head to be a proper fair catch signal. 
... Here is the exact cut and paste from the 2018 Replay Casebook. "Pointing is not a fair catch signal. The player must demonstrate a
waving action to signal for a fair catch." The rules and decisions book also still requires that an invalid signal include a waving gesture.

The rules writers keep including the waving requirement for a valid/invalid signal yet apparently many officials have a different standard.
I can understand why coaches/players are confused about what they can/cannot do to be within the rules.

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3406
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2018, 05:52:17 PM »
OSU,
There are three things here: 1) truly waving, 2) pointing, and 3) the "get away" signal.

Answer this question, as it relates to a potential kick receiver:  What purpose does extending ones arms to the side serve?

Do they becomes wings and he can fly?  Don't think that is it.
Does he need that for balance?  Maybe - but, if so, he might need to consider a different recreation or vocation.
Is he pretending to be a baseball umpire and signaling the runner safe?  Don't think that is it either.

Could it be that he knows a true waving signal will be acknowledged by everybody as a valid or invalid fair catch signal, so, by using extended, but stationary arms, he might fool the kicking team into relaxing and not worrying about him much, in hopes that he can catch/recover the ball and advance?  Hmmmm.  Just could be.

That's why coordinators, and even the National Coordinator, has acknowledged such actions as constituting a "get away signal," and is thus, an invalid signal, which causes the ball to become dead upon possession.

Yes, we probably do need another A.R., or even an editorial change to the rules, to eliminate that perceived loophole in the rule.  But, we'll continue to officiate it that way, regardless.

Robert

Offline OSU65

  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • FAN REACTION: +65534/-2
Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2018, 07:45:59 PM »
Curiosity. Is "Reddings List" an NCAA official list with the same standing as a rule, or an AR?

Second thing regarding the what's the purpose of the receiver's motion comment. I saw a replay where the receiver did a "by the book" move to shield his eyes from the sun. Arm was above the head, elbow was bent, and there was no waving of the hand. It was ruled a fair catch signal by the official and there was a penalty called when the player started a runback. I wonder if the official that called the penalty was looking at the ball and determined that the sun wasn't in his ( the officials ) eyes so the move must have been intended to confuse the kicking team. I'm retired so I have the luxury of spending time to try to understand things I don't understand. The fair catch signal issue is certainly not as universally agreed upon as it should be. I would say that the fair catch signal and the targeting rule/interpretation are the least standardized calls in college football today.