Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals

[yarnnelg]

North Texas punt return man catches the punt at the 10 and stands there. Kickers flow past. Some head for the bench. Return man goes 90 yards untouched. Never made a fair catch signal.

[mostripes]

I'd be curious to see a better video of the situation.  From the short piece I was able to see on sportscenter after the game, it looks like the kick returner gave some kind of signal in an attempt to fool the coverage team.  It appeared like he waves an arm in front of his body horizontally, but there wasn't much camera coverage on the returner specifically.     

[Morningrise]

North Texas punt return man catches the punt at the 10 and stands there. Kickers flow past. Some head for the bench. Return man goes 90 yards untouched. Never made a fair catch signal.

Here's the untold truth: A gunner will very often not see the fair catch signal. He'll be getting blocked and the blocker will be between them and the receiver during that 0.5 seconds when a signal happens, or he'll be getting shoved and not facing the receiver during the crucial 0.5 seconds. A gunner cannot assume that, if he didn't personally witness the signal, it must not have happened. Like a deaf player who can't hear the whistle, a gunner often has to go by the actions of other players, and trust that if they appear to be relaxing, it's because the play is truly over.

In this North Texas player, each gunner naturally assumed that there must have been a signal he didn't see. A perfectly understandable assumption. Like I said, a gunner who DIDN'T stop playing in this situation would soon find himself ejected. If this fake fair catch tactic becomes commonplace, it's going to put gunners in an impossible situation, and I don't believe it will be good for the game.

I saw someone suggest that maybe a deep official could toss a different-colored flag when he sees a valid or invalid signal. That way a gunner can see the flag lying on the ground even if he wasn't able to see the signal. An interesting workaround.

[dvasques]

Last NFL season a Cowboys returner tried the same thing. Gunners didn't see and didn't interfere. He caught the ball just like this North Texas player did, then started running.
Officials blew the play dead as if the returner had given up on the play. And I believe this is the fair thing to do.

Kalle and other international officials can calrify but I believe this is the way IAFOA wants it done also

[bama_stripes]

(I didn’t want to post this earlier because it seemed so improbable, but:)

Two weeks ago one of our crews had a HS returner who caught the punt, then stood there looking at the BJ as if he had no idea whether to scratch his watch or wind his azz while the gunners bore down on him with malice aforethought.

The BJ made the humane decision to blow an “intentional IW” in order to protect the kid.  Our association had a spirited discussion during our next meeting, and decided that he was correct, since the possibility of a returner doing that on purpose was so remote.

[ElvisLives]

Just to throw some fact into the discussion, the NT coach fully disclosed this play to the crew prior to the game, so they knew the receiver was ‘deking’ the kicking team.  The receiver executed the ‘deke’ perfectly, especially with the several bounces on the balls of his feet, and then the casual walk away.  The rest of the team did their part, and off he went.
BTW, every UA punt after that was fair caught (with some “friendly” jostling by UA to let him know they would not be fooled again).
I am fairly certain Shaw does not like this tactic, but current rules/interpretations don’t prohibit it.

Yet.  Stay tuned.

Robert

[TXMike]

AN in season rule change?!?!?!?!    https://247sports.com/college/arkansas/Article/NCAA-North-Texas-Arkansas-touchdown-fake-fair-catch-punt-rule-change-122046089/

[NoVaBJ]

I still maintain this was nothing more or less than a missed invalid fair catch signal.

[Morningrise]

AN in season rule change?!?!?!?!    https://247sports.com/college/arkansas/Article/NCAA-North-Texas-Arkansas-touchdown-fake-fair-catch-punt-rule-change-122046089/

https://twitter.com/tommycraftespn/status/1041808198859202560

"Was told earlier today that NCAA FB Rules committee is considering a rule amendment possibly as soon as this weekend to close any loophole that would allow a Punt Return similar to UNT’s 90 yd score vs ARK"

A rule amendment? Most likely what we'll get instead is a bulletin "interpretation"

[ElvisLives]

https://twitter.com/tommycraftespn/status/1041808198859202560
A rule amendment? Most likely what we'll get instead is a bulletin "interpretation"

No real difference.  Any such official interpretation becomes the rule.
I expect to see it.  But, you never know.

Robert

[OSU65]

Regarding the fair catch rule.

The issue is that no one wants a player to get hurt during a fair catch. Reading all of the comments by the experienced officials on this board it is obvious that the fair catch signal is subject to a lot of interpretation, although by the letter of the "law" it is pretty specific.
A previous post pointed out that the gunners may or may not see the signal. In addition, the receiver might try to pull a trick play by putting his arms in the wave off position, but not waving them. Players are ask to run at full speed and then determine if the receivers arm was above the shoulders, was it waving, was the receiver just shading his eyes, were both arms down pointing at the ball, but not waving, etc. 

It seems like a very simple fix would avoid all of this confusion. Since an official will be making the ultimate decision regarding the signal why not have an approved signal that the official can make if in his opinion he saw a fair catch signal. There are signals for touchdowns, incomplete passes, etc, etc. How difficult would it be to simply have an official signal that the official has determined that a fair catch signal has been made. I'm not sure what it would be but the folks that make the rules ought to be able to figure one out. This would eliminate a lot of confusion about it being a valid signal, the gunners not seeing the signal, etc.

I guess one could make the point that if it isn't broken, don't fix it, but when experienced officials have such a wide range of opinions on a call it is obvious to me that something needs to be done to standardize the rule interpretation. If one coach see ways to legally game the system other coaches will catch on and come up with other ingenious ways to do the same. As Barney Fife used to say when seeing a potential problem, "nip it, nip it in the bud".

[OSU65]

Larry Brown Sports on the N Texas play.

Here’s why the play should not be allowed.

Punt returns and kick returns are among the most dangerous plays in football. Players are running at full speed and collisions happen at all angles, which can potentially result in severe injuries. Football rules have evolved to try and make these plays more safe. On punt returns, returners are allowed to signal for a fair catch, which prevents them from advancing the ball, but more importantly, prevents them from being hit.

Players on the punt coverage teams — the gunners — are instructed not to hit a player who has called for a fair catch to avoid being penalized. If there is any doubt about whether a returner called for fair catch, these players are operating on good faith by not hitting the returner. That good faith should not be abused and taken advantage of in the way North Texas did.

If there is ever confusion about whether a fair catch was called, you want players erring on the side of caution and player safety by showing restraint and not hitting a vulnerable punt returner. By allowing teams to toy with this good faith through fakes, you are incentivizing punt coverage teams to hit the punt returner in cases of doubt. This could also lead to retribution hits as well. These types of hits could lead to serious injuries, which is what the sport is trying to eliminate.

This sort of play should never have been conceived, practiced, or used by North Texas, and it shouldn’t be allowed. The referees on the field should not have allowed it. The NCAA needs to step up immediately and ban the play if they care about player safety as much as they claim to.

[refbuz]

So, this is on the CFO's plays of the week video that just came out and RR said its LEGAL, because the returner doesn't do anything to indicate that the play was "over" (i.e. toss the ball to an official or put the ball down).

[NoVaBJ]

So the left hand flailing outward before the catch was a non-wave.

RR or no RR, that's nuts.

[TXMike]

He was just getting his balance

[SCline]

It’d be interesting to implement something similar to the CFL “no Yards” foul. No fair catches are allowed but K must give R a 5 yard halo. It would significantly alter the punt play but I think it would eliminate the “timing” of the hit to coincide with the catch and would possibly be safer.

[Kalle]

It’d be interesting to implement something similar to the CFL “no Yards” foul. No fair catches are allowed but K must give R a 5 yard halo. It would significantly alter the punt play but I think it would eliminate the “timing” of the hit to coincide with the catch and would possibly be safer.

NCAA used to have a halo but it has been first removed and then replaced with the current space in front. I doubt that the halo returns any time soon.

[goodgrr]

Kalle and other international officials can calrify but I believe this is the way IAFOA wants it done also

Indeed, IFAF adds:
Rule 4-1-3-s states the ball is dead "When all players in the vicinity of the ball stop playing and/or believe it to be dead."

[TXMike]

Would they consider changing it now that Redding has weighed in?

[goodgrr]

Personally no, I think it highlights exactly the sort of play where that rule addition applies.

[bbeagle]

Indeed, IFAF adds:
Rule 4-1-3-s states the ball is dead "When all players in the vicinity of the ball stop playing and/or believe it to be dead."

But not ALL players in vicinity of the ball believed it to be dead or stopped playing. The BALL CARRIER knew it was a live ball and was playing by deceiving his opponents.

[Grant - AR]

But not ALL players in vicinity of the ball believed it to be dead or stopped playing. The BALL CARRIER knew it was a live ball and was playing by deceiving his opponents.

That would also be the case in the "wrong tee/ball" play.  The offense tricks the defense into thinking the ball is dead...and that play isn't legal.  What is the difference in this play that would make it legal?

[ElvisLives]

That would also be the case in the "wrong tee/ball" play.  The offense tricks the defense into thinking the ball is dead...and that play isn't legal.  What is the difference in this play that would make it legal?

Not at all saying this should be legal, but the difference you ask about is the "prop" being used in the "wrong tee" play, and the communication with the sideline in the "wrong ball" play.  A somewhat blurry distinction, yes.  But, I have experience with a team attempting a play in which the QB, in a shotgun formation, calling signals, suddenly raised up, turned and started walking briskly toward his team's sideline, shouting and gesturing with his arms.  It wasn't the "wrong ball" conversation, but something having to do with confusion about the play to being run (i.e., "Coach what's the play?").  As I watched this unfold, I recalled a similar thing happening to PAC 10 R Land Clark (now in the NFL) the previous year, and he flagged it for UNS, and was judged by Redding to be correct.  So, I flagged it, as well, and also got a correct call judgment (by my coordinator and Redding). (FYI, they did snap the ball and run a play in both instances, for a live-ball foul.)  However, Redding pointed out that what made this UNS was the gesturing.  Had he only turned and moved (walked, trotted, or run) toward his sideline, without any sort of hand gestures, it would have been legal.
The "deke and run" play would seem to be like the scenario in which the QB turns and moves toward his sideline without making any gestures, with regard to legality.  They both fit in the same suit with regard to sportsmanship - questionable, but, technically, legal, since they don't use props or communication with the sideline.  Perhaps that is the logic used by Redding and Shaw for this current ruling.  I can't say.

But, the biggest difference is how each play relates to player safety.  The "wrong tee" or "wrong ball" don't affect player safety anywhere nearly the way the "deke and run" does.  Now that we've all been told this action by the receiver is legal, kicking teams will err on THEIR side - not the side of safety -  and will clobber the receiver, if they have any doubt about the possibility of the receiver attempting to advance after the catch.  They'll take 15 yards, if it prevents a TD.  And I guarantee you, their special teams' coaches will tell them to make it worth the 15 yards (and even a possible DQ), so they'll think twice about doing again.

And that is going to get somebody hurt.

I hope the committee hears these concerns, and takes action on this for 2019, if not sooner.  But, I fear someone will get badly hurt before they take any action.

Robert

[NoVaBJ]

He was just getting his balance

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.

[copedaddy]

Made Reddings play list and he basically said good job by the crew.