RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: yarnnelg on September 16, 2018, 08:20:37 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
(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.
-
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
-
AN in season rule change?!?!?!?! https://247sports.com/college/arkansas/Article/NCAA-North-Texas-Arkansas-touchdown-fake-fair-catch-punt-rule-change-122046089/
-
I still maintain this was nothing more or less than a missed invalid fair catch signal.
-
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"
-
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
-
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".
-
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.
-
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).
-
So the left hand flailing outward before the catch was a non-wave.
RR or no RR, that's nuts.
-
He was just getting his balance
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
Would they consider changing it now that Redding has weighed in?
-
Personally no, I think it highlights exactly the sort of play where that rule addition applies.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
Made Reddings play list and he basically said good job by the crew.
-
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”?
-
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.
(http://www.shootshescores.com/movies/Hard_Hat2.gif)
-
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.....
-
Doesn’t have to be but Wasn’t a wave anyway
-
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);
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
...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.
-
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
-
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.