reviewable or not

[MJT]

Is this play reviewable or not? Please give a rule reference.  4-8 at the A20. The Team B receiver clearly signals for a fair catch but the officials miss the fair catch signal. The receiver advances the ball for a touchdown. Can this be reviewed and corrected?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Is this play reviewable or not? Please give a rule reference.  4-8 at the A20. The Team B receiver clearly signals for a fair catch but the officials miss the fair catch signal. The receiver advances the ball for a touchdown. Can this be reviewed and corrected?

This issue was discussed, I believe on this board about 18 months ago, and the answer then was then no.  I believe that it's still no.  Although an obvious officiating error, that could easily be corrected via IR, it's not listed in either Rule 12, or the Rule 12 AR's.

[El Macman]

Is this play reviewable or not? Please give a rule reference.  4-8 at the A20. The Team B receiver clearly signals for a fair catch but the officials miss the fair catch signal. The receiver advances the ball for a touchdown. Can this be reviewed and corrected?

No, because the validity of a fair catch signal is a pure judgment call (although, admittedly, there are times when it is pretty damned obvious), and judgment is not supposed to be reviewable. In theory, only matters of fact are supposed to be reviewable.

 

[ref6983]

Is this play reviewable or not? Please give a rule reference.  4-8 at the A20. The Team B receiver clearly signals for a fair catch but the officials miss the fair catch signal. The receiver advances the ball for a touchdown. Can this be reviewed and corrected?

After this happened in a game several years ago they added egregious errors (12-3-6) to the list of reviewable plays. This falls under that section and is reviewable.

[jg-me]

It is also reviewable under 12-3-3-c, live ball not declared dead while in possession of ball carrier.

[6310 Forever]

This exact play occurred in the UConn vs. Louisville game, which prompted the 'egregious error' section in Rule 12.  100% reviewable.

[MJT]

Tough way to miss it on a test. There is no list of the egregious rules, and I had not heard of that one before. Now I do so I'll never miss it again! Thanks guys!!!! 

[fearlessleader]

No, because the validity of a fair catch signal is a pure judgment call (although, admittedly, there are times when it is pretty damned obvious), and judgment is not supposed to be reviewable. In theory, only matters of fact are supposed to be reviewable.

 

Actually, validity would be a non-issue here since ANY waving signal would cause the ball to become dead when possessed.

[El Macman]

Actually, validity would be a non-issue here since ANY waving signal would cause the ball to become dead when possessed.

So, what if the on-field officials consciously make the judgment that there was no signal, i.e it was an eye-shading or just a arm movement to maintain balance? If the RO pages, and the R goes to the headset and tells the RO that they ruled no signal on the field, then the RO wants to get involved because he thinks its an egregious error? BS.
Now, if the R says that nobody saw a signal or arm movement any kind when, in fact, there was an obvious, clear signal, well, OK.
Judgment is an issue.

[fearlessleader]

So, what if the on-field officials consciously make the judgment that there was no signal, i.e it was an eye-shading or just a arm movement to maintain balance? If the RO pages, and the R goes to the headset and tells the RO that they ruled no signal on the field, then the RO wants to get involved because he thinks its an egregious error? BS.
Now, if the R says that nobody saw a signal or arm movement any kind when, in fact, there was an obvious, clear signal, well, OK.
Judgment is an issue.

Just for clarification regarding the "validity" of a signal, I was thinking in terms of the old valid/invalid thing.   I would agree with the two examples above of whether or not replay should get involved.

[El Macman]

Just for clarification regarding the "validity" of a signal, I was thinking in terms of the old valid/invalid thing.   I would agree with the two examples above of whether or not replay should get involved.

I used the term 'validity' because it implies that the act was observed, ie., it was valid, invalid, or nothing, but it was seen. That may not have been clear. Regardless, it really needs to be something HUGE for an RO to get involved in something that is fundamentally a ruling of judgment.

[DD]

From interpretations FI 100:

IX. During Team A’s punt, B45 clearly signals for a fair catch. The ball
hits the ground and bounces to B45, who returns it for an apparent
touchdown. The officials on the field do not declare the ball dead
when B45 recovers it. RULING: Not reviewable. However, the
replay official may correct an egregious error.

[ref6983]

From interpretations FI 100:

IX. During Team A’s punt, B45 clearly signals for a fair catch. The ball
hits the ground and bounces to B45, who returns it for an apparent
touchdown. The officials on the field do not declare the ball dead
when B45 recovers it. RULING: Not reviewable. However, the
replay official may correct an egregious error.

Correct...a receiver that signals and then advances five yards would not be reviewable. One that runs 60 yards for a touchdown would be.