[ajmc]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Yes. Fans have expressed a desire to know, and the relevant authorities have weighed the pros and cons and decided that this is a reasonable and necessary request. Asked and answered.
And, by weighing the stated desires of spectators and agreeing to meet those desires, the relevant authorities have equally established the validity of announcements. Asked and answered.
This is conflating taking corrective and potentially punitive action with the mere act of identifying a foul. You make a very good suggestion - it's just wholly irrelevant to the question at hand.

You continually ask for someone to say why this is necessary, when multiple people have said exactly that. It is plainly obvious that you simply disagree with the result and are masking that disagreement by falsely saying that no one has provided justification. When in reality, since relevant authorities have decided that this is useful information for spectators, I submit the burden of proof is on *you*. Why ISN'T this acceptable or wise to do so? Why would it NOT be relevant?

I await your answer - hopefully in the form of a statement with reasons addressing those points rather than simply more questions of the same variety, over and over and over again.

I'll try my best. In other words, Scrounge, YOU don't have an answer. Which is fine, but shouting a stupid answer doesn't make it any smarter. "Because relevant authorities said so" isn't any more instructional than, "Because everyone else is doing so", but if that's all YOU can come up with, that's all you've got.

I didn't ask IF, or suggest THAT it wasn't allowable, I asked if there was any rational reason WHY it was changed to allowable. I've indicated why I think it shouldn't have been changed.

I've looked carefully at the NFHS (2016-2017) Game Official's Manual
instructions for "Administering Penalties" for both 4-Man Pg 73 & 74 (Referee) and 5-Man Pg 49 & 50 (Referee) and find NOTHING providing ANYTHING about announcements to ANYBODY, so I'm not really sure which "relevant authorities" you are referring to.

I Understand, and accept, that what you may do locally is decided locally and have no issue with that, I simply asked if there was a logical reason for doing so. Thus far I've yet to hear or read one.