Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
All I am trying to say is whether it is "approved" or not is not a good reason to use it or not in my opinion. If that was the case we would never have a "kick" signal. I never heard anyone complain when this signal was used before the NF and CCA adopted it. That was rarely used too, but for some reason every officials that had any experience used it. There are a lot of things the NF never talks about or explains what we should do. So to be caught up on things that are "approved" is not looking at the bigger picture.
|
Once again, I don't really disagree with most of your overall statements. I'm certainly not obsessed with the topic, or losing my overall perspective. (Although I'm sure that's not the case with other subjects, however...) I'm just trying to get a handle on where the line is between doing everything "by the book", and doing your own thing. I guess I've been taught enough to become uncomfortable using "unapproved" signals on a regular basis. But I have no problem when a ball goes into the backcourt, and a coach stands up and says, "Hey!...", I'll give the foul tip signal and say, "#14 touched it last." There was a question and I communicated an answer. But should we give that signal every time the ball is tipped into the backcourt? How close to the line does the player need to be for us to show the "2" signal vs. the "3"? If 1" is close enough, is 3" far enough away to not need it, or is it 5"? Why even bother; shouldn't the table know that it's a "3" if we signal it, or it's not? How about the official that gave the safe sign on the drive to communicate there was no foul? Would you incorporate that signal into your game? I know I'm not; but why is that "unapproved" signal not going to catch on (I hope), but others are ok?
Again, if there is an unusual situation or a question arises where something needs to be communicated, by all means, communicate it. I guess I feel that just because a play is close doesn't make it unusual, therefore we should stick to the "approved" signals.
Uh, oh...does this put me in the old fuddy-duddy camp?