View Single Post
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 11, 2010, 07:26am
mbyron mbyron is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Giving a signal does clarify what he saw and why he did not make the call. It might not be authorized, but we used to give a single for kicking the ball and that was at one time not authorized, but still illegal to kick the ball.
This remark pertains to the "alligator chop" to signal that the official saw a block rather than a foul.

I know that this topic has been discussed, but I wanted to respond to this thought. NFHS will not authorize the chop, because in the season it did so the number of "blops" (block/chop?) or foul/no-foul double calls would increase 100-fold.

It's one thing if one official passes on a foul and another calls it. It's quite another to have conflicting signals on a play. The latter looks bad, IMO.

Even apart from the question of whether we need a signal for a no-call, for this reason using the "chop" is bad mechanics.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote