Quote:
Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
... However let me play the devils advocate for a minute. We are now adding a signal that is clearly not in the mechanics manual. So if it is Ok to do this, then we are opening the door for a signal to describe the action that caused every foul we call. Besides the fact that reporting a foul would start to look like a mime scene, the fact of the matter is that the "hook" signal was used to convey the action that caused the foul.
|
I beg to differ. When I add some extra signals for communication, it only follows the prescribed signal and only in infrequent cases where I feel some extra information may defuse a potential situation. If it crept into every signal and replace the prescribed signals then it would be a big problem and would lose it's effectiveness.
In these cases, the infraction is still a foul and the foul is still a block/hold/push/etc. and should be indicated as such. Only then should the extra be added...not in place of the defined signals.
Quote:
|
Is this not like using the traveling signal to convey the action of the violation that we are talking about in this thread.
|
I don't think so. One is essentially adding to the description of the infraction for increased understanding. The other is indicating an entirely different infraction...a sure recipe for confusion and misunderstanding. That is what we have today.
I would suggest that calling this traveling is no better then stating/signaling a foul as "a reach" or "over-the-back". Just as there are no such infractions, there is no travelling on a throwin.
Quote:
|
I'm not trying to rile you up, just trying to provide all aspects of thought in this discussion.
|
No problem. I certainly enjoy a good debate that sticks to the topic rather than targeting the participants as often is the case here.