Michigan v. Minnesota

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rich

I also have no problem with the signal, but I've always been a proponent of getting away from the five or six signals in the chart and using more descriptive signals, so of course I would say that.

Likewise...and I've been known to use the "hit to the head" or tripping signal when the occasion calls for it. 100 times more descriptive signals then "illegal use of arms" or a "blocking" or "pushing" signal.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by APG

Likewise...and I've been known to use the "hit to the head" or tripping signal when the occasion calls for it. 100 times more descriptive signals then "illegal use of arms" or a "blocking" or "pushing" signal.

+1
And I'm glad they were finally added to the NCAA manuals. They need to get it in the HS books now. Somebody call somebody.

[bob jenkins]

I've always found this funny. We've been pounded "only use the signals in the book. Unauthorized signals are not to be used."

Then, one year, "we've added new signals because you've been using them and they work."

But, "only use the new approved signals". Well, how will we know if other new signals might also be more appropriate if we don't use them?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Then, one year, "we've added new signals because you've been using them and they work."

+1 And what would be an example of a signal "not working"?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

+1 And what would be an example of a signal "not working"?

Well, I can think of a potential signal for "hitting the ball with a fist" that might not be appropriate.