Fair Catch signal question.

[CT1]

I’ve never seen the “get-away” signal while the kick is still in flight, as in the OP.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

I’ve never seen the “get-away” signal while the kick is still in flight, as in the OP.

Me neither.

Peace

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Me neither.

Peace

Oh, I have....generally a shorter kick that looks like it will fall near a blocker running down with a gunner.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Oh, I have....generally a shorter kick that looks like it will fall near a blocker running down with a gunner.

I am sure it has happened somewhere, but usually when the returner is clearly not getting the ball and it is rolling around on the ground. But these are high school kids we are talking about.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am sure it has happened somewhere, but usually when the returner is clearly not getting the ball and it is rolling around on the ground. But these are high school kids we are talking about.

Maybe, but last year I saw a Sussex Stags adult player blatantly, ridiculously ignore a "Poison!" call from the bench to fruitlessly play a short punt, resulting in team K's getting possession after his touch of it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Maybe, but last year I saw a Sussex Stags adult player blatantly, ridiculously ignore a "Poison!" call from the bench to fruitlessly play a short punt, resulting in team K's getting possession after his touch of it.

OK. I did not realize simply yelling "Poison" killed the play.

My point is we have for years allowed players to give a signal to "get away" from the ball and only when college put in a rule that kills the play (and does not make it a penalty BTW), we have this discussion. The only time this was ever a penalty is if he mirrored or looked like a fair catch signal. I see nothing here that changes my mind on that fact. Again nothing wrong if someone or some state decides that needs to change, but my point is it does not appear it is that explicit. The play in question that was referenced is not the real world situation that many see. And if they want to change the ruling, just make that clear to all. But again we have a basketball rule changed for something that someone was convinced was illegal but no one ever saw or ruled that way in the first place. So the NF ties themselves in knots often.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK. I did not realize simply yelling "Poison" killed the play.

Oh. I thought you meant that high school kids needed to be told stuff early & often!

[MTUMP]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK. I did not realize simply yelling "Poison" killed the play.

My point is we have for years allowed players to give a signal to "get away" from the ball and only when college put in a rule that kills the play .....

JR: I understand your point...and agree that we don't get nit-picky on this. However, my point was that the Case Book (6-5-7) states the extension of both arms and waiving them in over the head (time out signal) or in front of the body (incomplete signal) - without extending and waiving one hand over the head - is invalid. There is alot of detail in the rule book of invalid signals, even describing methods to shade they eyes.....To just ignore that based on "We've never called that" seems short sided.

Would more detail from NF be warranted? Perhaps, but until then, my crew will be continue to practice preventative officiating in reminding the kick returner to use a legal signal should he want a fair catch.