Thanks, that was my understanding as well. I thought all along that nothing had changed with the rule but that an interpretation had been issued based on philosophy in the form of an approved ruling.

would someone please answer my question?

Let me try again, there are only 3 signals; Fair Catch, Invalid Fair Catch and Illegal Fair Catch (which applies only to the runner). There is no such thing as a "get away signal" under the NF code.

If a player invents some sort of signal to warn his teammates to stay away from the ball, unless it meets the requirements of a Fair Catch signal, or in the judgment of the covering official could be interpreted as an invalid FC signal, it's nothing.

Now what kind of hand or arm movement might be interpreted as a possible invalid FC signal may vary between officials. As always rational, sound judgment is the deciding factor.

waltjp did, and then ajmc did.

Having not seen the signal given, I can't say for sure but it sounds like it could be an invalid FC signal. I hope it doesn't become another trend that we have to deal with.

yes they did, with a lot of "i think" and "maybe". it is probably going to happen sooner than later, we should all be on the same page.

Then maybe you should ask the Fed, instead of your fellow officials, if you don't like the way your fellow officials answer your questions.

Unfortunately, getting on the same page is pretty much impossible for a group of officials all across the country with only a message board between them. In order to get even close to a consensus we will all have to see various videos. As has been proven on here, one video will get you many different interpretations.

As a side point, where in ajmc's post does he use "maybe?" He made a very good attempt at trying to sort out a very difficult issue that does not have one good answer.