Get Away Signal
 

I cannot remember the game and was listening on the radio, so I did not see it, but this is what the announcers described:

The receiver gave a "get away from the ball" signal on a short punt, then fielded the ball on a bounce and started running. The whistle sounded and a flag was thrown. The Referee gave the following announcement (to the best of my memory), "There is no foul for delay of the game, but by rule the ball is dead immediately upon possession when a get away signal is given."

First time I have seen this. Is it a relatively new rule?

I found it in about 10 seconds in the NCAA book online.

Google search for: NCAA football rules. First link is the PDF rulebook. Search that for "get away".

It's a good rule and actually makes sense.

That was the Music City Bowl - that was a good job by the crew communicating and not enforcing a penalty on that play. I thought that the CUSA crew did a good job in that game. The R did an especially good job on the microphone with his explanations (including the play in question).

i am interested to hear how officials using fed rules handle this same situation? would you kill the play as soon as the player has possession of the ball? would you let the play continue? would like to hear different views on this.

There are only 3 types of Fair Catch signals defined in the NF code; Valid, Invalid and Illegal. The issue becomes where is the line between valid and invalid, and much as we'd like, it's not a straight line.

The receiver gets to decide when there will be a signal, the kickers are responsible to respect the signal when it's given correctly. Often the issue boils down to was the signal given clear enough to convey the receiver's intention and was it given so that the kicker had a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.

I would suggest that the vast majority of technically invald signals are not flagged because the kickers recognized what the receiver's intent was, and had enough time to properly respond and avoid any contact. Most smart officials are quick to recognize the signal as valid, since the intended message was received by the party it was directed to, and kill the play immediately avoiding most problems.

The difficulty arises when there is contact. Then the technicality of the signal, and the time frame in which it was given, may be held to a more precise level and a judgment has to be made whether the signal was actually sufficient, or not. Either way there is likely a flag, the question becomes is it for KCI or an Invalid Signal, which is a judgment unique to each situation.

My crew has never had an invalid signal. My BJ will instruct the deep receiver as to what a proper fair catch signal is each and every time we are in a punt situation.

The "no get away" signal is a brand new ncaa rule this year.

We had one a few years ago. The BJ gave good instructions but the receiver's hand never got above his chest. Sometimes they just won't do it right, no matter how much help we give them.

if you have a situation in high school football under fed rules where the returner gives that "get away" signal, and then retrieves the ball and starts to run what would you call? i would like to hear different opinions on this exact situation.

I think I'd get out of his way. As long as his 'get-away' signal couldn't be mistaken for a fair catch signal I have nothing. Play on.

We had this occur. The kicking team peeled away like a fair catch signal had been given. Out wing saw this and killed it. R's ball at spot of securing possesion.

Did you treat it as an invalid fair catch signal?

Thanks for recognizing and answering the question!!!

the WHAT? :D

The rule did not change, however the AR as written in 2007 changed in 2008 to now classify the "get away" signal as an invalid signal and therefore the ball becomes dead when recovered by any team as it normally would.

I am sure alot on here will not like what we did.

We awarded R first down at the spot in which they secured possession (end of the kick), we did not penalize R for an invalid fair catch and advancing the ball. We felt that since K believed the signal to be a fair catch signal, peeled away from the receiver and stopped, the proper call was to kill the play and not penalize. We informed both coaches that an invalid signal was given and where the ball was going to be placed. Neither had a problem with it.

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.