Most scouting films have sound. You would not believe the comments we hear from film crews and coaches on the scout tapes(DVDs) it is hilarious sometimes.

We get scouting tapes too, but those are comments from the press box and not only the field. Or better yet you hear the fans and other people standing near the camera. You usually do not hear things directly on the field or the sideline for that matter.

Peace

I actually had a disconcerting signals in a game this year. I was FJ and back about 18 yards, and even I clearly heard it. The O jumped offside at the signal (a hut from the NT) and flags went (not mine).
I ran in to ask the others if they had heard the hut from the NT and they all agreed that he had done it to draw the FS.
No real problem and no discussion - most teams around here are quiet on defense which would make it obvious if they try something like this.

I suggest the adoption of words reserved to teams A & B, respectively. Just a couple of short lists of words the other team couldn't use at the line.

And then we, as officials, would have to discern exactly what word was said by a player who has a mouth full of a mouth guard? No, thank you.

We already have lists. They are in the mind of, "the covering official" in whom NF: 1-1-6 provides the authority, "to rule promptly and in the spirit of good sportsmanship" and whose decisions, "are final in all matters pertaining to the game.".

Common sense would suggest that the way for patricipants to insure they are compliant, would be to stay as far away as possible from from what might be on that list, by behaving themselves. Risk versus reward applies, and that is how it should be considered.

Easier than detecting whether a signal was disconcerting. Remember, the players are listening for those words too, so it's not like your job would be any harder than theirs. If you didn't hear a certain word, they didn't hear it either.

Robert

Are you serious Robert? The "disconcerting" sounds may or may not be words at all.

Then (under my proposal) they wouldn't be illegal, unless they were drowning out the other team's signals.

So then it just goes back to the official's judgment on whether B was able to drown out A's signals enough for it to be a foul. How exactly is that any better than the current rule?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Because officials are also required to determine whether B is trying to confuse A by imitating their signals. But because there's no rule reserving certain words to either team, you don't know whether when B1 calls "shift" he's trying to get team A to shift, or when he calls "go" he's trying to get them to snap the ball, or whether he's just giving a signal to team B.

Robert

And it's not always easy to determine who said "shift" or "go". Unless you are watching the QB's mouth (which nobody should be doing), you can't tell if it's coming from him or one of the defenders.

Of course. So now tell me how adopting reserved words for either team would make the "disconcerting signals" call any harder than it is now. True, it doesn't make it easier for you to tell who's saying what, but it shouldn't make it any harder, either.

Did you think I was proposing making this a strict liability thing where any utterance of the word at any volume by the wrong team would be a foul? If so, sorry; I meant it only as a way to clarify situations where they were talking loudly enough to make confusion a possibility.

My suggestion doesn't come from nowhere. I'd read decades ago of a convention supposedly adopted in Ivy League football where the defense was allowed to say only "move" at the line. I don't know whether that was an unenforced agreement between teams, or an interpretation the officials in league games were supposed to use in making a "disconcerting signals" call.

Robert

There goes the neighborhood!