Disconcerting Act?
 

So, what kinds of acts would you consider a disconcerting "act?"

I was told by a friend of a high school game this past weekend in which all the defensive linemen on a certain signal all did a belly flop. It caused the offense to jump and the crew ruled a false start by the offense.

Any thoughts?

Same deal. That's not football.

You're missing the simplicity of the current rule. Whether or not any actions or words are judged to violate the rules is entirely and completely deterrmined by the covering official, alone. That's why, without a really thorough understanding of what that particular official may consider over the line, it's really foolish to risk being silly.

But why should that official have to or be allowed to make that judgement? It's like stationing a policeman at an uncontrolled intersection (no signs, no rules as to who would have the right of way) to make judgements on his own as opposed to having a yield sign or rule indicating who has the right of way. In this case, it's a verbal right of way. You put a stop sign around certain words, so that if someone goes into that intersection and interferes with cross traffic, you'd know who was at fault.

Robert

What, like if you get the other team laughing, they forget how to play? I wouldn't consider that disconcerting in a way that would violate that rule.

Robert, you're fighting the inevitable. The rules makers had to establish a point of FINAL decision making, and did so by providing that authority to game officials. Of course game officials can be held accountable for their decisions, but it is THEIR judgments that have been deemed FINAL.

Without that clarification there would be never ending disputes and silly arguments. You have to keep reminding yourself, we are involved in a GAME, not something worthy of, or intended for, endless debate.

You seem to approach this as if I'm from outer space. I'm sure you don't approach the rest of the game this way.

Of course the referee's judgment is final, but going by the logic you seem to be using on this question, why have a rule book at all? Why not just say, judge what's fair in football, and leave it to the officials at that?

Or, to take a less extreme example, why do they have definitions for such acts as hurdling (to take a recently discussed case)? Sure, they could have left the term undefined, but they chose to clarify and thereby make the related rule more particular.

I don't see why the same sort of clarif'n wouldn't improve the situation w.r.t. disconcerting signals. If a player of one team may be trying to make a player of the other team think a signal has been given to their team to do something such as snap the ball, but it could just as well be the case that the signal was a legitimate one the player who was saying it intended for his own team, why would it not be an improvement to reserve certain words for one side or the other? Would it not reduce the number of unclear situations wherein you might otherwise rule incorrectly on the intention of one team or another?

It's like with intentional grounding. If it were left entirely to officials' judgment as to whether a pass was thrown with the intention of its being incomplete, that would make for a harder call than it is when the additional requirement is included that it not be in the direction of an eligible receiver.

So why are you writing as if I'm making some ridiculous argument?

Robert

Take a deep breath Robert, there is a definition for the word disconcerting. The point is that it has been decided that it is the covering official's judgement ALONE as to what constitutes disconcerting. Leaving such decisions in the hands of game officials has worked exceedingly well for over 100 years.

The ambiguity built into those decisions is largely based on experience with the soundness, impartiality and rationality of judgments made by game officials over the decades. Since it clearly isn't broke, there's really no need to tinker trying to fix anything.

Whenever a team, or a player, chooses to make some sort of signal, sound or otherwise indication that could reasonably be judged to be a disconcerting factor, they would be well advised to abandon that device for something that doesn't offer multiple interpretations. What we do isn't rocket science nor should we try and over complicate it. When a team, or player, insists on doing or saying something that can be interpreted different ways, they assume the risk of possible misinterpretation.

Another example of why officials should have coaching experience. You don't make up new signals during a game. If each team has prearranged the same signal word, something's got to give. I don't see why this should be any more controversial than having the teams wear contrasting colors.

Robert

I agree with you 100%. Even more critical though is I think young coaches should get their officials license and work some junior high or freshman games. Many officials have played or coached. Most coaches have never officiated.

Why only young coaches? Why does it matter if the first year coach is 25 or 45?