Defensive calls Illegal...?

[jjrye22]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

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.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

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.

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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

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.