Defensive calls Illegal...?

[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?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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?

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

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

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.

[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."