Defensive calls Illegal...?

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

[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."