Fair Catch or not?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

My whole point was: if the signal is being given so late that the signaller doesn't have time to meet the requirements of 2-7-2, and instead he does a single, chin-high wave, then he isn't afforded the normal post-touching protection.

The quickie/single wave signal I was talking about is, by definition, invalid.

Yes, Team A could still commit a personal or flagrant foul. But if it's a "normal/clean" hit, then there shouldn't be a foul.

So it doesn't matter when the vaild signal is given?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So it doesn't matter when the valid signal is given?

Exactly. If R gives a valid signal and is then hit, that's a PF. If he gives an invalid signal (too low, not enough waves, etc. etc.), then it is not a fair catch, there's no flag for PF, and we probably have a flag for invalid signal.

But there's simply no place for chyme's idea of time limits on a valid signal.

[chymechowder]

If you look at my posts, you'll see that I was always describing an invalid signal (even though I didn't specify that).

"single wave"
"ambiguous signal"

I wasn't trying to say that there should be a time window for a VALID signal.

I should have been more clear on that and actually specified invalid signal. What threw me was that I thought you were saying that so long as he gives any signal before touching the ball, then he's protected.

Sorry for the confusion and debating something over which we don't disagree, haha.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

If you look at my posts, you'll see that I was always describing an invalid signal (even though I didn't specify that).

"single wave"
"ambiguous signal"

I wasn't trying to say that there should be a time window for a VALID signal.

I should have been more clear on that and actually specified invalid signal. What threw me was that I thought you were saying that so long as he gives any signal before touching the ball, then he's protected.

Sorry for the confusion and debating something over which we don't disagree, haha.

OK, I'll go along with that. Though in my first post in the thread I said "signals fair catch," which of course refers to a valid signal. Why would anyone think that an invalid signal conferred any protection on R?

[chymechowder]

Semantic disconnect on my end from the get-go.

"Signals fair catch": I didn't take that as necessarily being a valid signal. Just that the receiver was signalling.

"Otherwise the signal is valid": Took that as you saying the ONLY way a signal can be invalid is if it comes after catch/muff/ground touching.

Add both of those to the fact that initially I forgot to look up the definitions in Rule 2, haha.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

"Otherwise the signal is valid": Took that as you saying the ONLY way a signal can be invalid is if it comes after catch/muff/ground touching.

You're right: my statement was misleading. Of course there are other ways to make an invalid signal (two arms, not high enough, etc.). I apologize.