 |
|
No its not easy to argue that.
Posted on: October 23, 2023 at 20:36:19 CT
tigerman81 MU
Posts:
23906
Member For:
17.64 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Read the following and tell me how that is in any way ambigious:
Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2.
A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3.
An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above); or
That is given after a scrimmage kick is caught beyond the neutral zone, strikes the ground or touches another player beyond the neutral zone (A.R. 6-5-3-III-V); or
That is given after a free kick is caught, strikes the ground or touches another player. [Exception: Rule 6-4-1-f]
Now that you've read that, two questions.
1. Did or did the player wave his hand? (We know the answer is yes to this)
2. Did the player " extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once."? (We also know he did not do this, which would make the motion he made an invalid signal.)
It's clear as day, crystal clear. There is no arguing it.
No the NCAA won't be clarifying this, there is no need to, its already clear. You are allowed to shade your eyes from the sun with one hand and no waving and be able to advance the ball. Other than that you can't. Period, end of story, no need for discussion.
Sometimes I really think people are just looking for a reason to blame officials for everything that happens.
This rule exists for the sake of fairness and safety. The absence of which would just lead to a bunch of players doing fake signals then defensive players letting up on pursuit and next thing you know they are running for 40 yards, or worse officials don't consider it invalid, don't consider it a fair catch and the reciever gets smoke Troy Palamalu style.
Edited by tigerman81 at 20:45:38 on 10/23/23
Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2.
A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3.
An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above); or
That is given after a scrimmage kick is caught beyond the neutral zone, strikes the ground or touches another player beyond the neutral zone (A.R. 6-5-3-III-V); or
That is given after a free kick is caught, strikes the ground or touches another player. [Exception: Rule 6-4-1-f]
Now that you've read that, two questions.
1. Did or did the player wave his hand? (We know the answer is yes to this)
2. Did the player " extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once."? (We also know he did not do this, which would make the motion he made an invalid signal.)
It's clear as day, crystal clear. There is no arguing it.
No the NCAA won't be clarifying this, there is no need to, its already clear. You are allowed to shade your eyes from the sun with one hand and no waving and be able to advance the ball. Other than that you can't. Period, end of story, no need for discussion.
Sometimes I really think people are just looking for a reason to blame officials for everything that happens.
This rule exists for the sake of fairness and safety. The absence of which would just lead to a bunch of players doing fake signals then defensive players letting up on pursuit and next thing you know they are running for 40 yards, or worse officials don't consider it invalid, don't consider it a fair catch and the reciever gets smoke Troy Palamalu style.
Edited by tigerman81 at 20:45:38 on 10/23/23
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
No its not easy to argue that. - tigerman81 MU - 10/23 20:36:19
-