It is explicitly a reviewable play.
You must not watch much football. It's not called frequently, but it does come up periodically. In fact, it was called in a game earlier in the day (Tennessee vs Alabama). That one was even weirder, because the guy who fielded the ball wasn't even the one who made the signal.
It is reviewable under two sections:
Rule 2.8.ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
Oh, but he wasn't waiving his arms. He was just trying to keep his balance. Lol.
This is the rule you guys are using to say the right call was made? It clearly says what the Iowa player did was an invalid fair catch signal. The player would therefore lose the protections of the fair catch rule, but there is nothing about that says a player cannot advance the ball after an invalid fair catch signal or that an invalid fair catch signal is reviewable. Don't be a stickler for details and go by the letter of the law unless you are going to go all the way with it. Or show us the rest of the rule that describes the other claims you are making because the above rule is not enough.
If you read the link, you'll find this additional information above which tells you the impact of the signal. I didn't include it in the original post since it was already long and I didn't think this part was in dispute. Emphasis mine.
Yep, left hand is very fair catchy. It's a shame they make those sick kids watch this garbage.
So, he did exactly what you asked and showed you the rest of the rule (that you clearly did not know), and you're still not satisfied?
If what you say is true then reconcile the subsequent (and different) statements by Dejean and Kirk.
It's usually best to leave intent out of it - do you really want referees deciding what a player meant by their arm motions? I understand your complaint that circling is not waving (not sure I agree, but it's a defensible stance), but it's not really possible to define every possible arm motion within the rules. Returners should be coached not to make any unnatural arm motions except for valid fair catch signals.
Correct. It doesn't matter if the arm motion looks anything like a fair catch signal, it still nullifies any opportunity to return the punt. I've seen returners making the baseball "safe" signal with their arms down by their waist, and the refs still blew the play dead where the ball was fielded.
Hey ref - I did not INTEND to jump offside. I did not INTEND to grab his facemask. I did not INTEND to hold that other guy. Yes - intent is not really part of the equation.
Intent is built into the rule and I didn't put it there. Saying the words "invalid fair catch signal" implies a person was trying to signal a fair catch. If you want to say there is either a fair catch signal or not and leave out intent, then I am in agreement. In this case, there was no fair catch signal.
Trying to keep his balance is the most laughable thing I heard next to KF saying it's his running motion. I your name BF?
No. "Invalid" means "not meeting the conditions of a valid fair catch signal." Intent is not mentioned or involved in the rule. The rule is "any waving signal," not "any waving signal intended to indicate a fair catch."
No, it doesn't mean that at all. You would know this, if you had any Earthly idea what you are talking about.
I_wa fans have to let this go, especially since in black and white the correct rule was applied.
No one could have confused his motions for a fair catch call. Not a single person thought he was trying to fair catch it.
Except for the person/people in the replay office that had the rule book and loads of experience.
So he was waiving his arm just to try to keep his balance as Ferentz said?
Just to be clear I hate Iowa.
They never said they were actually confused. Nobody was confused. They just had the opportunity and took it.
How do you know that? Did you poll the Minnesota punt team?
Why don't we ask the kid. It is pretty obvious he was signaling to other players where the ball was landing, which if it isn't legal, should be legal, since nobody in their right mind could confuse that with a fair catch signal. You guys just love the technicality of the rule, but if you want to get technical, the rule is a "wave" and he never waved.
Maybe I could believe that if he was waving his arm instead of pointing and circling a radius where he thought the ball would land
So a gunner running downfield in punt coverage is supposed to see DeJean and conclude, "He's not calling for a fair catch. He's just making a circle with his left arm for some other reason altogether!"
It is in my opinion. Take the guess work out. Have a universal fair catch signal. If you don't see it, go ahead and smoke the returner. It is the returners job to protect himself by signaling clearly. Everyone is happy and it takes the refs out of the game (of course they won't like that!)
Watch the video that I posted above. He pointed with one hand and waived with his other hand. No need to ask him because it was obvious what he did. And he would probably just lie like his coach did.
You truly have no way of knowing this.
My mistake. I hate to wrongly accuse anyone of being an Iowa fan, so I am sorry for that.
See, this is the problem, because he's obviously signaling something, and it's not incumbent on the coverage team to ascertain what that is.
Guilty. Football is a game of rules and technicalities. Its whole history is of gaps and exploited loopholes in the rules that football fans/players/coaches then decided we either liked (and added as official rules) or disliked (and disallowed as part of the official rules). The forward pass evolved from a technicality. A football fan who doesn't like technicalities is like a swimmer who hates water or a legislator who doesn't believe in government.
Clearly there's some disagreement on this, because many people might say that winding your arm around does, in fact, constitute a "waving" motion. It's not feasible to define by rule what exactly is and isn't "waving," so it's best for returners to just avoid making gestures outside of calling for a fair catch if they're planning to field a ball. This only comes up a handful of times out of thousands of punts in a given season, so somehow most seem to be managing.
I could get on board with this rule, but it probably wouldn't fit in this era of "player safety." As for the refs not liking it, I have to think you don't know many officials. They generally hate ambiguity because it makes their jobs hard.
The only change I would make to the rule is this:
As a Gopher fan that was more than happy to get the W, I agree. That was a stinky game. I do give some credit to the defenses. They played well. Both offenses were brutal.
They say "any waving signal" to cover any intention of spoofing the kicking team into thinking it's a fair catch. Think of the Kenny Pickett's fake slide last year, it caused the rule book to be re-written to prevent it.
