Texas State Championships Notes:“Receiver Gave an Invalid Fair Catch Signal”

By Roman Alacron From Friday Night Glory

During Shiner’s matchup with Muenster, a controversial special teams ruling briefly stole the spotlight.

Shiner returner Tyler Harvey settled under a kick and returned it out to the 43-yard line. Shortly after, officials initiated a review. At first, it appeared the review would determine the spot of the ball, but instead, it centered on whether Harvey had given a fair catch signal.

The confusion stemmed from the fact that it didn’t look remotely like a fair catch.

As the broadcast crew correctly noted, a legal fair catch signal requires the receiver’s arm to be raised above the shoulder. Harvey’s arm was clearly below his shoulder, and there was no obvious waving motion indicating an attempt to signal for a fair catch. Despite that, replay referee Nelson Barnes ruled that Harvey had given an invalid fair catch signal due to what was described as a “demonstrative movement of the arms.”

The ruling sent Shiner back to its own 15-yard line, completely deflating the Comanches’ momentum. That drive stalled, and Shiner was forced to punt.

Why Was the Play Even Reviewable?

There was noticeable frustration on the sidelines over the review itself. However, when the UIL implemented instant replay for championship games in 2018, it published a replay handbook outlining what plays are subject to review.

Under Article 4, reviewable plays involving kicks include:

• Receiving team advancing after a fair catch signal

Because of this provision, the AAC replay officials were within their authority to initiate a review, even though no penalty was called on the field.

What Constitutes an Invalid Fair Catch?

NCAA rules define a legal fair catch signal as:

“A signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled their intention by extending one hand only clearly above their head and waving that hand from side to side of their body more than once.”

Those criteria were not met.

That leads to the concept of an invalid fair catch signal. Rule 2, Section 8, Article 3(b) states that an invalid signal includes:

“Any waving signal by any player of Team B… including a ‘T’ signal given during a free kick or scrimmage kick.”

By the letter of the rule, any demonstrative arm motion that could be interpreted as a signal, regardless of intent, can be ruled an invalid fair catch. While most observers in the press box agreed there was no intent by Harvey to signal, intent is not required for the ruling.

So while it may feel twisted, by rule, the officials could justify calling it an invalid fair catch.

Where the Officials Got It Wrong

That said, the officiating crew did make a critical mistake.

After ruling a fair catch, the ball was incorrectly spotted at the 15-yard line. Because the ball was caught in the neutral zone and ruled a fair catch, it should have been treated as a touchback and placed at the 25-yard line per Rule 6, Section 5, Article 1(a).

Instead, Shiner was incorrectly penalized an extra 10 yards.

Final Verdict

• Did Harvey intentionally signal for a fair catch? Almost certainly not. Both coaches echoed that sentiment.

  
  

• Did Harvey make a motion that qualifies as an invalid fair catch by rule? Unfortunately, yes.

  
  

• Did the replay booth have the authority to review the play? Yes.

  
  

• Did the officials apply the rule correctly after the ruling? No.

In the end, the call didn’t change the outcome. Shiner still fell 28–0 and had multiple opportunities afterward to seize momentum. But the sequence serves as a textbook example of how rigid rule interpretation and a misapplication afterward, can turn a subtle motion into a major moment.