Holding

[sm_bbcoach]

I am looking for a rule / case on these plays.

A snaps ball. as B89 engages with A64 at LOS, A64:

a) grabs him wiht both hands and throws hin to ground.

b) in the process of legal blocking, B89 falls to ground, A64 falls on top of him and lays on him with his arms up above his body and all his weight on B89.

c) same as in (b) but A64 is blocked to the ground and falls on him, and attemps to get off. He ends up slipping and lands on top of him again.

d) B89 bear crawls through, and A64 using his hand pushes him to the ground and then keeps pushing him down, not allowing him to get up.

Thanks.

[MJT]

Originally posted by sm_bbcoach
I am looking for a rule / case on these plays.

A snaps ball. as B89 engages with A64 at LOS, A64:

a) grabs him wiht both hands and throws hin to ground.

b) in the process of legal blocking, B89 falls to ground, A64 falls on top of him and lays on him with his arms up above his body and all his weight on B89.

c) same as in (b) but A64 is blocked to the ground and falls on him, and attemps to get off. He ends up slipping and lands on top of him again.

d) B89 bear crawls through, and A64 using his hand pushes him to the ground and then keeps pushing him down, not allowing him to get up.

Thanks.

Off the cuff, this is how I would call it.
A) hold - he "grabs" and throws

B) Legal - he is not "holding" him down, just laying on him and I have told many D-lineman and coaches that is not a hold.

C) Not sure what you mean by A64 is blocked to the ground and falls on him, but if you mean when A64 is blocked he and his defender fall to ground, with A64 on top -then the rest of your comment - legal - he didn't "hold" him.

D) If he "holds" him down - foul, if he keeps "chucking" him in a way which would be legal if on feet - then legal.

[Middleman]

a) is holding (9-2-1c) and possibly a personal foul (9-4-2b).

b) you have what some call a "pancake." It is illegal when prolonged and flagrant, as you described, because it is not a legal blocking technique (2-3-2) and falls under Illegal Personal Contact (9-4-2e), and, therefore, Illegal Blocking (9-3-1c).

c) is not illegal, provided the "slip" is unintentional and not a personal foul (9-4-2c).

d) is most likely a personal foul under 9-4-2b or 9-4-2g. An opponent who is lying on the ground is probably out of the play already.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Middleman
a) is holding (9-2-1c) and possibly a personal foul (9-4-2b).

b) you have what some call a "pancake." It is illegal when prolonged and flagrant, as you described, because it is not a legal blocking technique (2-3-2) and falls under Illegal Personal Contact (9-4-2e), and, therefore, Illegal Blocking (9-3-1c).

c) is not illegal, provided the "slip" is unintentional and not a personal foul (9-4-2c).

d) is most likely a personal foul under 9-4-2b or 9-4-2g. An opponent who is lying on the ground is probably out of the play already.

I cannot believe you would call a lineman for a hold if he pancakes him and lays on him. 9-4-2e is referring to positioning or using the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent in order to block a kick or something similar. No way this is a foul if he lays on him with his hands up or out to his side - not holding him down. When the play is gone, the R should go and say "we are done here" and if they do not unpile then you may have a PF. Preventative officiating and communication will keep this from becoming a PF. I mean, if you pancake him, who says you have to "let him up" just so you can do it again. Now, of course, it could end up a PF, but not as described here.

[Rich]

Originally posted by MJT

I cannot believe you would call a lineman for a hold if he pancakes him and lays on him. 9-4-2e is referring to positioning or using the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent in order to block a kick or something similar. No way this is a foul if he lays on him with his hands up or out to his side - not holding him down. When the play is gone, the R should go and say "we are done here" and if they do not unpile then you may have a PF. Preventative officiating and communication will keep this from becoming a PF. I mean, if you pancake him, who says you have to "let him up" just so you can do it again. Now, of course, it could end up a PF, but not as described here.

The first one is a hold and you'd really have to be looking to throw a flag to call anything on the other plays.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

The first one is a hold and you'd really have to be looking to throw a flag to call anything on the other plays.

AGREED!!!!!!!!

[Middleman]

I'm disappointed in you guys. sm_bbcoach asked for rules, I gave them to him.

To continually allow the acts described - holding and throwing; pancake; continued pushing, even when the opponent is down - are all unnecessary, are not within the spirit of the rules, and tend to engender ill will among opponents. You may choose to ignore these infractions, but if you allow them to continue then you will end up with a fight, and someone will be going home unhappy.

Warn them, OK, if that's what you want. But you have rule coverage to put an end to it. That's my path of least resistance.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Middleman
I'm disappointed in you guys. sm_bbcoach asked for rules, I gave them to him.

To continually allow the acts described - holding and throwing; pancake; continued pushing, even when the opponent is down - are all unnecessary, are not within the spirit of the rules, and tend to engender ill will among opponents. You may choose to ignore these infractions, but if you allow them to continue then you will end up with a fight, and someone will be going home unhappy.

Warn them, OK, if that's what you want. But you have rule coverage to put an end to it. That's my path of least resistance.

There's no rule against keeping a defender on the ground.

If the ball's 30 yards downfield, then talk to the players -- handle it. But don't get flag happy.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Middleman
I'm disappointed in you guys. sm_bbcoach asked for rules, I gave them to him.

To continually allow the acts described - holding and throwing; pancake; continued pushing, even when the opponent is down - are all unnecessary, are not within the spirit of the rules, and tend to engender ill will among opponents. You may choose to ignore these infractions, but if you allow them to continue then you will end up with a fight, and someone will be going home unhappy.

Warn them, OK, if that's what you want. But you have rule coverage to put an end to it. That's my path of least resistance.

I do not let unnecessary actions go either, but to say it is a foul for laying on a guy after pancaking him is not right. If it is a foul, it's a foul, if not, don't go looking for them.