(NCAA) Holding or not holding?

[TXMike]

The purpose of flagging the act should not be to issue some sort of "insurance policy" to the "fouled" team. It should be to identify a foul that impacted the play at that moment. In both cases you fellas mentioned I do not see the impact on the play at the moment of the contact.

[stevesmith]

I'm okay with that as long as the coaches know that is the philosophy. I'm all for advantage/disadvantage, the problem I have is that it isn't written that way. It is something the officials have decided to do among themselves, or maybe with some coaches approval. When a coach screams that you didn't make that call, he is technically right. If this is the way we all want it to be interpreted (and I'm among those who do), then it needs to written that way to take away any question.

[TXMike]

In the case of holding, the rule IS written in a way that supports this interp. It says holding means the offender has obstructed or impeded the opponent. If the opponent makes the play it is hard to argue he was obstructed or impeded.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by TXMike

In the case of holding, the rule IS written in a way that supports this interp. It says holding means the offender has obstructed or impeded the opponent. If the opponent makes the play it is hard to argue he was obstructed or impeded.

But then you have to make a judgement call on whether or not the held player who tackled the ball carrier at the LOS could have gotten into the backfield and made the tackle behind the LOS. Correct?

[TXMike]

Yes I suppose you would. The only time I have ever seen this in a NFL game was when the tackle (and "hold") were both back in the backfield.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Yes I suppose you would. The only time I have ever seen this in a NFL game was when the tackle (and "hold") were both back in the backfield.

Interesting. Thanks, everyone, for the input.