(NCAA) Holding or not holding?

[voiceoflg]

In the Troy-Nebraska game, the head referee said something I have never heard before. There was a holding penalty on a run, but he waved off the flag because "the one being held made the tackle." I have never heard that before. Is that indeed in the NCAA rulebook?

[ljudge]

I didn't see it and I have never heard that before. But, from what I read in your post the referee wanted the audience to know an advantage wasn't gained by the hold and therefore no foul.

[stevesmith]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

In the Troy-Nebraska game, the head referee said something I have never heard before. There was a holding penalty on a run, but he waved off the flag because "the one being held made the tackle." I have never heard that before. Is that indeed in the NCAA rulebook?

Same thing happened in the Dallas/Washington game last Sunday night. First time I had heard it announced to the public like that, although that's the way we're being taught to enforce it now. Ideally, the flag wouldn't be thrown in this case!

[MJT]

Originally Posted by stevesmith

Same thing happened in the Dallas/Washington game last Sunday night. First time I had heard it announced to the public like that, although that's the way we're being taught to enforce it now. Ideally, the flag wouldn't be thrown in this case!

In the NFL, that IS a rule. There are several "holding exceptions" and that is one of them. What they really want in the NFL is the flag to be held, and not thrown if that is the case, but if it is already on the ground, pick it up and explain. Now that is not the case in NCAA, so it will be interesting to see if anything is said about that.

[TXMike]

I hope we see more emphasis on this type of interp. I like it. I had a similar play last night, on a punt return the flyer got pushed in the back just as he approached the return man. The push drove him into the returner knocking him down and causing a fumble, recovered there by the return team. Kicking team coach wanted a flag for the block in the back but I am not flagging that as it appeared to help the player make the tackle.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by TXMike

I hope we see more emphasis on this type of interp. I like it. I had a similar play last night, on a punt return the flyer got pushed in the back just as he approached the return man. The push drove him into the returner knocking him down and causing a fumble, recovered there by the return team. Kicking team coach wanted a flag for the block in the back but I am not flagging that as it appeared to help the player make the tackle.

Just as long as you have the play being dead and the foul you did not flag did contribute. In your play, if you did not flag it, then the fumble was picked up by another R player and returned for a TD, there is a problem if you cannot bring it back for the BIB. I do agree on the philosophy, but care must be taken when applying it.

[stevesmith]

Originally Posted by MJT

Just as long as you have the play being dead and the foul you did not flag did contribute. In your play, if you did not flag it, then the fumble was picked up by another R player and returned for a TD, there is a problem if you cannot bring it back for the BIB. I do agree on the philosophy, but care must be taken when applying it.

Just like a QB sack a couple of yards behind the line of scrimmage. If you made the call and it were accepted, the defense would have the option of pushing them back 10 yards instead having to accept a 2 yard loss because you didn't throw the flag. Where do you draw the line?

[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.