The Official Forum - Holding away from point of attack

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)

- - Holding away from point of attack (https://forum.officiating.com/football/37661-holding-away-point-attack.html)

From the "Joint Philosophies" document that came out this year from several of the major conferences:

2. If there is a potential offensive holding but the action occurs away from the point of attack and has no (or could have no) effect on the play, offensive holding will not be called.

3. If there is a potential for defensive holding but the action occurs away from the point of attack and has no (or could have no) effect on the play, defensive holding will not be called

6. Holding can be called even if the quarterback is sacked as it may be the other half of an offset foul

9. Rarely will you have a hold on a double team block unless there is a takedown or the defender breaks the double team and is pulled back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJT

Actually Walt, the NFL has changed there philosophy on this in the last year. Before, they did not want a hold called when the player being held made the tackle or if his teammate did at the same time. Now they want it called for two reasons, 1) so they have the choice of declining or taking the foul as I show in the below play, or 2) cuz it could be part of a double foul situation.

I have not yet heard that our association's philosophy has changed on this but I will inquire about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulJak

Say you work in a state that lets the defense play with 12

You mean a province?

The no-call is a good philosophy, and is consistent with the rule book - you have to consider advantage. I teach what I call POST - other people call it other things:

P - point of attack - call it
O - obvious, everyone sees it - call it
S - safety rule - call it
T - If it's not POS, then it's a talk-to

You also have to consider point of attack. If a tackle is holding a linebacker who is trying to get across the field to the runner, you might call that. If two lineman are dancing - the hold has no impact, so pass on it.

As to what you tell a lineman who was being held, you don't have to explain the philosophy of holding. Just tell him you didn't see it, but you'll keep an eye on it.

illegal participation - variant rules

Quote:

Originally Posted by grantsrc

That is in direct conflict with the rule book. I find it interesting that states are choosing to go away from some Fed rulings. Then again, my college conference is tweaking this rule some for B as well. We're to flag and kill if snapped with 12, DB 5 yards- give them every opportunity to get off the field or call a timeout.

I could understand that for 12 players on team A (since they could just take a delay of game if they realized they had too many, nothing forces them to play the ball under that condition), but what's the reason given for not allowing team A the advantage of putting the ball in play if it's team B that's late completing a substitution?

If I were a team B coach who noticed an uncovered receiver when the team itself didn't, I'd rush a 12th player on under that rule. (It may be faster than getting the captain's att'n to ask for time out.) Or is that going to be treated differently from late getting off?

And what does "give them every opportunity" mean? Have U or R stand over the ball and command B to call time or remedy the situation?

Robert

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJT

I don't see either of those as a virtue.

Quote:

Now I know that is the NFL, but all levels of NCAA ball are doing the same. It was mentioned at our NAIA officials meeting and I know it was at the Big 12 meeting, and is in the book put out by Dick Honig, which many major conferences are following.

Think about a play like this. 3-2 at B's 13 yard line, and the QB is sacked by the player being held but only for a 2 yard loss.
1) If you don't throw the flag cuz the "held player" made the tackle for a loss, it will be 4-4 at the 15, and a 32 yard field goal would give A 3 pts.
2) If you throw the flag on the "held player" who made the tackle for a loss, team B could accept the penalty and it will be 3-14 at the 25, and team A has much less chance to get points on the board. They would need 10 yards to get the same 32 yard FG, and 14 for a 1st down.

I think these examples go against the reason for having penalties for fouls. Penalties should not be a feature by which one side gains an advantage, they are just an approximate remedy to prevent the other team from gaining an unfair (according to the taste of the game's designers) advantage. If they could magically prevent the violation from having occurred, wouldn't that be better for the game? (Then all they need is a machine to spot the ball & keep time, and they've eliminated your job.)

I can see only one good reason for penalizing holding where the held player made a tackle: the possibility that without his being held, it could've been a "better" tackle, i.e. one that knocked the ball loose or made the dead ball spot more favorable to his team.

Robert

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisref2

O - obvious, everyone sees it - call it

Why? Just because they don't understand the PST philosophy, you have to officiate to their understanding?