Holding away from point of attack

[TXMike]

I think it is a good philosophy. That being said, if your state's association decides it is not, then that is what should guide you. It is the philosophy in Texas and that is what we teach, don't flag them unless they are out in the open and are obvious to everyone watching.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TXMike

It is the philosophy in Texas and that is what we teach, don't flag them unless they are out in the open and are obvious to everyone watching.

What if the holding is at the point of attack but in the line? Do they really ignore those in Texas just because the coaches and fans can't see 'em?

[TXMike]

This thread was about holds AWAY from the point of attack and that is what I addressed. Just as in NCAA, holds at the point of attack, clearly visible or not, are flagged.

[Forksref]

It took me a while to not go by the book and call everything I saw. I think that is the tendency when you start officiating.

In the hold away from the point of attack, it doesn't mean you ignore it. I classify that as a "talk to" foul, where I will make sure that the offender is told that his hold was seen and that he could be responsible for a long gain being called back.

[JRutledge]

Any hold away from the point of attack should be a talk to. Give it time and that player is going to hold again when they are involved in the point of attack. But if I have a defensive player that claims they are being held, I consider the play or where they are located. If a player is being held but the team lost significant yardage, I tell them "The hold must not have worked very well." Or I tell them to make sure they work hard so we can see it. A lot of times at the HS level players think they are getting held and they give up on the play.

Peace

[sloth]

It took me a little time to adopt this sort of "selective" foul calling. It makes sense if you view to role of the official as a game manager and not a rules enforcer.

The reason holding is an issue (when not a safety factor as in a takedown sort of hold) is that the holer is putting the holdee at a disadvantage. If the holdee was not anywhere near the play and thus not a factor to effect the outcome, does the hold really matter?

Its the same way with DPI away from the catch. We are now instructed (by NFHS in the rule and case books) not to flag DPI that is clearly away from the reciever catching the pass.

Its tough and it takes getting used to not calling something obvious...espically when a coach is all up on you for "missing" the obvious hold that everyone saw. But, like I said, after a lot of mental debate and discussions with other officials...I think it really is a good thing for the game.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by sloth

Its the same way with DPI away from the catch. We are now instructed (by NFHS in the rule and case books) not to flag DPI that is clearly away from the reciever catching the pass.

I would say that that was never pass interference, because nobody's legitimate attempt to catch the ball was actually interfered with.

[PaulJak]

I agree with the philosophy of "talk to" when its away from the point of attack, but I think this may be an interesting twist.

What if there is a penalty on the defense on the same play? Say you work in a state that lets the defense play with 12 and you flag it as illegal participation or there is a low block. Do you still "talk to" the hold?

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by PaulJak

Say you work in a state that lets the defense play with 12 and you flag it as illegal participation or

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.

As for the topic here, if it doesn't impact or affect the play, let it go and let them know, "I am watching you." or something like that. Don't say, "that's a hold now knock it off." That opens the door to the "well you should've called it if it was a hold" response.

I think the bottom line is, even in HS ball the less flags the better it is for the game. We don't want to call every single thing we see unless it is flagrant/out there for everyone to see. In addition to having quicker and smoother games, I feel you will become a more respected official. There could be a foul on every single play if we called everything.

[MadCityRef]

If the player making the tackle is held at the same time, do you throw the flag?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by MadCityRef

If the player making the tackle is held at the same time, do you throw the flag?

Hard to say the defensive player was restrained if he made the tackle.

[Robert Goodman]

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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by PaulJak

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

You mean a province?