Holding away from point of attack
 

Did anyone else take exception to the article in the Sept issue of Referee magazine concerning not calling holding penalties away from the point of attack. Although there is a little merit to their argument of keeping the game moving and not having a flag fest, I still disagree with them for high school football, and this is why

Here are some questions that arise if this philosophy is undertaken. What do you tell the defensive lineman that is being held, and you witnessed being held when he complains to you? “You couldn’t make that play anyway”. Nothing will incite a vigilante attitude more than telling a defensive player this. Since you aren’t going to call anything away from the play anyway, he will want to institute his own form of football justice which I contend will lead to rough play and unsporting behavior later in the game which you will have to call.

Secondly, if the defensive player is away from the “point of attack” why would the backside Tackle or TE need to hold anyway? He shouldn’t be able to get in on the play, right. And how is the official who doesn’t make this holding call suppose to know that the runner isn’t running a reverse, or a cutback, or reversing his field where that backside defensive player could influence the play.

Lastly, do you think that coaches will pick up on this philosophy? So they can teach their kids all week that they will run plays away from the oppositions star defensive end, oh and by the way, grab hold of him because the refs won’t call it anyway.

Picked up 2 flags Thursday night for this
 

In a jamboree last week we picked up 2 holding flags away from point of attack. Simply put, the acts did not affect the plays and weren't grossly committed, i. e., there was no take down or any kind of flagrant action.

We explained to the guilty players that next time we would enforce it and tried to coach them up a little bit. Of those players, we had no trouble the rest of the evening. The coaches were not disagreeable about it, either.

I think the philosophy behind it is good. If a foul occurs behind the point of attack or away from it and it is an overly aggressive or nearly flagrant foul, then it can be called as is or perhaps signified as an usportsmanlike foul. Otherwise they should be handled moreso with a preventive officiating action.

Just a few thoughts-hopefully this helps.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

A distinction needs to be kept between illegal use of hands, which is there only for tactical reasons, and types of contact that are illegal for the sake of safety or good sportsmanship, which is why the former can be ignored if it doesn't affect play, while the latter must be policed for the players' own good.

You need to be able to throw the flag and then pick it up if it becomes clear the play wasn't affected. Of course you should always make the most favorable assumption, if there was the slightest chance the held player could've affected the play, running it down from behind, or whatever. Usually the only times you could be sure was when the ball was really remote enough from where the illegal use of hands took place and the ball became dead soon enough after, that you wouldn't even have to drop the flag.

For instance, you detect holding by either team, even fairly close to the ball, occur just as the runner is falling to his knees. It wasn't unsafe, it couldn't possibly have affected the dead ball spot, and there was no loose ball to recover. Why is a penalty any improvement to the game compared to a warning in that situation?

I don't see any reason for that, because there doesn't seem to be any gain to it. If it was being done to taunt the opposition, couldn't you flag that as deliberately hitting somebody obviously out of play?

Robert

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

You can all make up your own mind but that gives you something to think about.

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.

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

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
 

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

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

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

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