diversion

[JugglingReferee]

Play:

Team A 2D/7 @ B-49. Team B holds the Team A WR 2 yards past the LS. Pass goes to this WR where it falls incomplete.

Ruling: ???

[Mike L]

NFHS,
if the hold came before the pass was thrown, 10 yds from previous spot. Yardage in this case gives a 1st down.
if the hold came after the pass was thrown making it DPI, 15 yds from previous spot and auto 1st down.

[ajmc]

For NFHS, it sounds pretty straightforward. The defensive holding penalty is a 10 penalty. The basic spot, for a loose ball play, is the previous spot from which enforcement would take the ball beyond the LTG, resulting in 1st and 10, for A, at the B-39yl.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Play:

Team A 2D/7 @ B-49. Team B holds the Team A WR 2 yards past the LS. Pass goes to this WR where it falls incomplete.

Ruling: ???

I think what you're getting at is the situation where the incident of holding began before the ball was thrown but continues once the ball is thrown. On the principle or "why let them benefit by making the violation worse", I'd call both illegal use of hands and PI, allowing the choice of penalties. Depending on which code the game is played under, either penalty might be more advantageous to the nonoffending side.

However, I would not call PI unless the receiver appeared to have some awareness of the ball as it came. Otherwise a potential passer could turn a holding call into PI just by throwing the ball toward a receiver whose back was turned and who was being held.

Robert

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

However, I would not call PI unless the receiver appeared to have some awareness of the ball as it came. Otherwise a potential passer could turn a holding call into PI just by throwing the ball toward a receiver whose back was turned and who was being held.

Robert

Since when is that a requirement?

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I think what you're getting at is the situation where the incident of holding began before the ball was thrown but continues once the ball is thrown. On the principle or "why let them benefit by making the violation worse", I'd call both illegal use of hands and PI, allowing the choice of penalties. Depending on which code the game is played under, either penalty might be more advantageous to the nonoffending side.

However, I would not call PI unless the receiver appeared to have some awareness of the ball as it came. Otherwise a potential passer could turn a holding call into PI just by throwing the ball toward a receiver whose back was turned and who was being held.

Robert

That's an interesting take. I am thinking it almost sounds indecisive.

So what if one of my crew members came to me and said, "I have an illegal use of hands and a PI." And, I would ask for the number of each. And, he would say the same number. Oh! Yeah, so how is that. He says, "he was holding him, then, the ball was thrown to him and he continued to hold him." Hmmm.

Why not just penalized the PI, after all, if faced with the choice any player or coach would choose the PI, why confuse everyone with the choice?

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Why not just penalized the PI, after all, if faced with the choice any player or coach would choose the PI, why confuse everyone with the choice?

Amen!

[JugglingReferee]

Remember the OSU / Miami NC game a few years ago?

The FJ Terry Porter reported holding, then DPI, as part of the same contact of B against A. Was this his way of telling us what act the DPI was; the holding of the WR?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

"he was holding him, then, the ball was thrown to him and he continued to hold him." Hmmm.

Why not just penalized the PI, after all, if faced with the choice any player or coach would choose the PI, why confuse everyone with the choice?

Because the spot following the enforcement for holding would be more favorable under NFL (and, IIRC, AFA and USFA) rules.

So, you ask, why not just decide which is more favorable and announce only that? Because I have this quaint idea that more information is better than less.

Robert

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Because the spot following the enforcement for holding would be more favorable under NFL (and, IIRC, AFA and USFA) rules.

So, you ask, why not just decide which is more favorable and announce only that? Because I have this quaint idea that more information is better than less.

Robert

I would hate to be your white hat in this situation.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Because the spot following the enforcement for holding would be more favorable under NFL (and, IIRC, AFA and USFA) rules.

So, you ask, why not just decide which is more favorable and announce only that? Because I have this quaint idea that more information is better than less.

Robert

You are giving the coaches, spectators, etc. a lot more credit than I do.

The rules of football are complicated at best and the average Joe is not the brightest light bulb on the planet. Notice, I give players credit.

[Forksref]

As a WH, I'd say, "MAKE UP YOUR MIND!"