Any penalty here.

[Forksref]

"Pushing him back to the ground " is not a foul as described. I think it's one of those "you have to be there." situations. Your options, "foul" , "no foul" , "talking to." are always in play.

If I have a guy sitting or laying on a guy and he can't get up and the runner goes by him, I have a holding foul. It's not part of the initial block which put the player on the ground. No different than blocking a player to the ground and then holding his arm so he can't get back in the play.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Forksref

"Pushing him back to the ground " is not a foul as described. I think it's one of those "you have to be there." situations. Your options, "foul" , "no foul" , "talking to." are always in play.

If I have a guy sitting or laying on a guy and he can't get up and the runner goes by him, I have a holding foul. It's not part of the initial block which put the player on the ground. No different than blocking a player to the ground and then holding his arm so he can't get back in the play.

How can it be holding if he's sitting on the guy? Or laying on him? It would be hard even to get your hands around someone who's on the ground. Do the arms or fingers grasp, encircle, or enfold some body part or clothes?

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

How can it be holding if he's sitting on the guy? Or laying on him? It would be hard even to get your hands around someone who's on the ground. Do the arms or fingers grasp, encircle, or enfold some body part or clothes?

Robert

I think you're reading the rule too literally.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I think you're reading the rule too literally.

Then why would they have made it so explicit? Read your way, any time a player "holds" his block by maintaining control of an opponent, it's holding.