Any penalty here.
 

We've all seen it. Punt play. At the snap A5 and B5 engage in a legal block. A5 goes down and B5 continues pushing him back to the ground as he tries to get up.

If there is a disengagement, I'm saying this is a block in the back. If he falls on him and won't let him up do we have a hold? No call?

Could be a foul. Not a penalty.

Yes, by rule, you have a new initial contact that is in the back and obviously any FBZ doesn't apply as ball is gone and players are down field. Also, you could and should most definitely call a hold if he is laying on the guy. This is not a legal blocking technique. The only time you might not flag this is if A5 (K5) is out of the play. In this case you will want to tell B5 (R5) to get off of him and give a warning not to do that again. This type of play can definitely harbor ill-will in the offended as it is very embarrassing to be pinned down and the offended will often react violently in getting the player off of them.

b. Charge into or throw an opponent to the ground after he is obviously out
of the play, or after the ball is clearly dead either in or out of bounds.


c. Pile on any player who is lying on the ground.

g. Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary
and which incites roughness.

9-4-3
SECTION 4 ILLEGAL PERSONAL CONTACT
PENALTY: Fighting, intentionally contacting an official, striking, kicking or
kneeing. (Arts. 1, 2, 3j) – (S38-47) – 15 yards and disqualification. If a coach
is the offender in Article 2, see 9-8 Penalty for disqualification procedure.
Other personal fouls (Arts. 3a through g) – (S38) – 15 yards;



These kinds of things are pfs and should be 15 not holding.

What you're describing could be a foul, depending on what you're actually looking at. It might also be something you'd choose rather to talk to the player about, or it might not be anything at all, depending on what you're actually seeing.

All personal fouls involve some sort of personal contact, but not all forms of personal contact rise to the level of being fouls, unless of course you choose to apply the technical descriptions of fouls to every type of incidental contact to turn them into fouls.

Not unless he uses his hands/arms.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN PHILOSOPHY:

There could be a foul here, which would carry a penalty.

Yes, falling a player and not letting them get up is holding.

Yes, after the disengagement, you could have a block in the back, although we are liberal about blocks away from the play/ball. We have two different Blocks In The Back. The 10 yarder is for tactical reasons and is flagged if the block happens at the point of attack, and the 15 yarder is flagged for safety reasons, and is "almost always" flagged.

Even without use of the hands or arms?

So.......a fat guy falls on an opponent and won't spring up, it's a foul? You didn't mention "holding him down" just reclining on him.

Skinny guys can improperly impede an opponent also. The answer to your question is totally dependent on what YOU see.

If you believe that what you are looking at is a player, "Use(ing) his hands, arms or legs to hook, lock, clamp, grasp, encircle or hold in an effort to restrain an opponent." (NF:9-2-1c or 3c) and it provides an unfair advantage to the player initiating the action, you have a foul. If you don't think that's the case, or there isn't any unfair advantage being gained, it's likely not a foul.

That's a judgment YOU have to make based on what YOU see.

Of course. I don't believe there was ever an intent to allow for people to sit on their opponents.

And I believe there was and is. You pancake an opponent, you've won the battle for that down, you're allowed to occupy the territory, as long as the form of contact you use is legal. What's the alternative? As soon as the opponent gets off the ground, you knock him down again? Do you have to let him fully regain his balance after getting off the ground?

Robert

I think Alf has the best answer. It may be a foul that should be penalized, it depends. Most of the time, this is not affecting the play, unsportsmanlike or a safety issue, so I would think the official (U or R probably) would choost to talk to the players over penalizing them.

What's to even talk about?

The original poster then mentioned "block in the back", but that wasn't part of the description above. If B5's assignment is to keep A5 from making a tackle -- and considering how much time a punt runback can take, it can't be assumed A5 could no longer affect the play if he could escape the block, and if B5's use of the hands is legal, who's to say the action can't continue while the players are on the ground? A5, by continuing to try to get up, is still in the game, and where does it say B5 has to release his block and let A5 get up?

On the contrary, if B5 seemed to allow A5 to get up and then pushed him back down, that might be UR (B5 might've just changed his mind about releasing the block). If B5 in his own process of getting up (live ball or dead) gave A5 an extra shove, that would be UR. If B5 while getting up pushed off A5 just incidentally, that would not be UR. If A5's dignity was affronted and he wanted to make something of it, it might just be that he was responding in frustration to being beaten rather than being fouled, so don't let A5's rxn decide whether B5's action was legal.

Robert

You're comparing apples and oranges.

In your case play, A is being legally blocked while trying to get back into the play. In the case of a player laying on another player keeping him pinned to the ground, I have the player encircling with his arms and/or legs in an effort to restrain his opponent.

Normally, it will not be at the point of attack and as a result gets a verbal warning from me.