Holding or not?????

[trixx32]

Hello guys,

My question is about something that happens all the time, but most coaches disagree with the call.

On a running play, the OL is blocking the DL and in the process the DL falls down and the OL lies on top of him to impede him from getting up. Some crews call it, others don't. What's the right call??? Does it differ in NCAA to the NFL? Do you know of a document and/or philosophy about this call. Please comment....

Greetings to all from my group, we are working games in the northern part of Mexico. Thanks in advance for your comments.

www.cofacj.org

[TampaSteve]

Philosophy by some:
Was advantage by A gained by OL falling on DL? 
Put another way, in the time it took the blockers to engage, DL to fall & DL to subsequently get up: would that DL have still made an impact on the play had OL not fallen upon him?

[El Macman]

Hello guys,

My question is about something that happens all the time, but most coaches disagree with the call.

On a running play, the OL is blocking the DL and in the process the DL falls down and the OL lies on top of him to impede him from getting up. Some crews call it, others don't. What's the right call??? Does it differ in NCAA to the NFL? Do you know of a document and/or philosophy about this call. Please comment....

Greetings to all from my group, we are working games in the northern part of Mexico. Thanks in advance for your comments.

www.cofacj.org

Generally speaking, it is frowned upon and considered a form of holding. You must apply the same principles of advantage-disadvantage.

[Osric Pureheart]

Here's a question.  In Britain, we have a philosophy saying that takedown holds must always be called, even away from the point of attack, because they're so obvious to everyone.  Is lying on an opponent so obvious a hold that it should also fit in this category?

[TampaSteve]

Here's a question.  In Britain, we have a philosophy saying that takedown holds must always be called, even away from the point of attack, because they're so obvious to everyone.  Is lying on an opponent so obvious a hold that it should also fit in this category?

Again, think about the "advantage/disadvantage" philosophy.
Certainly an OL disengaged with a DL, the DL falls & OL falls - that's pretty ugly.
But OL engaged while DL falls and OL does not lose engagement is much prettier.  Obviously the level of play is a consideration too.
However, all in all, away from the play, we still utiliize the advantage/disadvantage philosophy.

[AlUpstateNY]

Presuming you only see this once, and there is no specific and direct advantage gained, you might make sure you take advantage of this "teaching moment" to suggest, privately, to the OL who didn't get up, that such action might very well be considered as crossing the "holding" line, and it would seem terrible to risk negating a possibly significant advance for such a silly and unproductive maneuver.

You may be successful in motivating that player to never try that again.

[VALJ]

I've only called a hold on that once.  The OL was drive-blocking and knocked the DL down falling on top of him, and started to get right back up.  When he was halfway up, he stopped, and fell back down onto the DL.  Made that one nice and obvious for me.
 

[trixx32]

Thanks to every single one for the response.

It is a unusual situation that creates a lot of controversy and most head coaches say: "some crews call it, why you guys don't?"....... We try to get away from this situations by talking to the OL lineman, but the rule book does not mention or clarifies such situation. I'm glad that I got great feedback from you guys, thanks.

[James]

We have a policy about that in our organization.
If the OL is trying to get up don't call it (he doesn't have to be trying very hard though), if the OL is trying to smother him than flag it. Lying on top of an opponent is not blocking him.

[VA-Ump]

Did the OL's action have a material effect on the play... if no, then to me, it's not holding.  It might be something else but its should not be considered holding.  Explaining that one to a TA would be interesting.

[KellumSowers]

My two cents, (and believe me, I think its worth half that), from the Federation POV and the way it was taught to me was that this was not a "hold" per se as the wording in the rule book clearly states that the body is incapable of grasping, hooking, locking, clamping, or encircling the opponent.  The rule reads very briefly, IMHO, that when anyone on the offense except the runner uses his hands, arms, or legs to lock, clamp, grasp, encircle or hold an opponent in an effort to restrain them it is holding.  As we are not using the hands arms or legs, can we call it holding???  Sure.  The spirit of the rule is there as they are restraining the opponent, but I will talk to the player first.  IF after the second time, I call them over and state that what they are doing is a personal foul or unsporting conduct (No one shall hinder a player by an unfair act), and this will normally alleviate that action from occurring again.  Actually, I don't think I have thrown a flag on that at Varsity level.  Again, just my way and everyone is different.  Put 100 folks in the room and get probably over 85 different answers.

Cheers!