Holding and a pick play?

[Brian26]

Don't know if anyone watch this game or saw replay but do you have holding on the down field receiver blocking along side the RB? The second one is it offensive interference or not?


https://twitter.com/i/status/1185614884089794562

https://twitter.com/i/status/1185631175458594817

[dammitbobby]

I’m a rookie ref but #1, I would drop a flag on that 8 days a week. I’d be curious (and eager to learn!) if someone would not call that a foul.

2nd one - blocking is done at the 1-1.5 yard line, without looking up the exact wording I think technically it is, since appears to be beyond 1 yard, but def not by much.

[scrounge]

I would not call that first play a foul. Yea, he's got a grab of the defender - who did absolutely nothing to try to get off that or show any restriction whatsoever. The second play is a bad miss, not even a thinly disguised OPI, dude is outright blocking.

[bossman72]

I would not call that first play a foul. Yea, he's got a grab of the defender - who did absolutely nothing to try to get off that or show any restriction whatsoever. The second play is a bad miss, not even a thinly disguised OPI, dude is outright blocking.

Agree.  We don't call grabbing, we call holding.

[dammitbobby]

I disagree that he is not impeding the defender; you can clearly see him pulling the jersey for over 50 YARDS, that is absolutely going to slow him down.  The restriction is going directly away from this camera angle (IMO) as he is being forcibly restrained from reaching the runner.

9-3-3b.  Holding. The hand(s) and arm(s) shall not be used to grasp, pull, hook, clamp or encircle in any way that illegally impedes or illegally obstructs an opponent.

I'd say that grasping and grabbing are the same act, and I'm sure you would agree, leaving the last part of that rule to be relevant.  Was he illegally impeded or obstructed?  I would say yes. 

For holds, what I have been told is that from its location on the field, it has to have a material effect on the play, and the player must make an effort to get away from the restriction.  Is that a philosophy thing, or is that a generally accepted interpretation of illegally impeding/obstructing, or located somewhere else? 

Just looking for more context on why it is, the way it is.

[copedaddy]

I would have to say play one is text book restriction.  The defender has an angle on the play and look at the defenders body angle, he is try to move to his left toward the runner and the blocker is grasping the jersey and pushing him away. I think any DC would want this called. Of course the OC thought this is a great block.

[bctgp]

Given the benefit of seeing the video and not being on the field. I would rule that both should have been fouls. But as I said I have the benefit of the video after the fact.

[Brian26]

Here is a different video angle on the first play

[Brian26]

Can't up load the video  but here is the full game, just go to 1:03:50 in the video to see the live play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ysNhwS9qcA

[dammitbobby]

I think it's even more obvious from that angle.

[js in sc]

I watched the game and the multiple videos.  It appears that the A player held the jersey allowing himself to stay between the defender and runner, giving him an unfair advantage to prevent the defender from reaching the runner.  The major question to me would be - could the blocker remain between the defender and runner without holding his jersey?

[bossman72]

For holds, what I have been told is that from its location on the field, it has to have a material effect on the play, and the player must make an effort to get away from the restriction.  Is that a philosophy thing, or is that a generally accepted interpretation of illegally impeding/obstructing, or located somewhere else? 

It's a philosophy thing.  Much like the "categories" of holding, which were developed for consistency.  You won't find either in the rulebook, but they have been essential to calling a smooth game not riddled with ticky tack and almost random holds (like you see in some high school games where they have not been taught these philosophies).

[SCHSref]

I watched that entire game. The holding play had a missed false start. The right tackle came out of his stance early. The holding play on the passing TD was obvious. USC was flagged for holding before that TD (not in the same series). USC had swung the momentum with their drive, just went up on the #9 team at home and then had these two TDs happen, one with the holding and false start and the other with the holding on the pass. It was not good. USC had just beaten #3 UGA at home the week before.

[CalhounLJ]

It's a philosophy thing.  Much like the "categories" of holding, which were developed for consistency.  You won't find either in the rulebook, but they have been essential to calling a smooth game not riddled with ticky tack and almost random holds (like you see in some high school games where they have not been taught these philosophies).

Serious question-are the coaches taught these philosophies as well? Because Muschamp sure was upset. Just like high school coaches when we choose to pass on a non impact foul. It seems like if these philosophies are to be the norm, everybody should be ok with them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dammitbobby]

I think the bigger issue is getting these philosophies defined, and everyone on the same page.  Which is next to impossible, so not sure how that moves forward.

[ElvisLives]

The NCAA Philosophies Document was reviewed by the Collegiate Commissioners Association (CCA) before it was introduced into the CCA manuals.  If the Commissioners didn't share that with their coaches, not our problem. But, virtually every one of the philosophies was developed due to complaints from coaches about unfairness of the related rules, if strictly enforced as the rule language reads.  So, some coaches, at least, know about the philosophies.
The philosophies are good.  Read them.  Learn them.  Use them.

Sure.  Invite coaches to a rules clinic to discuss actual rules, plus rule philosophy.  Both of them that attend will learn something.

Now, go forth and prosper.

Robert 

[TxBJ]

I think the bigger issue is getting these philosophies defined, and everyone on the same page.  Which is next to impossible, so not sure how that moves forward.

But they are defined and most people should be on the same page.

[CalhounLJ]

Both of them that attend will learn something.



Robert

I giggled.  Much truth in this


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dammitbobby]

But they are defined and most people should be on the same page.

Are these available somewhere? 

[ElvisLives]

Are these available somewhere?

They are in the CCA manuals.  Go to the CCA web site and get yourself a copy.

[dammitbobby]

Thanks, I found them in the 2019 manual... also found out tonight that TASO has their own philosophies (which probably are very similar) in the TASO mechanics manuals.

[ElvisLives]

Thanks, I found them in the 2019 manual... also found out tonight that TASO has their own philosophies (which probably are very similar) in the TASO mechanics manuals.

The TASO Philosophies are considerably expanded. If you are working UIL football, yes, you’ll need to study the TASO philosophies.

[zebrastripes]

Play #2 made RR's video as a bad NCI.

[dammitbobby]

The TASO Philosophies are considerably expanded. If you are working UIL football, yes, you’ll need to study the TASO philosophies.

Good to know!  I actually had the TASO 4 and 5 man mechanics manuals printed into separate spiral-bound books, which has been super helpful for study and review...  I was primarily focused on HL/LJ responsibilities and never looked at the back of the book, which is where they are located.