Defensive holding

[ElvisLives]

You may have heard about a team being awarded a touchdown for a an opposing squad member coming on the field from the team area and tackling a ball carrier who had a clear path to the opponent's goal line. If it works for you, the link below may take you to the video.

https://www.footballzebras.com/2025/10/high-school-officials-award-touchdown-after-a-player-re-enacts-the-1954-cotton-bowl

Barring any other circumstance, the award of the score was righteous. However...

The guy that got tackled actually was a Team B player that intercepted a legal forward pass, and was clearly advancing for a score. No doubt or argument about that.
But, look at what that Team B defender does immediately after the snap (before the pass is thrown, and before he intercepts the pass).

I welcome your thoughts for NCAA football.

[peterparsons]

Watching that I have DH by B16 followed by 9-2-3-c UC by A9.

No clean hands by B, so awarding a score is off the table since, if A9 doesn't do that, it's coming back and we're awarding a new first down to A.

There's the question of then how we handle A9's foul. It's a live ball foul by a substitute. Under 9-2-1, any such UCs are enforced dead ball, and if we went down that route, A would get a new series 5 yards back after enforcement of both in order.

But, it's 3rd and 6 (we can see the scoreboard at the end of the video), and is it fair for A to get a new series after A9's act? 9-2-3-c does allow us to offset and replay, thus not awarding a new series to A if we think that would that be a more equitable outcome, and repeating the down is one of the listed possible options in the 9-2-3 Penalty statement.

Then there's the question of whether A9's act can be considered flagrant.

[ElvisLives]

Sorry, I should have reported that Team B was awarded a touchdown on the obviously unfair act by a non-player that prevented an obvious touchdown. There was nothing else called on this down.
The possibility of another illegal action on that down is the point of my post. What do you all see / think?

(Oh, I have my opinion, but I want to see what others think, and WHY.)

[dammitbobby]

serious question - if this had been a run up the middle or a sweep to the far side, would you still have it as a foul?

I agree the action is DH. But, as a wing, I can also see how the nearside wing could miss this, since if we're following snap-tackle-key, there's a good chance that as quick as it happened, the wing may not have been able to see the whole thing, and if you miss the first part of it, you could easily think that he slipped and lost his footing.

Not excusing the no-call, but I can see how someone would think twice about throwing it especially if they didn't see the very beginning of a very quick action.

[peterparsons]

serious question - if this had been a run up the middle or a sweep to the far side, would you still have it as a foul?

In that situation I have no flag. No advantage.

[ElvisLives]

In that situation I have no flag. No advantage.

No advantage? By no choice or error of his own, the receiver is laying on the ground just as the passer throws the ball toward him. Instead of the receiver having a chance to make the catch, the opponent that fouled him is able to intercept the ball unchallenged, and ultimately is awarded a touchdown that is the difference in the final score of the game (Team B won by 1 point). Seems like the ULTIMATE advantage to me.
For defensive holding, we look at the action, then look back at the passer to see what he is doing. If the ball has been handed off to someone running the opposite direction, we can pass on the call. But, if we can tell that he was interested in throwing the ball to that receiver, or that he does throw the ball toward that receiver, this is a a holding foul (or, perhaps, DPI, if the action is continuing after the ball is in the air).
This is defensive holding. Every time. Every game.
My FBS coordinator would have worn me out if I had failed to make this call.

[peterparsons]

No flag is in reference to dammitbobby's question about the play instead being a run up the middle or a sweep to the far side.

On the play in question, I have a flag for DH every time. If I see this same action on a sweep to the opposite sideline or a run up the middle, my flag is staying tucked away.

[Birddog]

I would think we have a flag for defensive holding.  Flag for UNS for squads-man coming off bench.  Mark off 10 for holding then back 15 for UNS, reset chains 1/10.  Disqualify the person who came off the bench.

The UNS may be an offsetting but seems like we invoke the God rule 9-2-3-c in this instance. 

[ElvisLives]

No issue with the award of the score, when nothing else happens that would offset that foul. Don’t care about any of that stuff.

I started this discussion because, in this same discussion on another forum (different rule set), the vast majority seemed hell-bent on passing on this illegal holding action, because of some ca ca reasons about the receiver being a potential blocker, yada yada. I want NCAA folks to fully understand that our rule is very clear:
Defensive players may use their hands and arms to push, pull, ward off, or lift offensive players:
1. When attempting to reach the runner.
2. Who are obviously attempting to block them.

This defensive player was, in no way, making an effort to reach a runner (or a loose ball). His first move was to grasp the receiver with both hands. Then, with no concern about the location of the ball or the ball carrier/runner, he pulled the receiver down, causing the receiver to stumble slightly, and leaving him bent down at the waist. The defender then - again with no reference to the ball or ball carrier/runner - used his left arm to shove the receiver to the ground, completely taking the receiver out of his pass pattern, and the pass play, in general.
The offensive receiver was, in no way, attempting to block the defensive player. In fact, his first move after the snap was to attempt to move AROUND the defender, using a weak ‘swim’ move with his right arm, just trying to get clear. In no way was he “obviously attempting to block” the defender. The receiver would have much preferred for the defender to just leave him alone, with no contact between the players.
So, with the receiver now laying on the ground, the passer threw the ball toward this “grounded” receiver. At this point, the defender looked back at the passer, and saw the ball flying toward him, leaped to intercept the ball, and began to return the ball.
There is absolutely nothing about this play that can excuse, forgive, or legitimize the defenders actions on the receiver.
As egregious as this defender’s actions were, had this been a simple off-tackle play inside, or something wide to the opposite side of the field, we could make the argument that it had no effect on the result of the down, and we could pass on calling this foul. Me, personally, early in the game (and a non-affected play inside or to the opposite side of the field, with no reference to the  receiver), I could pass on this call, with a serious ‘talk to’ with the defender. DON’T DO THAT AGAIN, regardless of what kind of play it is.
But, on THIS specific down, this is HUGE defensive holding that must be seen and called.

[ilyazhito]

I agree. In any rule set, this action is DH. A takedown by the offense must be called, no matter where the point of attack is. By the same token, takedowns should also be called on the defense. Based on the OP description, this action certainly equalities as a takedown.

[John B]

If the eligible receiver had “initiated” contact on the DB, beyond the NZ, BEFORE the pass, for the same play, what would you have called?

[Morningrise]

On a separate note: I argue that when a "substitute" runs onto the field to make a tackle, awarding a TD is still an insufficient penalty.

Think about it - suppose the opponent is about to score a 100% certain TD.
- You can do nothing
- If you do nothing, they'll get 6 points
- You can run onto the field, tackle him, then try to hide or mix in with the other players
- 99% of the time you won't get away with it and they'll get 6 points
- But 1% of the time the officials might miss it and you prevent a TD

So there's really no downside to trying this stunt. The worst outcome is no worse than before.

To make the consequences for getting caught worse than the outcome of playing by the rules, we need to add more consequences. An automatic TD plus 15 yards on the try/KO, for starters. Frankly I would throw in an ejection, too, so now there are both personal AND team consequences that are worse than obeying the rules.

[ElvisLives]

On a separate note: I argue that when a "substitute" runs onto the field to make a tackle, awarding a TD is still an insufficient penalty.

Think about it - suppose the opponent is about to score a 100% certain TD.
- You can do nothing
- If you do nothing, they'll get 6 points
- You can run onto the field, tackle him, then try to hide or mix in with the other players
- 99% of the time you won't get away with it and they'll get 6 points
- But 1% of the time the officials might miss it and you prevent a TD

So there's really no downside to trying this stunt. The worst outcome is no worse than before.

To make the consequences for getting caught worse than the outcome of playing by the rules, we need to add more consequences. An automatic TD plus 15 yards on the try/KO, for starters. Frankly I would throw in an ejection, too, so now there are both personal AND team consequences that are worse than obeying the rules.

Well, it would be a UNS, that adds to his counter. One more and he's done. But, I feel your point.

[dammitbobby]

On a separate note: I argue that when a "substitute" runs onto the field to make a tackle, awarding a TD is still an insufficient penalty.

Think about it - suppose the opponent is about to score a 100% certain TD.
- You can do nothing
- If you do nothing, they'll get 6 points
- You can run onto the field, tackle him, then try to hide or mix in with the other players
- 99% of the time you won't get away with it and they'll get 6 points
- But 1% of the time the officials might miss it and you prevent a TD

So there's really no downside to trying this stunt. The worst outcome is no worse than before.

To make the consequences for getting caught worse than the outcome of playing by the rules, we need to add more consequences. An automatic TD plus 15 yards on the try/KO, for starters. Frankly I would throw in an ejection, too, so now there are both personal AND team consequences that are worse than obeying the rules.

I can get behind that... the problem as I see it though is that what occurred, is not a specifically enumerated foul in the rule book, so how to attach it to what occurred here, but not other kinds of UNS behavior, without adding a specific rule (which is just adding complexity and length to the rule book.)