Question on the no hold call against Ellis

[Cristoff]

I actually thought the refs were right (although I'll have to see the play again). Even if it was technically a hold, he may have held Ellis for a nanosecond and didn't even impede his progress.

YAKUZA

I couldn't disagree with your assessment more. It's either holding or it isn't. It makes absolutley no difference whether or not the hold was successful. If what your saying is true, then if someone gets flagged for PI but the receiver still catches the ball then the flag should be picked up? What the NFL needs to do is make things as black and white as possible. That's the only way you'll ever get consistent calls.

 

[SMCowboy]

I actually thought the refs were right (although I'll have to see the play again). Even if it was technically a hold, he may have held Ellis for a nanosecond and didn't even impede his progress. Same thing with Madden calling a hold on Flozell early in the game. Technically it was a hold, but in reality Flozell did almost nothing to impede the defender's progress.

Either way, I don't care too much of whether or not holds get called or not. I just would like consistency in what is and what isn't a hold. Give me that, and nobody can really ask for anything more.


YAKUZA

Holding is grabbing someone and impeding there progress.

As I said in my last responce. While I have never seen an official wave off and hold flag on an OL like that, that same principle happens a couple of times a year with DB's.

I can tell you from my time as a player, and an OL that officials are taught to throw the flag anytime you are engaged with a defender and have your hands extended past your shoulder pads.

The same reason that they say that holding happens on ever play it is just not always called. Most all OL will hold when they lockup on a defnder, but if they keep there hands in the confines of the should pads it is almost never called.

 

[SMCowboy]

I couldn't disagree with your assessment more. It's either holding or it isn't. It makes absolutley no difference whether or not the hold was successful. If what your saying is true, then if someone gets flagged for PI but the receiver still catches the ball then the flag should be picked up? What the NFL needs to do is make things as black and white as possible. That's the only way you'll ever get consistent calls.

You are right, it is either holding or it isn't. And the rule is very straight forward. You MUST impede the progress of the other player.

Reaching out and putting your hands on a player does not constitute holding. It does not become holding until you impede the progress of the opposing player.

 

[Spontae]

From NFL Rules:

USE OF HANDS, ARMS, AND BODY
1. No player on offense may assist a runner except by blocking for him. There shall be no interlocking interference.
2. A runner may ward off opponents with his hands and arms but no other player on offense may use hands or arms to obstruct an opponent by grasping with hands, pushing, or encircling any part of his body during a block. Hands (open or closed) can be thrust forward to initially contact an opponent on or outside the opponent's frame, but the blocker must work to bring his hands on or inside the frame.
Note: Pass blocking: Hand(s) thrust forward that slip outside the body of the defender will be legal if blocker worked to bring them back inside. Hand(s) or arm(s) that encircle a defender-i.e., hook an opponent-are to be considered illegal and officials are to call a foul for holding.
Blocker cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an opponent in a manner that restricts his movement as the play develops.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I couldn't disagree with your assessment more. It's either holding or it isn't. It makes absolutley no difference whether or not the hold was successful. If what your saying is true, then if someone gets flagged for PI but the receiver still catches the ball then the flag should be picked up? What the NFL needs to do is make things as black and white as possible. That's the only way you'll ever get consistent calls.

Well, it's like calling balls and strikes in baseball. You can demand umpires to make technically correct balls and strikes until you're blue in the face, but chances are...given the speed of the game...they are not going to be correct 100% of the time...or even 80% of the time. Instead, all you can really ask is for consistency. If an umpire is calling pitches 6 inches outside a strike every time, then the players know what they have to adjust to. I'll have to see the play again, but I really didn't see a hold. That being said, the ref's explanation of Ellis "running through a hold" is ludicrous. If he's held and he runs through it, it's still a hold. OTOH, if Jansen has the intent of holding but is not able to grab a hold of Ellis, then it's not a hold.


YAKUZA

 

[SMCowboy]

Blocker cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an opponent in a manner that restricts his movement as the play develops.

Thanks for finding the official rule.

 

[SMCowboy]

Well, it's like calling balls and strikes in baseball. You can demand umpires to make technically correct balls and strikes until you're blue in the face, but chances are...given the speed of the game...they are not going to be correct 100% of the time...or even 80% of the time. Instead, all you can really ask is for consistency. If an umpire is calling pitches 6 inches outside a strike every time, then the players know what they have to adjust to. I'll have to see the play again, but I really didn't see a hold. That being said, the ref's explanation of Ellis "running through a hold" is ludicrous. If he's held and he runs through it, it's still a hold. OTOH, if Jansen has the intent of holding but is not able to grab a hold of Ellis, then it's not a hold.


YAKUZA

Yakuza, I agree that the wording was terrible. I think it is a matter of having to give an explantion for waiving off the holding flag. I have heard several times in the past a very similar explanation for waving off defensive holding calls on DB's. What is ment, is that they did reach out in an attempt to hold the opposing player but the player ran threw it before the hold could actually happen.

 

[DanTanna]

Columbo whiffed on an attempted trip but was still flagged for even trying it. No contact was made and they called back Thompson's 20+ yard run!

 

[SMCowboy]

Columbo whiffed on an attempted trip but was still flagged for even trying it. No contact was made and they called back Thompson's 20+ yard run!

The rules are very different between holding and tripping or illegally blocking below the waist.

For holding you have to actually impede the defender. For blocking below the waist or tripping, the attempt to do so is enough to get a flag. This is largely because tripping and blocking below the waist illegally can very easily result in injuries to opposing players. Holding almost never results in injuries but instead just is an unfair advantage. Thus the differences.

 

[Yeagermeister]

The hold should have been called and it should have been offseatting penalties.

 

[SMCowboy]

The hold should have been called and it should have been offseatting penalties.

If he did not impede the progress of the opposing player (and it did not appear that he did to me) then no holding should not have been called.

 

[ghost]

i THINK the rule is that, since the attempted hold never happened, there was no call. I still think that should nullify the other penalty.


Man, we can't even take a penalty right....

 

[Cristoff]

Well, it's like calling balls and strikes in baseball. You can demand umpires to make technically correct balls and strikes until you're blue in the face, but chances are...given the speed of the game...they are not going to be correct 100% of the time...or even 80% of the time. Instead, all you can really ask is for consistency. If an umpire is calling pitches 6 inches outside a strike every time, then the players know what they have to adjust to. I'll have to see the play again, but I really didn't see a hold. That being said, the ref's explanation of Ellis "running through a hold" is ludicrous. If he's held and he runs through it, it's still a hold. OTOH, if Jansen has the intent of holding but is not able to grab a hold of Ellis, then it's not a hold.


YAKUZA

Have you ever seen an umpire reverse a ball/strike call in a baseball game? Even if he knows he's made a mistake the call stands. For that matter, do umpires call balls/strikes based on intent? No. If intent played any role in reversing a call last night, it should have been Ware's personal foul on Brunell.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Well, it's like calling balls and strikes in baseball. You can demand umpires to make technically correct balls and strikes until you're blue in the face, but chances are...given the speed of the game...they are not going to be correct 100% of the time...or even 80% of the time. Instead, all you can really ask is for consistency. If an umpire is calling pitches 6 inches outside a strike every time, then the players know what they have to adjust to. I'll have to see the play again, but I really didn't see a hold. That being said, the ref's explanation of Ellis "running through a hold" is ludicrous. If he's held and he runs through it, it's still a hold. OTOH, if Jansen has the intent of holding but is not able to grab a hold of Ellis, then it's not a hold.


YAKUZA

Well these are just one of many bad calls by the refs in the last two games. If your theory is right why then did TO's attempted block below the waist a penalty? He didn't hit his man. He didn't even impede the progress of his man from making a tackle. The ruling with TO's attempted block below the waist should have been called desame way Ellis's call. Both should either be a penalty or no penalty at all and it should be consistent throughout the entire game.

That same theory can also be applied to Ware's hit on Brunnell. He tried to pull back and not hit Brunnell in the head but still hits Brunnell ever so gently. I've seen much more vicious hits that that. Ware should not have been called for a penalty. Yet he gets called despite trying to pull back and had not intention of trying to injure the passer.

Maybe I'm just venting but there is too much questionable calls going against the Cowboys and very few obvious fouls not being called against the other teams these days. Refs are not calling it equally and is very strongly biased against the Cowboys.

Remember that TD catch against Henry? Definate offensive pass interference there. But why no call? Yet why was Witten called for a questionable pass interference play?

Watch again when there is a questionable penalty. The announcers will say words like "definate" and "dirty" to cover up what the refs did wrong. Then they won't show the penalty on replay or will go to a replay which will try to show the penalty from another angle.

Conspiracy against the Cowboys? I hate to admit it but a definate YES!

 

[MapleLeaf]

...there was a face mask, but since the ball carrier got his helmet ripped off and continued forward progress there was no penalty.

 

[charles hill]

Yeah this was the most bogus call I have ever heard. Just because Ellis was able to get to the QB they picked up the flag. The penalties should have been offset. Instead it gave Washington a 1st Down. Its calls like this that should get the refs jobs on the line. It was the complete wrong call. GET THE CALL RIGHT! Refs are hurting all sports. These guys are over thinking instead of logical thinking.