Holding Penalty Question

Show All Comments

BUCKEYE3M's picture

If the penalty occurs past the line of scrimmage, it is marked off from the spot of the foul.  

Similarly, that's how we ended up with a first and ten after JT had a 40 yard run called back. The hold by Baugh was downfield, so it was marked off from the spot, which still resulted in Ohio State getting a first down. 

Don't confuse my analysis of the situation with my opinion on it.

 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HS
Seattle Linga's picture

Well said 3M - nice explanation 

Great question AB

Member of the 6DD

I've got a flash for you Joy Boy

HS
dubjayfootball90's picture

Quick question. I assumed that it was because it happened past the line, but since it did happen past the line, why was it not at least a first down then? I mean, JT scrambled, got a first down, and the penalty called it back, and it was still first down for us? Was there something I missed, like the ball was not yet past the LOS yet, or because it was a score, there was no tackle/direct spot to call a first down, so it was just staying at 3rd down?

I know it was 3rd and 8 because the penalty occurred past the LOS, but should it have been first down?

You can feed a bobcat all the chili it wants. That don't mean it's going to crap out diamonds.

HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Baugh's hold happened like 20 yards downfield, so 10 yards back from there was still enough for a 1st.  The PSU hold was like 5 yards past the LoS, so when they backed up 10 yards from there they were short of the line to gain.

HS
dubjayfootball90's picture

Got ya, I thought it was much closer to the LOS. My bad, I just missed it. Thanks, CT.

You can feed a bobcat all the chili it wants. That don't mean it's going to crap out diamonds.

HS
Keyser Soze's picture

Baugh's holding was a crap call. I played TE for a long time and all of those little pansies do that every time, as soon as you kick their ass they turn and try to make it look like holding or block in the back. If I make contact with you straight on and KEEP contact like Marcus did and the defender turns to pursue the ball carrier that going outside it's not holding. The damn ref didn't see the whole play and just caught the tail end of things when Marcus was blocking him on his back. 

That's how winners play. We convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.

HS
skinnytrees's picture

It can be 10 yards from the spot of the penalty

Remember when JT broke a big run. It was still our first down but 10 yards from spot

HS
NashBuckeye's picture

It's 10 yards from the spot of the foul. The hold must have been 3 yards past the line of scrimmage 

WOW: Am I a slow typer or what? 2 people beat me to the punch.

HS
JohnnyKozmo's picture

It's 10 yards from the spot of the foul I believe if it's down field. 

You're too stupid to have a good time. -Dalton

HS
cpewster's picture

It depends on where the hold occured. I felt the same way about it though. The officials basically said it happened a couple yards down field.

Si vis pacem parabellum.

HS
Knarcisi's picture

It's from the spot of the foul, so in that case, was 3 yards past the line of scrimmage. 

HS
tunehtraef's picture

It's 10 yards from the spot of the foul, so if it was three yards past the line on 3rd and 1, it would move back 10 yards and be 3rd and 8.

HS
Knarcisi's picture

Man, when AirBuckeye talks, people respond. You guys will do that for me when I have a plumbing problem, right?

HS
BUCKEYE3M's picture

I will Google you a plumber lickity split. 

Don't confuse my analysis of the situation with my opinion on it.

 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HS
Knarcisi's picture

No, no, not yet. Just get ready when I need one. Cool?  I'll probably be on here any way with the old lady yellin "our bathroom sink doesn't work and you're still on that damn Eleven Warriors". 

HS
BUCKEYE3M's picture

and you're still on that damn Eleven Warriors

I resemble that remark. 

Don't confuse my analysis of the situation with my opinion on it.

 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HS
QuadCitiesBuckeye's picture

If it has anything to do with huffing poo-gas or toilet snorkeling, FatPants is your man

Shandy is not beer

HS
Knarcisi's picture

I'll have to have FatPants go do my business for me after the wife's been in there. He's a better man than me. 

HS
BuckeyeChief's picture

Thanks for the explanation ; I was confused as well, on their hold and ours.

SCPO, USN (ret)

HS
Kevbo714's picture

"This is my swing set.  This is my sand box.  I am not allowed to go in the deep end..."  -Ralph Wiggum

Kyle "blood on the field" Kalis... 0-5

HS
SpringfieldBuckeye's picture

Is it ten yards from the spot of the foul?

HS
airbuckeye's picture

Thanks 3m I had forgotten that rule and I think I know why was because I was just to into the game and lost it when I saw how they marked it off.

HS
buckzilla1's picture

Well said now explain the targeting foul against us because I was screaming about playing two hand touch or flag football next.SMH

I'm just a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude.

HS
Knarcisi's picture

Thought it was a bad call. Poor Cam Williams hasn't played in 4 years and is just trying to make a play.  Not like that kid was vulnerable. Hard to tell where his head was gonna be. Thought the call on Bolden in the TTUN game was poor, too. 

HS
BuckU's picture

I thought #3 was more at fault for a shot to the head than Bolden on that play.  Hitting a sliding QB is bad.  Hitting him in the head is really bad.  In both of their defense, it was a bang-bang play, and if memory serves, the call "stood", and was not "confirmed".  Not that a player should be ejected if there isn't conclusive video evidence of the foul, but the assumption is that the on-field official is correct unless the tape proves conclusively otherwise.

HS
TheKid94's picture

It was a good call.  Made contact above the shoulders leading with the crown of his helmet.

Actually, the targeting calls are trying to prevent the game from changing from what it is.  Most of these plays would already be penalties a few years ago but the increased emphasis on player safety is an effort to prevent people from playing in a dangerous fashion.  If we keep seeing concussions and injuries happen because guys aren't being penalized for making dangerous plays then there WILL be rule changes.  There are some weird discussions happening even at the NFL level right now as a reaction to injuries (for example, getting rid of 3-pt stances).  As an OHSAA official, we've been told that it's on us to keep the game from changing.  If we see these illegal hits and penalize them correctly and consistently then players will be reminded to tackle in a safe and legal manner more often.  It is possible for defenders to make clean, legal, and efficient tackles and the thought is with targeting calls, the players and coaches are more likely to figure out what those ways are.

HS
Buckeye Jack's picture

we've been told that it's on us to keep the game from changing.

Did they explain what they meant by that? 

Zone6, with rotating WR's, will have 1000+ yards at all 3 WR positions this season

HS
cmented36's picture

If we see these illegal hits and penalize them correctly and consistently then players will be reminded to tackle in a safe and legal manner more often.  It is possible for defenders to make clean, legal, and efficient tackles and the thought is with targeting calls, the players and coaches are more likely to figure out what those ways are.

Probably what he wrote immediately after...  

HS
BUCKEYE3M's picture

the targeting foul against us

As frustrating as that penalty was, it was called correctly, in accordance with the rule.  So, the rule, while created for player safety, was kind of more than a little frustrating in this case.  As has been stated, the entire reasons the rule was written was to stop players from leading with their heads, like when they launch themselves like missiles into opponents, and to stop players from targeting the head of opponents.  The worst part about the penalty is this: intent.  The officials have to determine the intent of the player, and they're not mind readers.  They have to go by what they see.

What officials look for are what the rulebook calls targeting elements: crouching and hitting with an upward thrust; launching into a player to hit them in the head; contact above the shoulders on a defenseless player; leading with the crown of the helmet. (Source: Associated Press)

In the case of the Cam Williams penalty, I believe two things led to the penalty, as well as the ejection being upheld after replay.  The first part, which caused the penalty, was that he lowered his head as he went in for the tackle.  Therefore, he was leading with his crown.  That may not have been a big deal had he been going into his waist or legs, but he was up high.  And, that made it a no-brainer, essentially it was a textbook example of targeting.  The frustrating part of this is that the ball carrier turned in time to see the hit coming and instinctively shrunk himself to absorb the contact.  In doing so, he lowered his head, and in my opinion, ensured there would be helmet to helmet contact.  However, had Williams not lowered his head, at a minimum, he wouldn't have been ejected.

The second part that I think led to his ejection after review, which is something that can go either way (think back one week to a targeting call that was called against Joey Bosa), and that was whether or not the ball carrier was defenseless.  When it went for the official review, they were looking at two things primarily, intent and if the player was defenseless.  I believe that they determined Cam Williams had intent by lowering his head and leading with the crown (even if I personally disagree with it) and that the ball carrier was defenseless, as he was turning upfield and the hit was largely a blind side (another point of contention with the fan in me).

Hope that clears it up for you.  That's my understanding of the rule, how it's applied, and the logic behind it.

Don't confuse my analysis of the situation with my opinion on it.

 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HS
Earle's picture

Yeah, you drop your head like that and you're gonna get flagged.  

My shenanigans are mostly benign.

HS
TheKid94's picture

That's a pretty decent explanation for the play.  Regarding the running back's head level, we do have what are called "low-risk indicators" meaning things that may signify reasons not to call targeting depending on different factors in each situation.  One of which is the player's head level changing, but that's more reserved for a more drastic change in position such as a dive or slide, whereas on this play it was a difference of a few inches maybe.  Cam Williams would've hit his helmet either way, most likely.

HS
BUCKEYE3M's picture

Thanks. I thought Williams was lined up for his chest, although I readily admit that as a fan, it may just be how I want to see it. 

Don't confuse my analysis of the situation with my opinion on it.

 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HS