'09 refs' point of emphasis: offensive holding

[falloutboy14]

Personally, I think that the rules should be stricter on O-linemen. It would separate the talented O linemen from the players who's repertoire includes grabbing the pass-rusher's face mask and general blatant, but somehow border-line holding.

 

[jmt57]

Alright, I'll wave a white flag and say truce regarding "running up the score" in order to avoid a thread hijack.

Back to the original subject: it seems to me that offensive holding tends to be called far more often the longer it takes for a QB to throw the ball. Sorry for having no statistical evidence to back that up, but I don't think there are many that will disagree with that claim.

Now the question is who will be hurt more by this new point of emphasis: offenses that take a long time for a pass play to develop, or quarterbacks that tend to get rid of the ball quickly?

The slow-developing offenses have a tendency to need to hold more often simply because they can't protect the QB forever. On the other hand it might be a situation where refs are already flagging offensive lines when a QB takes a long time to throw; it could be that there are not all that many plays of this type that are not already being flagged.

If that is the case and the refs feel pressure to call more offensive holding penalties, then it is possible that even the offenses that feature quick-release quarterbacks will find themselves flagged more often - just to meet the quota.

However, I still think the play that breaks down and the QB that is forced out of the pocket, that is the play that will end up being flagged more often than any other. And in my opinion that means the offensive line in front of quarterbacks like Roethlisberger, McNabb, Garrard, etc. - those are the ones that will most likely see the biggest increase in offensive holding calls.

 

[BelichickFan]

There's no Supposedly about it - they did.

They ran up the score - but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[falloutboy14]

Sorry for having no statistical evidence to back that up, but I don't think there are many that will disagree with that claim.

In the link in the OP, Mike Periera said there were 300 ish holding calls in 1990 combared to 170 in a more recent year (estimating numbers instead of going back to check). I didn't watch much football 15 years ago, but I believe that the league is more pass happy now then it was then. Those two facts combined throw up a red flag to me.

I think we can all think of a play or two that sticks out where our favorite pass-rusher was absolutely man-handled by an O-lineman. If grabbing a RBs face-mask & using it to make a tackle is dangerous to a RB, its just as dangerous to a pass-rusher. I say take the leash off the pass-rushers give them the fair shake in the passing game and let teams adapt to that. I know it'll never be enforced like I want it but something's better then nothing.

As far as teams that will benefit from this, another aspect to take in is: Which teams can absorb a holding penalty, be in 2nd & 16 and keep the drive alive. I think it'll be the 5-6 teams that with elite/very good QBs & receivers that can dig themselves out of the bad situations that are bound to happen.

 

[upstater1]

Just keeping it real.

I thought the debate was whether they ran it up more than the Colts during Peyton's 49 TD season (they didn't).

No one disputes the Patriots ran it up in the 4th quarter of quite a few games.

People dispute the hypocrisy, since the Colts--who ran it up more--were never criticized. Not to mention the fact that people were pissed that BB ran it up on Gibbs, who was the one coach who ran scores up more than anyone else in football history.

I recall that's what the discussions were about.

 

[upstater1]

I always liked the previous holding protocol.

Inside lineman can grab a hold of the numbers of the defensive guy, as long as no hand is seen grabbing shoulder pads or the side of the body.

Outside lineman are left on an island and shouldn't hold at all.

That's how I think it should continue to be called. Last year I noticed a lot of calls on interior lineman for holding "properly."

I also hate the automatic flag when the defender gets taken down by strength and not by holding.

 

[jmt57]

As far as teams that will benefit from this, another aspect to take in is: Which teams can absorb a holding penalty, be in 2nd & 16 and keep the drive alive. I think it'll be the 5-6 teams that with elite/very good QBs & receivers that can dig themselves out of the bad situations that are bound to happen.

That's a good question, I hadn't thought about it from that angle; I was just thinking which teams tend to have slower developing plays and plays that break down that result in the QB scrambling in an attempt to buy time - with the idea those teams would likely draw more penalties since the longer it takes for a play to unfold, the more of a chance for an offensive lineman to be caught holding.

So in that regard some teams that already pass a lot such as the Saints and Cardinals, even though they might get penalized more often, they're also better equipped to make up that yardage. On the other hand teams with a QB with a weaker arm such as Pennington with the Dolphins - or teams with less than average receivers, or teams that run versions of the west coast offense that tend to not throw the ball very far downfield, they will not be in as good a position to make up for that penalty when it is called.

We'll have to wait and see how big of a change takes place. Penalties disrupt the rhythm of the game and cause it to take longer to finish; games are already often going past their alloted network time slot now. More importantly offense and scoring is a big selling point in this game; fans are more interested in a 28-24 game than a 13-10 game. If this results in less scoring I would imagine the NFL would quietly ask the referees to ease back on the calls.