How bad was the holding penalty by Gronk?

[ausbacker]

Thankfully they don't. It has been called in years past but it is rare...the ref whiffed a little on it. Its a hold by definition but it's petty and goes on all the time without being called.

If that's all you're going to hang your hat on, then it's clear why so many have taken issue with your commentary. There's been too many media pieces outlining and demonstrating why the call should not have been made for it's a hold by definition to be a strong point for argument.

 

[UK_Pat37]

If that's all you're going to hang your hat on, then it's clear why so many have taken issue with your commentary. There's been too many media pieces outlining and demonstrating why the call should not have been made for it's a hold by definition to be a strong point for argument.

All there is to hang my hate on? The rules are rules. There's no middle ground. What Gronk did, by definition, is a hold. He grabbed his jersey...that is a hold.

The media are the media. Media members know as much about the actual rules half the people on this board.

Look at Golden Tate's hit on Sean Lee for example. So many media outlets are calling for a suspension, but if you look up the rule of a blind side hit, that clearly wasn't a blind side hit. But hey, the media says it looks savage so let's jump on the 'ban Golden Tate' bandwagon because the hit looked horrible.

Similar thing here. It doesn't look like much, but it's still a hold.

Mike Perreira admitted that himself on twitter and in the quoted piece on the last page. It's a 'marginal call'...well just because is marginal, doesn't make it not a hold. On twitter his wording was 'it's a hold, but I've seen worse let go'.

Bruschi ; 'Gronk was holding'.

You go by media members who haven't played or managed in the NFL if you like. A lot of them are the same media members who speculate and get things wrong as much as you and me.

I'll go on those two quotes.

I've said I don't like the call, but my issue with it was the consistency of the call. It wasn't consistent with what they had been calling through the previous 59 minutes.

 

[ausbacker]

All there is to hang my hate on? The rules are rules. There's no middle ground. What Gronk did, by definition, is a hold. He grabbed his jersey...that is a hold.

The media are the media. Media members know as much about the actual rules half the people on this board.

Look at Golden Tate's hit on Sean Lee for example. So many media outlets are calling for a suspension, but if you look up the rule of a blind side hit, that clearly wasn't a blind side hit. But hey, the media says it looks savage so let's jump on the 'ban Golden Tate' bandwagon because the hit looked horrible.

Similar thing here. It doesn't look like much, but it's still a hold.

Mike Perreira admitted that himself on twitter and in the quoted piece on the last page. It's a 'marginal call'...well just because is marginal, doesn't make it not a hold. On twitter his wording was 'it's a hold, but I've seen worse let go'.

Bruschi ; 'Gronk was holding'.

You go by media members who haven't played or managed in the NFL if you like. A lot of them are the same media members who speculate and get things wrong as much as you and me.

I'll go on those two quotes.

I've said I don't like the call, but my issue with it was the consistency of the call. It wasn't consistent with what they had been calling throu the previous 59 minutes.

You're absolutely right in that there is no middle ground. It wasn't a hold. End of discussion.

 

[JJDChE]

You guys are still arguing about this? I thought Mike Pereira settled the argument when he said it was a hold?

 

[ausbacker]

You guys are still arguing about this? I thought Mike Pereira settled the argument when he said it was a hold?

JJDChE there's only one person still arguing. Thankfully and for a fresh change, it isn't either of us.

 

[UK_Pat37]

You're absolutely right in that there is no middle ground. It wasn't a hold. End of discussion.

The rule states you can't 'grasp' a player with the use of your hands. Gronkowski did just that. So, you're wrong.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I think our outrage is a little situational. Would we be arguing against a hold like that if it were our defense trying to stop a score? Does anyone remember the tuck rule? How'd we argue that one?

 

[Wilfork#75]

There are a lot of people on here that know a lot more about football than me. Can those who think its not a penalty help me figure out where I am going wrong. I am genuinely trying to understand where you guys are coming from. Here is my thinking of the play (sorry the screen caps aren't bigger):

1. Gronk engages the defender, squares him up nicely and is well balanced. Text book block.


2. He starts to drive the defender, block still looks good here


3. Can't see where his hands are placed but no problems with the block yet


4. This is where things start to get a little iffy. Its tough to tell where his hands are, but his right hand looks like it could be up around the shoulder area. The defender is starting to shift his weight to his left and trying to shed the tackle to go after the ball carrier.


5. This is where it seems to become a bit more clearer. Gronk's right hand is clearly holding the defender up around the defenders shoulder pads. The defender is stretching to disengage and go after the ball carrier, but he is off balance.


6. The defender has been turned inside by Gronk's right arm, allowing Woodhead to easily break to the outside.


7. This is a clearer shot. The defender has been turned 90 degrees inside by Gronk, with his hand still clearly around the left shoulder area.


To me is seems that if Gronk doesn't grab the defender around the left shoulder pad, he is unable to stop the defender from disengaging and unable to turn him inside. Without that the defender would have a shot at making a play on Woodhead who is only 2-3 yards away from him at the time.

Is the hold itself bad? No. But is the result of the hold significant? Yes. That is what I think makes this different to all of the other holds that happen routinely throughout the game. This one directly contributed to a major play and one that would have likely been game winning. If this happens on the other side of the field away from the ball carrier there is no way it is holding. But the fact that it took away the opportunity for the only defender in the area to make a play on the ball carrier to me makes it a necessary call.

So where am I going wrong? Is there something I'm not seeing or am I seeing too much? I am interested to see some feedback of the actual play.

 

[ausbacker]

The rule states you can't 'grasp' a player with the use of your hands. Gronkowski did just that. So, you're wrong.

The rules dictating the use of hands state blockers are not allowed to push their opponents. If we go on your archaic interpretation of literature, there wouldn't be an NFL to watch.

Move on UK. You're now arguing with yourself from a precarious position.

 

[UK_Pat37]

Tough to see from those shots but if his hands go outside the numbers he's setting himself up to be flagged. You're supposed to keep your hands inside. If our arms go outside the numbers you're entitled to bring them back in and not get flagged if you do so but, if you don't and wind up hooking the opponent, then it is a hold.

That's all their is to it. From Real time I thought he had a hold of his jersey in one area...from your shots it looked like he hooked the defender at least. Which wld also be a hold.

The rules dictating the use of hands state blockers are not allowed to push their opponents. If we go on your archaic interpretation of literature, there wouldn't be an NFL to watch.

Move on UK. You're now arguing with yourself from a precarious position.

Here are some extracts from the rule book;

"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."

"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 immediately must work to bring his hands on or inside the frame. "

To me, I think we can say he restricted the players movement by having his hands outside of the frame and did so well after he's expected to pull his hands in. From Wilfork's shots anyway.

I cant really be bothered to go look at it for the millionth time.

Blockers aren't allowed to 'push' their opponents?

 

[Yehoodi]

I think our outrage is a little situational. Would we be arguing against a hold like that if it were our defense trying to stop a score? Does anyone remember the tuck rule? How'd we argue that one?

unlike the Gronk hold which could be called different ways depending on the particular refs and the dynamic and play calling of the specific game, the tuck rule was called corrected at the time and would be called that way 99 times out of a 100, completely different situation. . .

 

[JJDChE]

unlike the Gronk hold which could be called different ways depending on the particular refs and the dynamic and play calling of the specific game, the tuck rule was called corrected at the time and would be called that way 99 times out of a 100, completely different situation. . .

The hold was called correctly, the tuck rule wasn't called correctly at the time. They had to review it to get the correct call (it was an official's review, I believe, inside 2:00). Most times that would have gone down as a fumble, it wouldn't have been reviewed.

 

[Yehoodi]

There are a lot of people on here that know a lot more about football than me. Can those who think its not a penalty help me figure out where I am going wrong. I am genuinely trying to understand where you guys are coming from. Here is my thinking of the play (sorry the screen caps aren't bigger):

1. Gronk engages the defender, squares him up nicely and is well balanced. Text book block.


2. He starts to drive the defender, block still looks good here


3. Can't see where his hands are placed but no problems with the block yet


4. This is where things start to get a little iffy. Its tough to tell where his hands are, but his right hand looks like it could be up around the shoulder area. The defender is starting to shift his weight to his left and trying to shed the tackle to go after the ball carrier.


5. This is where it seems to become a bit more clearer. Gronk's right hand is clearly holding the defender up around the defenders shoulder pads. The defender is stretching to disengage and go after the ball carrier, but he is off balance.


6. The defender has been turned inside by Gronk's right arm, allowing Woodhead to easily break to the outside.


7. This is a clearer shot. The defender has been turned 90 degrees inside by Gronk, with his hand still clearly around the left shoulder area.


To me is seems that if Gronk doesn't grab the defender around the left shoulder pad, he is unable to stop the defender from disengaging and unable to turn him inside. Without that the defender would have a shot at making a play on Woodhead who is only 2-3 yards away from him at the time.

Is the hold itself bad? No. But is the result of the hold significant? Yes. That is what I think makes this different to all of the other holds that happen routinely throughout the game. This one directly contributed to a major play and one that would have likely been game winning. If this happens on the other side of the field away from the ball carrier there is no way it is holding. But the fact that it took away the opportunity for the only defender in the area to make a play on the ball carrier to me makes it a necessary call.

So where am I going wrong? Is there something I'm not seeing or am I seeing too much? I am interested to see some feedback of the actual play.

When it first happened I was very upset and thought it was a bad call . . . I was even going to post here on this thread about the ball call . . . but as I have seen the replays I can see why the officials called it a hold. . .

Basically you can hold a player and its not holding, then you can hold and it is holding . . . I mention this in this matter because not all "holds" are holding. Not many people block with an open palm nowadays . . . for the most part (1) you can grab and hold the oppenents jersey inside the shoulders around the numbers and its not a holding penalty even tho you are holding on the the jersey . . . (2)
however, if you grab outside of the shoulders to get control of the opponent that will likely be called holding more often than not . . . (3) if you grab basically any where and turn the opponent it will be called holding . . . (4) if you grab anywhere and do not realize the player who is trying to move laterally to get out of the block it will likely be called holding (this is where Gronk's hold falls into). . . this is especially bad, as in Gronk's case, if the player who is trying to release is trying to do so at the point of attack . . .

So bottom line about the above 4 examples, one is not holding of one grabs and holds the opponent inside the shoulder pads and is allowed to move forward with a block, hold him stationary, etc with out a penalty, but the moment you twist him or fail to release him when he was to get away you will be called for holding . . . also if you grab outside the shoulder pads to get control you will be called for holding in almost all sceranios . . .


So given the above and having looked at the play a few times, Gronk, altho initially had a good "hold em by the inner jersay" block, he should of let the player release as Woodhead past behind him . . . there was no problem with the grab and bull push the defender back, but once the defenders want to move laterally and or back to get released from the block to get Woodhead it became a hold . . .

Bottom line the only way the defender could not get away from Gronk is if Gronk was holding on to him and hence the hold call . . .

now with ALL of that said, I have seen many times that call go as a professional foul and one has been entitled to some degree of buffer time to release the defender . . . and given how the game was called, specifically the defender getting away with a professional hold on gronk's jersey earlier in the qtr . . . I can see the refs letting that go . . .

but as holds go, given the fact that it was at the point of attack and Gronk did not release the defender when the latter wanted to get away, I can see why the sideline ref, who had a good view of Gronk right hand, would throw the flag . . .

 

[PatsSox363804]

As a fan of a team that lost a perfect season largely due to obvious holds that were not called I'm more than a little pissed about losing this game due largely to a marginal hold that they weren't calling the entire game.

 

[letekro]

There are a lot of people on here that know a lot more about football than me. Can those who think its not a penalty help me figure out where I am going wrong. I am genuinely trying to understand where you guys are coming from. Here is my thinking of the play (sorry the screen caps aren't bigger):

1. Gronk engages the defender, squares him up nicely and is well balanced. Text book block.


2. He starts to drive the defender, block still looks good here


3. Can't see where his hands are placed but no problems with the block yet


4. This is where things start to get a little iffy. Its tough to tell where his hands are, but his right hand looks like it could be up around the shoulder area. The defender is starting to shift his weight to his left and trying to shed the tackle to go after the ball carrier.


5. This is where it seems to become a bit more clearer. Gronk's right hand is clearly holding the defender up around the defenders shoulder pads. The defender is stretching to disengage and go after the ball carrier, but he is off balance.


6. The defender has been turned inside by Gronk's right arm, allowing Woodhead to easily break to the outside.


7. This is a clearer shot. The defender has been turned 90 degrees inside by Gronk, with his hand still clearly around the left shoulder area.


To me is seems that if Gronk doesn't grab the defender around the left shoulder pad, he is unable to stop the defender from disengaging and unable to turn him inside. Without that the defender would have a shot at making a play on Woodhead who is only 2-3 yards away from him at the time.

Is the hold itself bad? No. But is the result of the hold significant? Yes. That is what I think makes this different to all of the other holds that happen routinely throughout the game. This one directly contributed to a major play and one that would have likely been game winning. If this happens on the other side of the field away from the ball carrier there is no way it is holding. But the fact that it took away the opportunity for the only defender in the area to make a play on the ball carrier to me makes it a necessary call.

So where am I going wrong? Is there something I'm not seeing or am I seeing too much? I am interested to see some feedback of the actual play.

Didn't you hear? The former official, now talking head, opined on a Boston radio show that the hold, while technically correct, should not have been called. Therefore, the call was wrong. Got it?

Look, we've all seen it. He didn't hold for a long time, but he held and the way Rhodes reacted, it looked like he was being prevented from reaching for Woodhead by Gronk's right arm on his shoulder pad. Some here think that officials should use their judgment on these calls, but only if their judgment is agreeable to those particular persons. I, for one, give up, but thanks for posting this.

 

[PatsDeb]

It was a crap call because the call was inconsistent with how the game was being called. I mean, when a guy is holding on to Lloyd's jersey for about 20 yards as he runs downfield, and that doesn't get called, but this borderline call on Gronk does? And it changes the outcome of the game? C'mon NFL.

 

[Yehoodi]

The hold was called correctly, the tuck rule wasn't called correctly at the time. They had to review it to get the correct call (it was an official's review, I believe, inside 2:00). Most times that would have gone down as a fumble, it wouldn't have been reviewed.

I know that it went under review, I was speaking of the final, after review call, in which Walt Colemen made the correct call that it was an incomplete pass . . . it was in not way, any day and twice on Sunday, a fumble under the NFL rules, period . . . and contrary to your memory, it has always been reviewed when the review has been requested by a coach or done so within 2 mins . . .

you may have a problem with the forward pass rule being overly broad, that is fine but your beef is with the NFL rules and not the matter in which it was call in that game . . .

The "tuck rule" as it is called is merely the delination line between the point in which a forward pass (which was deemed to have started once the QB's hand moves forward) stop becoming a forward pass and the QB is deemed to be a runner again thereby and loss of the ball is a fumble . . .

The "tuck rule" is really not a rule at all but the end point of a forward pass . . . KI think some fans dont get this . . .

Also, maybe fans should start to think of a better end line for the forward pass then complaining about the tuck . . .

I have heard many fans and sports writers whine about the so called "tuck rule" but none, and i mean NONE have proposed an alternative end point to the forward pass . . .

people need to start being part of the solution than complain about the so call problem . . . (I am not saying you are necessarily complaining but you did talk about the tuck rule and I wanted to make my point)

I think the end point is fine and is easy to administer . . . surely there may be other endpoints, but each one has its own pros and cons . . .

I think the biggest problem with the tuck rule in that game is the time of the incomplete pass . . .

the NFL is all about consistency and ease with which to official the game . . . surely the present end point of the forward pass might be overally broad and include sitauations where the QB has mentally stopped his pass, but we have other rules that are overly broad that allow for thinks that arent such as the spike at the feet of a RB whilst being rushed or the throw out of bounds pass the LOS whilst being out of the pocket, both of these are text book ground, the QB having no intention of completing a pass whilst under pressure from the defense, but they are exceptions to the grounding rule and are overly broad as it allows a QB to ground the ball and not get called for it . . . but its part of the game . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

It was a crap call because the call was inconsistent with how the game was being called. I mean, when a guy is holding on to Lloyd's jersey for about 20 yards as he runs downfield, and that doesn't get called, but this borderline call on Gronk does? And it changes the outcome of the game? C'mon NFL.

yes the one thing that bother me was the fact that given how the game was played and officiated, the refs, who could of made the call, should of let the call go to be consistent with the rest of the game . . .

 

[JJDChE]

I know that it went under review, I was speaking of the final, after review call, in which Walt Colemen made the correct call that it was an incomplete pass . . . it was in not way, any day and twice on Sunday, a fumble under the NFL rules, period . . . and contrary to your memory, it has always been reviewed when the review has been requested by a coach or done so within 2 mins . . .

you may have a problem with the forward pass rule being overly broad, that is fine but your beef is with the NFL rules and not the matter in which it was call in that game . . .

The "tuck rule" as it is called is merely the delination line between the point in which a forward pass (which was deemed to have started once the QB's hand moves forward) stop becoming a forward pass and the QB is deemed to be a runner again thereby and loss of the ball is a fumble . . .

The "tuck rule" is really not a rule at all but the end point of a forward pass . . . KI think some fans dont get this . . .

Also, maybe fans should start to think of a better end line for the forward pass then complaining about the tuck . . .

I have heard many fans and sports writers whine about the so called "tuck rule" but none, and i mean NONE have proposed an alternative end point to the forward pass . . .

people need to start being part of the solution than complain about the so call problem . . . (I am not saying you are necessarily complaining but you did talk about the tuck rule and I wanted to make my point)

I think the end point is fine and is easy to administer . . . surely there may be other endpoints, but each one has its own pros and cons . . .

I think the biggest problem with the tuck rule in that game is the time of the incomplete pass . . .

the NFL is all about consistency and ease with which to official the game . . . surely the present end point of the forward pass might be overally broad and include sitauations where the QB has mentally stopped his pass, but we have other rules that are overly broad that allow for thinks that arent such as the spike at the feet of a RB whilst being rushed or the throw out of bounds pass the LOS whilst being out of the pocket, both of these are text book ground, the QB having no intention of completing a pass whilst under pressure from the defense, but they are exceptions to the grounding rule and are overly broad as it allows a QB to ground the ball and not get called for it . . . but its part of the game . . .

tl;dr?
..........

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Didn't you hear? The former official, now talking head, opined on a Boston radio show that the hold, while technically correct, should not have been called. Therefore, the call was wrong. Got it?

Look, we've all seen it. He didn't hold for a long time, but he held and the way Rhodes reacted, it looked like he was being prevented from reaching for Woodhead by Gronk's right arm on his shoulder pad. Some here think that officials should use their judgment on these calls, but only if their judgment is agreeable to those particular persons. I, for one, give up, but thanks for posting this.

No. What he said was was that it was an "MC" or a "Marginal Call" that could or could not have been made; he acknowledges that he personally wouldn't have made the call but he doesn't come out and say it was "wrong" to make the call.

Personally, I think what sealed it at the time of the call, in the "bang bang" of game speed, was that it occurs at the point where Woodhead releases from the line; if Gronk isn't holding him, he doesn't spring loose. I doubt it would have been called if it were away from the play.