Search results

Bump for the guys who just watched the game on their DVRs.

Agreed. Though, if you have trouble teaching kids to turn their head when defending passes...

Yes. I think we are saying the same thing here. Just on the reading of the NCAA rule, it looks like a mechanical/technical rule (did the QB throw the ball?) rather than an intent rule (did the QB intend to throw the ball, but for the defensive holding?). The outcome was ridiculous. As D'Eriq...

I don't know if you are missing the context, but you may be missing the point of what I said. I was not trying to define the two penalties in totality. I was trying to give two specific examples of when a receiver has been impeded, and then to point out that their wasn't much of a distinction...

Right. In every possible way, this seems like it should have been easy to call, right? I mean, just out of habit, you say "defensive holding, automatic first down". Someone has to actively speak out in that ref huddle to say "but guys, this one is NOT an automatic first down, 'cause the QB...

Agreed. As I mentioned, I can't ever remember seeing a defensive holding called on an actual run play, so it is weird to see this kind of hair-splitting on an obvious pass play where the QB was forced to run.

The WR can be held prior to the pass being thrown. Yes, it's ridiculous. WR is held. DB stops holding. QB throws ball. Defensive holding, not PI. WR is held, DB keeps holding, QB throws ball, PI. Both penalties get automatic first downs. So the difference is just yardage? Seems like a...

I guess this is the part that kills us: "During a legal forward pass play in which the pass crosses the neutral zone" So if D'Eriq had thrown the ball, we would have had an automatic first down. NCAA needs to change that rule ASAP. Taken to its logical extreme, every defense should just hold...

Well, in all fairness, the SEC just discovered the passing game, so I can see how their refs misinterpreted...

I think you nailed that one too.

100% correct. I still think it was possible for the refs to get to the "correct" conclusion by noting that the hold occurred on a WR trying to run a pattern downfield. The OLs were dropping back to pass-protect, they were NOT firing forward to run-block. In no way was Wiggins trying to block #0.

Yeah, I agree, I had added that to my response to CB24. And Manny/other coaches had a ****E-TON of time to argue that point, while King was down on the field.

Here's another question, in case we have any rules experts... QB drops back to pass. The center runs 15 yards downfield. However, the QB cannot find an open receiver and eventually scrambles for positive yardage. Should there be a penalty for illegal man downfield, or is it negated by the...

It gets worse. Look at my "EDIT" on what really happened on that play.

Oh, and for the record, I actually think it is AWESOME that Marshall "Few" wears #0. Very appropriate.

Yes. That's actually a great point, as defensive holding of a WR might force a QB to run. EDIT: Goddammit, I just watched the play AGAIN. The penalty was on #0. He held...Dee Wiggins trying to run a route. I think the refs botched this one, it SHOULD have been an automatic first down...

OK, someone brought this up on a nuked thread. When D'Eriq was injured, the defense was called for holding, yet we had to repeat second down. Apparently, the college rules differ for whether the play was a running play or a passing play (which is almost always when you see defensive holding...