Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by NFL Rules
    Note: Pass blocking: Hand(s) thrust forward that slip outside the body of the defender will be legal if blocker immediately 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.






    Case closed.

    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  2. #2
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    It seems like it was within the rules of holding to me. Thanks for the visuals, Nick.

  3. #3
    Hodgins's Avatar
    Hodgins is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    canada
    Age
    24
    Posts
    86
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    still a chicken **** call


    why the seahawks still envy the rams:tongue:

  4. #4
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hodgins
    still a chicken **** call
    Care to elaborate? It's either a penalty or it's not, and the visual evidence clearly shows Locklear hooking the defender, which constitutes a hold according to NFL rules.

    Furthermore, I haven't seen an official NFL rule book in person - I'm going off of the one on their webste - but somehow I'm hesitant to believe it's divided into "Legit Calls" and "Chicken <expletive> Calls."
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  5. #5
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,571
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    Furthermore, I haven't seen an official NFL rule book in person - I'm going off of the one on their webste - but somehow I'm hesitant to believe it's divided into "Legit Calls" and "Chicken <expletive> Calls."
    LOL

    OMG - Certainly one the funniest statements I have read in quite sometime....ROFL

    Good one, Nick!!



  6. #6
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    That seem's to be the mentality of quite a few people. It was a big play, you can't call a penalty on that. There are two problems with that line of thinking though. 1)The big play likely wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been holding(qb sack) and 2)the ref who threw the flag was looking in the backfield in the area of the qb and had no idea whether or not it was going to be a big play.

    I say it was a good call and Seattle's RT should have been in a better position if they didn't want the play called back.

  7. #7
    RealRam's Avatar
    RealRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    8,204
    Rep Power
    68

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Excellent job, Nick. And I agree with Mokler here on post #6.

  8. #8
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Maybe if I wanted a Seahawk fan's response, I should have gone to one of their boards with this. I was kind of expecting one of our guests to at least address this.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  9. #9
    rawkhrdr's Avatar
    rawkhrdr is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Auburn, WA
    Posts
    248
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Here's is why there was a questionable hold (which, I do not think was a hold)...the DE was offsides and that naturally put Locklear at a disadvantage of having to catch up. If the DE hadn't been offsides then he never would have beaten Locklear around the corner and he never would have been near Hass. In the video you can clearly see the DE start to move before Locklear. Look at the second picture you posted....Locklear never actually grabbed his jersey. Never. He had a hand on him as he went around the corner, as all offensive blockers should, but he never grabbed the jersey (which would constitute a hole). How can you have a holding call when there is no actual holding going on, just blocking. All the offensive players thought they had a free play on that play because #53 was offsides (the officials just didn't call it)

    To be fair, not all evil robots are killers.

  10. #10
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Here
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,406
    Rep Power
    50

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    In the video you can clearly see the DE start to move before Locklear.
    You can't see the ball in that clip so how can you know that the DE was offsides, maybe Locklear got a bad jump, maybe the DE was perfect on anticipating the snap count.
    BRUUUUUUUUCE


  11. #11
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,223
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    You can't see the ball in that clip so how can you know that the DE was offsides, maybe Locklear got a bad jump, maybe the DE was perfect on anticipating the snap count.
    I must admit, I've watched the play numerous times and it looks to me that Haggins did get a jump and was in the neutral zone before the snap, as was the nose tackle.

    I also have a problem with the holding call. When the two players engage, everything is fine, then Haggins jerks his right shoulder which causes Locklear's arm to go across Haggins chest, then Haggins snaps his right arm up and pins Locklear's arm. If you look at the first pic, you can see Haggins right arm pinning Locklear's right arm. In the clip you can see it happen. IMO, Locklear never grabbed or hooked Haggins, and therefore, no holding.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it.

  12. #12
    1st & Goal's Avatar
    1st & Goal is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    st peters, mo
    Posts
    152
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Correct me if my memory is wrong, but did this call come right after Stevens DROPPED a pass. If he makes the catch then the game changes and a different set of plays were going to be called. Complain about the ref's if you want. My problem is with the dropped ball, not the call.
    "I was the originator of smack. Some guys rattle with smack; with other guys it rolls right off their shoulders like nothing. "
    -Deacon Jones

  13. #13
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,223
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1st & Goal
    Correct me if my memory is wrong, but did this call come right after Stevens DROPPED a pass. If he makes the catch then the game changes and a different set of plays were going to be called. Complain about the ref's if you want. My problem is with the dropped ball, not the call.
    I'm certainly not complaining about the ref's, just debating a play I think was called wrong. Of all the questions about the officiating, this play and the penalty on Hasselbeck were the only two I had a problem with.

  14. #14
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Yeah, until Seattle fans explain away the 3+ dropped passes, horrible clock management, interception, non-call on Stevens' catch and fumble, 2 missed field goals and giving up a 75(!) yard td run to Willie Parker and 43 yard double reverse, wr pass for a td, I'm not going to worry about them squaking about the officials. It was a relatively clean game of officiating as far as I'm concerned.

  15. #15
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    the DE was offsides
    Disagree. Good defenders are able to anticipate the snap count and get great starts all the time that are not called. This is one of those times, IMO. That's one of the benefits of playing in the 3-4 defense, as Pittsburgh does. You have guys already on their feet at the rush backer position (not a DE) that once the ball is snapped can immediately begin their pursuit of the player and don't have to spend that extra little bit of time getting out of a down stance, as Locklear does.


    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    Look at the second picture you posted....Locklear never actually grabbed his jersey. Never. He had a hand on him as he went around the corner, as all offensive blockers should, but he never grabbed the jersey (which would constitute a hole).
    Um, that's entirely incorrect. Let me repost the rule for you.

    Note: Pass blocking: Hand(s) thrust forward that slip outside the body of the defender will be legal if blocker immediately 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.
    As you can see, a lineman can be called for holding without grabbing onto the jersey. While grabbing onto the jersey does constitute holding, it's not the only condition in which the penalty can be called. It can also be called when a lineman encircles (aka hooks) a defender with an arm to prevent his path to the ball carrier, and that's exactly what Locklear did when trying to block Haggins.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •