Thanks for this. I’ve recorded the game, but haven’t watched it yet. I think this was a reasonable call, though I can see an argument against it.
Yep by letter of the law it was definitely OPI. Now I bet if the ref knew how far from the play it would end up being flag never gets thrown.
Doesn’t matter though—if a hold occurs on the off side of the line on a run, it’s still a hold regardless of distance from the actual ball carrier.
Not true. There is an AR about the point of attack. I think this was only called because the pursuing defensive player was interfered with. Had it been the one going the other direction or had Arc not so obviously changed route to interfere it would have been ignored. Further, after Arc’s bump, the other receiver was open Had the ball gone there it would have been an obvious pick play.
Well I could be wrong then—I’d like to see the wording of the rule to see if it excludes offenses deemed to be far enough away from the play to not call.
Here's the rule--I don't see anything that say OPI has to be within some distance of the play.
There is the rule book, then there are the authorized rulings. The AR book defines how to apply the rules. The NCAA uses both. This is why you don’t see (or shouldn’t see) holding called away from the point of attack.
I didn’t say otherwise. In fact, I explicitly said that OPI doesn’t have to be near where the ball is thrown. You asked about holding on the opposite side of a run.
Where does this AR book exist? I can't seem to find anything that that fits the bill, only the NCAA rule book. Anyways, perhaps my holding analogy was off base but the OPI was definitely OPI based on the rule.
The biggest tragedy is that that play is lost to history (and the refs) for all eternity.
The interpretations at the end are a key factor. But also Redding guides are also widely used.
Indeed it was. As I noted, PI restrictions for the offense start at the snap. The officials don't know where the ball is intended, and a block downfield, while seemingly away from they play, does have an impact. Both in terms of the D reading the play (i.e. if they see someone blocking downfield, they assume a run) and in terms of guys "popping open" suddenly. I can almost guarantee that the official that threw the flag didn't consider that the ball was nowhere near the PI, only that the ball crossed the LOS and there was apparently intentional interference with the D.
It is an officiating philosophy that is taught starting as low as junior high football. I've been a HS official for nearly 20 years, and we've always had this philosophy. Holding is only a factor at the point of attack. You can find plenty of associations that teach this. Here's one quick one:
Thanks for the info.
This x1000. Letter of law maybe but this goes uncalled 99/100 times. Same as guys getting their feet tangled up while both looking for the ball on a pass being called defensive PI, Arcanado having nowhere to go because of all of the traffic in the middle of the field where he didn’t initiate any contact makes this a highly questionable call. The fact that it had zero impact on the play was insult to injury.
These are judgement calls, rather like PI. The point of attack is a general philosophy. Call it a "halo" rule for holding. Generally holding is only a concern at the point of attack. But holding anywhere on the field, if in the opinion of the covering official provides an unfair advantage, can and should be called. So your example of a pitch to the left with a crashing LB on the right, if that LB had sufficient speed and position that had the hold not occurred would have impacted the play, then yes, it is a foul. But that is a judgment call.
A judgement call. There was one other option: stop running. While I think the contact was not sufficient to give an advantage to the offense, I can see the argument that Arc's movement impeded the crossing defensive player's ability to provide coverage. Again, the covering official almost certainly didn't even look to see if the ball was going in that direction. He say interference and the ball cross the LOS.
That's the $64,000 question. Was the contact "incidental"? That's the judgement call. I don't think it was incidental. It looked intentional to me. But I also don't think it provided any advantage to the offense. I have called plenty of OPI's in my day (a lot less than DPI's for sure) for blocking downfield on a pass. And in those cases it has always been because the defense bites on the blocks thinking it is a run. (All the other OPIs are for the obvious push of the DB out of the way.)
While I do agree it had no impact on the play, and should not have been called, I don't think it was a case of an overly zealous official calling the letter of the law. It was a judgement call. I do think Arc initiated contact in a way that was suspicious. I can't tell who was the other half of the mesh, but he popped wide open. Had the ball been thrown to him, I don't think the call of OPI would have been at all bad.
Not even true. Nobody calls any of the book by the "letter of the law." Everything is tempered by authorized interpretations and officiating philosophy. And none of those guys get to that level by being rule Nazis. Even egregious holds that have no impact on the play aren't called (unless it is a safety issue).
I'm still looking for film on the unsportsman like calls from the week and the Northern Colorado games. I'd like to see what the officials saw. But sometimes there is a verbal component to those too that you can't see.
Huh? It was the LB stepping up to cover the left to right crossing route (I can't see the number) that Arc bumped into. It was that freeing up of the crossing route that I'm pretty sure prompted the flag for OPI.
Here's my issue with the judgment thing--if a ref sees holding on the line away from the play, if he doesn't call it at the time he observes it he basically has to see into the future to decide whether that defensive player that was taken out of the play could not have potentially been involved with the play as per my example; in other words, he has to observe the foul, hold judgement for the 10-12 seconds til the play is dead to decide whether the hold ultimately was insignificant or not, and if it was go back to that spot and then throw the flag. That just doesn't happen in my experience watching football.
Not exactly. There is a time window. Consider your pitch left example (pitch left and a hard push by a LB on the right who is held). Say the running back is bottled up and tries to circle back to the right. If the hold is still ongoing, it gets called because the right side is now the point of attack. But say the hold was right at the beginning, but ended, then the back circles back to the right. The hold is no longer a factor, as it didn't affect any of the action on the left.
I would too. But with respect to holding, it isn't much different than what we get at the HS level. And it isn't that hard. I encourage anyone to spend just one season as a football official. Just one. Go do a varsity football game at any level and you'll get a different perspective. When I was doing games in Snohomish county, there wasn't a huge difference between 4A games at Lake Stevens and 1B games I did at Washtucna.
I’m not sure what you’re saying about offensive holding. My point was it’s not called every time otherwise there’d be 2-3 flags on every play...because there’s literally holding on every play.
Two factors: 1) at the point of attack and 2) an advantage is gained. Grabbing a jersey isn't enough for holding. Pulling on a jersey 15 yards away from the runner isn't enough for holding. So no, there isn't literally holding on every play. Unless one is a rule nazi.
Two points: 1) there is no 5 yard rule in college, and 2) is an advantage gained. Heck, even in HS we don't call handfighting or bumping. There has to be some advantage gained by the contact.
I'm telling you as an official, the reason it isn't called 99/100 times is because we aren't rule nazis. We call it when we think an advantage is gained. I can see the argument for it in this case. The other crossing receiver popped open.
The perception that officials want to be involved is wrong. Indeed, the perfect game for us is when nobody notices us. But that's impossible, especially with judgement calls, such as PI. One side or the other is going to be pissed if you call or don't call something. I think there are 2 reasons people are pissed about this play: 1) it brought back a TD, and 2) they disagreed with the judgement of the official. I think most of the people are in camp #1. Those that are in the know about how officiating actually works are in camp #2. I'm clearly in camp #2. I don't think the interference provided any advantage to the offense. But it is a judgement call.
Yeah, I guess when I said 10-12 seconds I’m talking the play and the time it takes the ref to unpile the players, spot the ball, and reset/coordinate with rest of the officials to make sure the game is ready to continue. In that time the ref would have to evaluate whether an uncalled hold did or did not have the potential to alter the play, then throw the flag retroactively if he deemed it did (my example above). Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is an NCAA official doesn’t have the ability to throw retroactive flags for fouls well after it occurred and the play has been whistled dead? If they do, I’ve never seen it happen.
