Greg Ellis beat Washington tackle Jansen on a play. Jansen tried to hold Ellis, but he still got a sack. A flag was thrown in the backfield for the hold, and a flag was thrown in the secondary. The secondary flag was for illegal contact by the corner. As for the field in the backfield, the ref said: "There was no offensive holding because the player was able to run through the offensive hold". Has anyone ever heard of this and what is the meaning of this. Is that like saying there was no roughing the passer because he completed the pass anyway? I dont get it. If there was no holding, pick up the flag and say there was no holding. But since there was....I dont get it. The result of the play then went from a sack to a first down for Washington. If we didn't get a sack, would it be offsetting penalities. Looking for a little help.
That doesn't sound right. A hold is a hold. If the play was ruled "not holding," then the flag had to be picked up for some reason other than "the guy got through it." I didn't see the game, though, so I don't know exactly what happened.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'>Greg Ellis beat Washington tackle Jansen on a play. Jansen tried to hold Ellis, but he still got a sack. A flag was thrown in the backfield for the hold, and a flag was thrown in the secondary. The secondary flag was for illegal contact by the corner. As for the field in the backfield, the ref said: "There was no offensive holding because the player was able to run through the offensive hold". Has anyone ever heard of this and what is the meaning of this. Is that like saying there was no roughing the passer because he completed the pass anyway? I dont get it. If there was no holding, pick up the flag and say there was no holding. But since there was....I dont get it. The result of the play then went from a sack to a first down for Washington. If we didn't get a sack, would it be offsetting penalities. Looking for a little help.</div> Well, the idea behind holding penalty is to penalize other team if it adversely affects you by them not playing within rules. His hold didnt cuz he got sack anyway. So, its not a penalty. Then you just look at what is left, a sack play that was aided by illegal contact. But, if they hadnt had illegal contact, WR gets open sooner, and then there is no sack, because the hold slowed him enough, that then there would be the penalty, except taht he may not of even had to hold, cuz qb got rid of ball so soon. . . oh my god, that doesnt even makes sense to me anymore
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>Well, the idea behind holding penalty is to penalize other team if it adversely affects you by them not playing within rules. His hold didnt cuz he got sack anyway. So, its not a penalty. Then you just look at what is left, a sack play that was aided by illegal contact. But, if they hadnt had illegal contact, WR gets open sooner, and then there is no sack, because the hold slowed him enough, that then there would be the penalty, except taht he may not of even had to hold, cuz qb got rid of ball so soon. . . oh my god, that doesnt even makes sense to me anymore</div> LOL. And in my mind, Ellis beat him so quickly, he would have had the sack and a fumble before the illegal contact without the hold
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'>Greg Ellis beat Washington tackle Jansen on a play. Jansen tried to hold Ellis, but he still got a sack. A flag was thrown in the backfield for the hold, and a flag was thrown in the secondary. The secondary flag was for illegal contact by the corner. As for the field in the backfield, the ref said: "There was no offensive holding because the player was able to run through the offensive hold". Has anyone ever heard of this and what is the meaning of this. Is that like saying there was no roughing the passer because he completed the pass anyway? I dont get it. If there was no holding, pick up the flag and say there was no holding. But since there was....I dont get it. The result of the play then went from a sack to a first down for Washington. If we didn't get a sack, would it be offsetting penalities. Looking for a little help.</div> That was one of the dumbest referee calls of the weekend. Right behind the two consecutive plays that the Sooners were screwed over with by the refs in their game against Oregon.
personally i would expect the refs to call the hold anyway and then the team that got the sack could just decline it that would make the most sense to me... tell me if i'm wrong
