What's holding? SEC's Shaw attempts an explanation

[WarEagle84 0]

Finally, Steve Shaw offers an explanation why Bama OL never gets called for holding:

...“There are two types of offensive linemen: Good holders and bad holders, and we penalize the bad holders.”...

Link: What's holding? SEC's Shaw attempts an explanation

It's worth a read. From some of the discussion on here during the season, some AU fans don't know what holding is. The rules changed a few years ago. Here's the meat of his explanation:

“By rule, as long as you’re in proper position, as long as you keep your hands inside his frame, you can pretty much do anything – as long as you’ve got good position on him and as he moves you’re still in good position.

“People see him locked up on (the offensive lineman’s) breast plates and that sort of thing. That’s not holding. OK, by definition that’s not holding. Now when it is, is when I lose my position and he starts to get away, now I’ve got to let him go. I can give him a shove but I can’t hold him back in.”

[WarTiger 3,987]

Basically, its advantage/disadvantage. There is no advantage gained with them engaged while inside frame. No advantage, no hold. When they try to move away from that engagement and are restrained (or held/pulled) in an effort to negate that movement, we have the disadvantage to the player being held. It's also where and when the advantage is gained. If the play is a run to the right side (wide for instance), and the restriction (text book definition of a hold) is on the left side, there's no reason to call it. It had no impact on the play at all. Now, if the sweep turns out to be a reverse or misdirection, then we may have a problem.

[Auctoritas 2,836]

All I know is: I'm gonna yell about it. Lots. Whether or not it is warranted or correct.

It's not Saturday if I'm not spewing half-chewed nachos over referees. Love you, Mr Wagers, mean it!

[VegasEagle 202]

Well, that is Bull s#!t!!! I witness some other team grab the breast plates and use them to twist the defender off balance, and/or twist the shoulders out of square in the gap.

[WarEagle84 0]

All I know is: I'm gonna yell about it. Lots. Whether or not it is warranted or correct.

It's not Saturday if I'm not spewing half-chewed nachos over referees. Love you, Mr Wagers, mean it!

I lol'd. As long as we're clear on that going in, you are welcome to yell as much as you like.

[eibua12 81]

Thanks for clearing that up,not. I saw a whole bunch of BS calls and no calls last year so I am not satisfied with that explanation, however i commend him for working to educate. Pass the nachos I have some spitting to do

[AU64 10,122]

And, apparently it is not a "bad hold" when a bama OL about rips the shirt off Dee Ford play after play as he is rushing the passer since none of that breast plate stuff occurs to implement the rule ?

[AUcivE09 582]

Gabe Wright was being tackled after his first sack. It was a result of a "shove" I suppose?

[AUbritt 611]

Basically, its advantage/disadvantage. There is no advantage gained with them engaged while inside frame. No advantage, no hold. When they try to move away from that engagement and are restrained (or held/pulled) in an effort to negate that movement, we have the disadvantage to the player being held. It's also where and when the advantage is gained. If the play is a run to the right side (wide for instance), and the restriction (text book definition of a hold) is on the left side, there's no reason to call it. It had no impact on the play at all. Now, if the sweep turns out to be a reverse or misdirection, then we may have a problem.

Actually, this makes a lot of sense to me. Unless you're like Auctoritas and willing to admit that you'll spew your nachos screaming for a holding call on every play (willing to poke fun at yourself), I don't see how you can have much problem with this explanation. I DO see how one could object if the calls are made differently for different teams (just like balls and strikes -- calls need to be made consistently). Otherwise, this seems perfectly fine to me.

[SphyNxXx 98]

Basically, its advantage/disadvantage. There is no advantage gained with them engaged while inside frame. No advantage, no hold. When they try to move away from that engagement and are restrained (or held/pulled) in an effort to negate that movement, we have the disadvantage to the player being held. It's also where and when the advantage is gained. If the play is a run to the right side (wide for instance), and the restriction (text book definition of a hold) is on the left side, there's no reason to call it. It had no impact on the play at all. Now, if the sweep turns out to be a reverse or misdirection, then we may have a problem.

This is exactly what a friend of mine who refereed high school games told me.

[AuburnNTexas 7,246]

Guys it is simple holding is what the other team does, pancake blocking is what our team does. LOL

[jared52 4,356]

Well, in a stunning turn of events, it was a holding call that probably kept uat from sealing the Iron Bowl late in the middle of the fourth quarter.

[AUbritt 611]

Guys it is simple holding is what the other team does, pancake blocking is what our team does. LOL

[1auburn1 1,120]

By rule, as long as you’re in proper position, as long as you keep your hands inside his frame, you can pretty much do anything......

Substitute a crimson colored jersey and you would have the correct definition

[hutchids 227]

Good to learn this stuff. Hopefully the refs are consistent on the calls. That's what is most important to me

[AUbritt 611]

Good to learn this stuff. Hopefully the refs are consistent on the calls. That's what is most important to me

All we can expect, it seems to me.

[cooltigger21 0]

Good to learn this stuff. Hopefully the refs are consistent on the calls. That's what is most important to me

That is the most important aspect to it. Just be consistent and call it the same for both sides. Do that and I will be ok with it.

[PatBoCamRob 30]

Basically, its advantage/disadvantage.

Right. If you have the #1 recruiting class for 5 years running and an alumni bribe booster club helping you along the way, that's advantage. If our non-fatties run around their fatties, that's not respecting their advantage; and thus it warrants a free hold by their cheaters linemen.

[war eagle6 0]

Shaw's explanation of holding is ridiculous! It's only holding if anybody but bama tries it, especially AU!

[WarTiger 3,987]

Shaw's explanation of holding is ridiculous! It's only holding if anybody but bama tries it, especially AU!

Actually its not ridiculous at all. It's how officials at most any level are taught to call holding. He's trying to give you a better understanding of how the call is defined, interpreted and enforced. I hate uat too, but these conspiracy theories are getting old. If uat didn't get called for holding, then that 3rd and 2 play in their game against us with 3:30 to play would have been a first and goal inside the 6. But they call holding on uat (against your conspiracy theory) and we end up blocking a FG attempt.

In fact in our game with uat we had 3 penalties for 21 yards and they had 6 for 45 yards. The holding call that people say isn't called on uat, is what took them away from a likely win in that game. Without it, they are 1st and goal.

[AUbritt 611]

Shaw's explanation of holding is ridiculous! It's only holding if anybody but bama tries it, especially AU!

Actually its not ridiculous at all. It's how officials at most any level are taught to call holding. He's trying to give you a better understanding of how the call is defined, interpreted and enforced. I hate uat too, but these conspiracy theories are getting old. If uat didn't get called for holding, then that 3rd and 2 play in their game against us with 3:30 to play would have been a first and goal inside the 6. But they call holding on uat (against your conspiracy theory) and we end up blocking a FG attempt.

In fact in our game with uat we had 3 penalties for 21 yards and they had 6 for 45 yards. The holding call that people say isn't called on uat, is what took them away from a likely win in that game. Without it, they are 1st and goal.

Yep.

[war eagle6 0]

Shaw's explanation of holding is ridiculous! It's only holding if anybody but bama tries it, especially AU!

Actually its not ridiculous at all. It's how officials at most any level are taught to call holding. He's trying to give you a better understanding of how the call is defined, interpreted and enforced. I hate uat too, but these conspiracy theories are getting old. If uat didn't get called for holding, then that 3rd and 2 play in their game against us with 3:30 to play would have been a first and goal inside the 6. But they call holding on uat (against your conspiracy theory) and we end up blocking a FG attempt.

In fact in our game with uat we had 3 penalties for 21 yards and they had 6 for 45 yards. The holding call that people say isn't called on uat, is what took them away from a likely win in that game. Without it, they are 1st and goal.

Yep.

Holding was also called on Greg Robinson in the BCS game where we had momentum to put the game out of reach which was obvious it was not holding. It is rare for a team pro or college to go a season and a half without being called for holding. Guess who the last team was to accomplish that feat?

[AUbritt 611]

Shaw's explanation of holding is ridiculous! It's only holding if anybody but bama tries it, especially AU!

Actually its not ridiculous at all. It's how officials at most any level are taught to call holding. He's trying to give you a better understanding of how the call is defined, interpreted and enforced. I hate uat too, but these conspiracy theories are getting old. If uat didn't get called for holding, then that 3rd and 2 play in their game against us with 3:30 to play would have been a first and goal inside the 6. But they call holding on uat (against your conspiracy theory) and we end up blocking a FG attempt.

In fact in our game with uat we had 3 penalties for 21 yards and they had 6 for 45 yards. The holding call that people say isn't called on uat, is what took them away from a likely win in that game. Without it, they are 1st and goal.

Yep.

Holding was also called on Greg Robinson in the BCS game where we had momentum to put the game out of reach which was obvious it was not holding. It is rare for a team pro or college to go a season and a half without being called for holding. Guess who the last team was to accomplish that feat?

I'm not suggesting refs never miss a call. I do agree with WarTiger that the explanation of holding makes sense.

[gilstein21 1]

one thing that kind of gets lost in this is the fact that we have multiple camera angles and replays that we get to watch with. The refs are looking real time through a lot of traffic. Some holds are missed, some are incorrectly called, but in the end it usually evens out. The blatant holds on the edge are the ones that get me spitting my nachos though.

[Moon-Watcher 0]

So, summing this up, when Alabama does it, it's "technique" and when everybody else does it, it's "cheating." Crystal.