The “Holding” Penalty

[Sasquatch]

Just now, Thomas5737 said:

So on 4th and goal down 5 points late in the 4th quarter your RB runs in for a TD and there was holding called and now it's a turnover on downs. I wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that at all.

Yeah me either.  Guess you’d have to play real smart on 4th down late in the game.  It’s either that, or go back to my option B, which is five yards instead of ten.

[Jakuvious]

Holding is 10 yards and a loss of down to discourage holding deliberately on offense to prevent a sack. 10 yards is roughly equal distance to a sack. It's similar to DPI in that sense. The cost of the penalty is a rough estimate of what one would be committing the penalty to avoid. I'd maybe be open to reducing the penalty of defensive or special teams holding. Maybe even holding on designed runs. But you lessen the penalty for offensive holding on pass plays and it becomes a very attractive penalty to commit (it already kind of is, since as I was reminded, there isn't a loss of down, so it's still better than a sack.)

[Asciimo]

18 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Holding is 10 yards and a loss of down to discourage holding deliberately on offense to prevent a sack. 10 yards and loss of down is roughly equal to a sack. It's similar to DPI in that sense. The cost of the penalty is a rough estimate of what one would be committing the penalty to avoid. I'd maybe be open to reducing the penalty of defensive or special teams holding. Maybe even holding on designed runs. But you drop the penalty for offensive holding on pass plays and it becomes a very attractive penalty to commit.

ya but holding isnt a loss of a down ... 0_0

[Jakuvious]

38 minutes ago, Asciimo said:

ya but holding isnt a loss of a down ... 0_0

My bad. They were talking about loss of down or no and I had a stupid moment 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

8 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

No.  I just want it less punitive so the penalty matches the crime - like a false start.  If a holding penalty allows a hole that someone can scamper 20 yards - call it - bring the ball back and either make them lose a down or walk em back five yards. It’s painful enough that you lose the 20 yards from the play.

If your crappy asz defensive strategy is to hope you’ll get some offensive holding penalties, then you have bigger problems.

Thats the point, the 20 yards was gained in a wrong way...

If I go a rob a bank, you mean I have to go to jail AND give back the money? Isn't going to jail painful enough?

[Elky]

I think 5 yards for holding is perfectly fine. As the OP said, 10 yards for something that we admit happens on every play is a bit Draconian.

[buno67]

No you do not change the result of a holding penalty. It’s a step Price to pay, so it truly forces linemen to not hold or hook defenders. If it was 5 yards, it’s well worth the gamble to make sure a defender is block by doing so. 

[DawgX]

My only problem is the inconsistency with how they're called. There's plenty of times where there's blatant holding that goes uncalled, but other times where minor holding will get called. Just be consistent about it.

[RuskieTitan]

1 hour ago, buno67 said:

No you do not change the result of a holding penalty. It’s a step Price to pay, so it truly forces linemen to not hold or hook defenders. If it was 5 yards, it’s well worth the gamble to make sure a defender is block by doing so. 

This. Cutting it down to 5 yards would only increase the number of times OLmen try to get away with it, as the results aren't as devastating. 

[buno67]

13 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

This. Cutting it down to 5 yards would only increase the number of times OLmen try to get away with it, as the results aren't as devastating. 

Exactly! If you get badly beat.  It will be smarter to hold if it’s only 5 yards. 

Because if are you badly beat, RB or QB gets tackled for a 3-5 yards and it’s a lost of a down. If you hold, yeah you lose the yards of what the likely result would be but now you get to replay that down. 

Now if that defender still makes the play, penalty gets declined, but if the holding happens and it cause a big play say 8+yards you are going to accept. Usually 10yards, won’t cause that kind of mentality tho. 

Its like being on a defender and you on your 3 yard line. Smart thing is to really try and jump the snap count.  If you miss fire, the ball barely moves, but if you time it right you can make a huge play or force the offense to jump. Making the risk work it. 

5yards the risk of holding is worth, especially after a couple of calls, the refs will ease back. 

10yards the risk isn’t worth it because like OP said, a lot of time holding calls kill drives 

[Sasquatch]

2 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Thats the point, the 20 yards was gained in a wrong way...

If I go a rob a bank, you mean I have to go to jail AND give back the money? Isn't going to jail painful enough?

Imagine if they caught the wrong guy?  But seriously, when have I ever suggested no consequence as a suggested outcome of a holding penalty?  Right, nowhere.  

[Asciimo]

ive always thought holding was a crap penalty. let the stronger man win.

[Pugger]

Defensive holding can be a real killer too.  How often do we see DH on 3rd/4th and long?  Perhaps ALL holding calls should be 10 yards regardless of who the guilty party is.  And I agree with DawgX.  The inconsistency of these calls is a big problem too.

[Thomas5737]

7 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Holding is 10 yards and a loss of down to discourage holding deliberately on offense to prevent a sack. 10 yards is roughly equal distance to a sack. It's similar to DPI in that sense. The cost of the penalty is a rough estimate of what one would be committing the penalty to avoid. I'd maybe be open to reducing the penalty of defensive or special teams holding. Maybe even holding on designed runs. But you lessen the penalty for offensive holding on pass plays and it becomes a very attractive penalty to commit (it already kind of is, since as I was reminded, there isn't a loss of down, so it's still better than a sack.)

Why isn't OPI a rough estimate of that penalty then? If we can assume a WR catches the ball we should do the same with the DB. Now I don't really want that, but I don't think DPI should be a spot penalty either and I have no issue with offensive holding being a 5 yard penalty. To have some penalties assume success is made by the other team and other penalties do not seems inconsistent.

[Jakuvious]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Why isn't OPI a rough estimate of that penalty then? If we can assume a WR catches the ball we should do the same with the DB. Now I don't really want that, but I don't think DPI should be a spot penalty either and I have no issue with offensive holding being a 5 yard penalty. To have some penalties assume success is made by the other team and other penalties do not seems inconsistent.

OPI is a different kind of penalty. You don't commit OPI to prevent something good happening in favor of the opposing team. You do it to get an advantage and attempt to make something good happen for your team. You typically hold to prevent a sack or tackle. You commit DPI to prevent a catch. You commit OPI to make a catch. Different kind of penalty, despite the similar name. The way I see it, there's a few main types. There's penalties a player might commit to prevent something bad from happening (offensive holding, intentional grounding, DPI, etc.) and the penalty is roughly the play that would have occurred. There's penalties that a player/team might commit to gain an unfair advantage (OPI, illegal man downfield, offsides, 12 men, etc.) and the penalty is inherently kind of arbitrary as a result, but the main intent is to eliminate the play that happened. And then there's penalties that are illegal due to safety.