Giving up?

[dreamcastrocks]

The play where Chad Johnson fumbled, Holt fell on the ball, sat there for about 3 seconds, and then decided to get up after he wasn't touched....

The whistles never blew, so how could they make that call?

 

[gusmahler]

Didn't matter. If they did he was allowed to get up, the Cards would have been penalized for their players getting on the field, so the TD wouldn't count no matter what.

The give yourself up rule is to protect both sides. By laying on the ground so long, both sides thought the play was over, so ruling him down protects the other side. In general, the rule prevents cheap shots. Otherwise, a guy could lay down and an opponent could jump into them at full speed with the excuse that the play was still alive.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Didn't matter. If they did he was allowed to get up, the Cards would have been penalized for their players getting on the field, so the TD wouldn't count no matter what.

The give yourself up rule is to protect both sides. By laying on the ground so long, both sides thought the play was over, so ruling him down protects the other side. In general, the rule prevents cheap shots. Otherwise, a guy could lay down and an opponent could jump into them at full speed with the excuse that the play was still alive.

only Holt thought the play was over. The other guys were trying to get him to stand up and run.

I understand the rule, but if the whistle doesn't blow, the play is still going.

 

[Linderbee]

only Holt thought the play was over. The other guys were trying to get him to stand up and run.

I understand the rule, but if the whistle doesn't blow, the play is still going.

Exactly. If they wanted to rule he "gave up" the play, then they should have blown the whistle.

 

[Mulli]

Man, what is it about playing DB for the Lions. Do you contract stupiditis for the rest of your life?

 

[Sandan]

He made the 'safe' play.

Yes getting up and running would have been great, what he did locked in the turnover. Too many times I've seen guys try to get 'extra' yards only to cough it up again.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

He made the 'safe' play.

Yes getting up and running would have been great, what he did locked in the turnover. Too many times I've seen guys try to get 'extra' yards only to cough it up again.

oy vey. so rolle should have run outta bounds, or better yet, dropped to the ground in fetal position "giving himself up" to "lock in the turnover." and we'd have lost. that's not a smart play. football is about field position and when you can take it, you take it.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

oy vey. so rolle should have run outta bounds, or better yet, dropped to the ground in fetal position "giving himself up" to "lock in the turnover." and we'd have lost. that's not a smart play. football is about field position and when you can take it, you take it.[/QUOTE]

He took it... he recovered a fumble.

 

[Azlen]

Its different with fumbles and interceptions. I have seen time and time again, where a player was unable to recover a fumble because they tried to pick it up and run with it rather than just falling on it.

 

[Rivercard]

oy vey. so rolle should have run outta bounds, or better yet, dropped to the ground in fetal position "giving himself up" to "lock in the turnover." and we'd have lost. that's not a smart play. football is about field position and when you can take it, you take it.

Cmon Clownie, sheesh....that's not what he's saying at all. There were several bodies around Holt, I would assume in the heat of battle that he figured some of these were Bengals. Sure a TD run back would have been flippin awesome, but I can't blame Holt too much for playing it safe there.

 

[PDXChris]

He was like 3 inches from being out of bounds. He made a very smart play by just falling on it and smart plays wins games. If he would not have had control and hit out of bounds since that is were momentum was taking him, we would have been on is case for not falling on it. Have we learned nothing yet?

 

[crisper57]

oy vey. so rolle should have run outta bounds, or better yet, dropped to the ground in fetal position "giving himself up" to "lock in the turnover." and we'd have lost. that's not a smart play. football is about field position and when you can take it, you take it.

That's what Eric Green thought at the end of the game in SF.

 

[Alan]

I was waiting for this thread to pop up. Holt made the safe, smart play and totally changed the momentum.

 

[Linderbee]

I was waiting for this thread to pop up. Holt made the safe, smart play and totally changed the momentum.

Well, whether or not Holt made the safe play wasn't even the original point of the thread (if I'm not mistaken). The point of the thread was to discuss the officiating on the play.

Most of us, I would think, would understand that you FALL ON THE DAMN BALL! So, for the most part, no one blames Holt for doing that. Everyone pissed & moaned for weeks about Green not falling on the ball.

The point is, he got up without having been touched or the whistle having been blown, so how can the refs say the play was dead? If they felt it was dead, they'd have blown it dead before he got up. It was a crap call by the officials after the fact.

 

[abomb]

Play snap to whistle.

 

[PDXChris]

The point is, he got up without having been touched or the whistle having been blown, so how can the refs say the play was dead? If they felt it was dead, they'd have blown it dead before he got up. It was a crap call by the officials after the fact.

There are 4 to 6 hands on him. Even thought they were all Cardinals I am sure Holt had no idea who had touched him. And if they let the play go, it would have been backud up further for the 14 or so extra Carninals players on the field.

 

[SuperSpck]

There are 4 to 6 hands on him. Even thought they were all Cardinals I am sure Holt had no idea who had touched him.

There were two right answers with his recovery, get up and run or stay put. He made a right one.

 

[Sandan]

oy vey. so rolle should have run outta bounds, or better yet, dropped to the ground in fetal position "giving himself up" to "lock in the turnover." and we'd have lost. that's not a smart play. football is about field position and when you can take it, you take it.

No Ouchie and you know that is not the case but I guess you want to start a fight over this.

Ok lets look at the situations and see if you can see the differences.

Holt was on the ground, controlling the ball by trapping it. He was close to the sideline and risked losing the TO if he foot went out before the refs decided he had control. Next he then had to stand up but at that moment his vision [and correctly so] was focused on the ball and securing it. Far all he knew he was about to be blasted, hence taking a risk.

Rolle, was in mid field, he was already stadning and running wit the ball. Because odf this he had far better view of the current situation, he also was not in risk of losing the Int due to putting a foot out of bounds.

Sure in hindsight it would have been better if Holt had stood up and run with it ... DUH but the case is obviously not as clear cut as your sarcasm makes out.

 

[Sandan]

Most of us, I would think, would understand that you FALL ON THE DAMN BALL! So, for the most part, no one blames Holt for doing that. Everyone pissed & moaned for weeks about Green not falling on the ball.

Obviously not

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Well, whether or not Holt made the safe play wasn't even the original point of the thread (if I'm not mistaken). The point of the thread was to discuss the officiating on the play.

Most of us, I would think, would understand that you FALL ON THE DAMN BALL! So, for the most part, no one blames Holt for doing that. Everyone pissed & moaned for weeks about Green not falling on the ball.

The point is, he got up without having been touched or the whistle having been blown, so how can the refs say the play was dead? If they felt it was dead, they'd have blown it dead before he got up. It was a crap call by the officials after the fact.

Exactly.

No Ouchie and you know that is not the case but I guess you want to start a fight over this.

Ok lets look at the situations and see if you can see the differences.

Holt was on the ground, controlling the ball by trapping it. He was close to the sideline and risked losing the TO if he foot went out before the refs decided he had control. Next he then had to stand up but at that moment his vision [and correctly so] was focused on the ball and securing it. Far all he knew he was about to be blasted, hence taking a risk.

Rolle, was in mid field, he was already stadning and running wit the ball. Because odf this he had far better view of the current situation, he also was not in risk of losing the Int due to putting a foot out of bounds.

Sure in hindsight it would have been better if Holt had stood up and run with it ... DUH but the case is obviously not as clear cut as your sarcasm makes out.

Obviously not

I am glad that he secured the ball. The fact that he was not touched, and the whistle was not blown, should have kept the play going, even if there would have been a 15 yard penalty for the bench going on the field.

I think that the refs made a mistake here.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I had never heard that rule before. We were making fun of that call in the stands. BUt,you guys are right, there were about 15 guys on the field for the Cards.

Really the refs should've realized it was Holt and not flagged him. He was just "late" getting up.Just like he's always late getting over in coverage.

 

[PDXChris]

The fact that he was not touched

I think if I was on the ground and 3 or 4 of my own teammates was tugging at me, I might for a second think it was the other team trying to strip the ball and I would continue to lay there until I realized who it was and then get up and run as he did. I believe that he thought he was on touched.

 

[Jetstream Green]

It should be a golden rule Nidan

Just like don't block the guy if you can read his name on the back of the jersey and if there is a fumble- JUST FALL ON IT AND DO NOT TRY TO PICK IT UP AND RUN WITH IT and end up LOSING the ball in the process. That whole WR rule being applied to the defense that the person with the ball consented to be down is crap...it was more like he consented to secure the football first and doubt he was staying down since he was afraid to get hit. I got one for the NFL, my big Pet Peeve- if a DL man can't hit like a cut block, then OL men at say Denver or Oakland should not be allowed those dangerous tactics. Holt did the right thing and the whistle was never blown.

 

[Jetstream Green]

As far as Rolle taking off for the TD on the picks, it kind of depends on the situation of the game. If your behind and need scores, it can be a good thing but if securing the ball for the offense means all one has to do is then get in the Victory formation and kneel on it till time runs out...then you fall down or run out of bounds. I remember Aneas Williams telling a guy to just fall down when that choice would mean a win.

 

[moklerman]

Holt made the right decision. That close to the sideline, it was much more imperative to secure the turnover first, everything else second.

The ref's are at fault for this conversation. They shold have blown the whistle a LOT faster, protecting Holt from being blasted while laying on the ground.

Baltimore, New England and many other teams known for their defense continually get away with this crapola. WR's will purposely make a catch and go to the ground to avoid taking a hit and possibly a turnover and the will get blasted while laying there. That's supposed to be a penalty but since it's a "tough" defense, they don't call it. Then, when a team like the Card's who aren't known as tough hit a guy on continuation they get flagged.