The infamous holding call

[coolerifyoudid]

Completely obvious he was throwing at the herd. Could see that plain as day, only problem was, no receiver there. I’m college, gotta be a receiver close.

Real time, I was really surprised to see the intentional grounding call due to the contact. When I saw the replay it was pretty clear that he was going to ground it to an area that didn't have a receiver.

I honestly wouldn't have been upset to have seen a no-call, but I think they made the correct call.

 

[iahawks]

Real time, I was really surprised to see the intentional grounding call due to the contact. When I saw the replay it was pretty clear that he was going to ground it to an area that didn't have a receiver.

I honestly wouldn't have been upset to have seen a no-call, but I think they made the correct call.

Come on, there is no way a ref can assume the QB is going to intentionally ground the ball. Once his arm got hit, there should have been a no call.

 

[CyTwins]

Come on, there is no way a ref can assume the QB is going to intentionally ground the ball. Once his arm got hit, there should have been a no call.

Iowa fans complaining about officiating after that game is laughable

 

[LincolnSwinger]

Come on, there is no way a ref can assume the QB is going to intentionally ground the ball. Once his arm got hit, there should have been a no call.

I think that's a very fair statement, and it's reasonable to say that would have been a fine no-call. Having posted that, I sure hope you're one of the reasonable ISR hawk posters. If not, try to become one.

 

[BCClone]

Come on, there is no way a ref can assume the QB is going to intentionally ground the ball. Once his arm got hit, there should have been a no call.

Yes there is. If he is looking at an area without a receiver and throws it in that direction, it’s pretty clear.

 

[jmb]

Saw this being retweeted, pay no attention to the block in the back by 3 that took out two cyclones.

I lost my mind on this play.

 

[HOU_Blue]

FOR THE 40TH TIME HAWK FANS COLLEGE RULE IS A RECEIVER HAS TO BE CLOSE.

A pass in the stands is grounding.

This is incorrect. If the QB is outside the tackle box, he can throw the ball into the stands as long as the ball goes past the line of scrimmage. Stanley was outside the tackle box and was clearly attempting to throw the football beyond the line of scrimmage when he was hit. Like multiple posters have mentioned, I have never ever seen that type of play ruled intentional grounding before.

 

[coolerifyoudid]

Come on, there is no way a ref can assume the QB is going to intentionally ground the ball. Once his arm got hit, there should have been a no call.

Like I said, I wouldn't have been upset had they not called it, but it was really clear from his motion where he was going with that pass. It doesn't normally get called and I'm surprised it was called. That doesn't change my opinion that he would have grounded it with or without the contact.

I don't remember the situation anymore. What down did that occur?

 

[BCClone]

This is incorrect. If the QB is outside the tackle box, he can throw the ball into the stands as long as the ball goes past the line of scrimmage.

He can throw it there, yes. It’s grounding, but he can throw it there.

 

[BCClone]

Like I said, I wouldn't have been upset had they not called it, but it was really clear from his motion where he was going with that pass. It doesn't get called and I'm surprised it was called. That doesn't change my opinion that he would have grounded it with or without the contact.

I don't remember the situation anymore. What down did that occur?

1st down I believe

 

[HOU_Blue]

He can throw it there, yes. It’s grounding, but he can throw it there.

No, it is not grounding.

 

[Lemmiwinks]

He can throw it there, yes. It’s grounding, but he can throw it there.

"If the QB is outside the tackle box, he can throw the ball into the stands as long as the ball goes past the line of scrimmage."

What universe are you living in where a QB throwing outside the tackle box, past the LOS is intentional grounding?

 

[herbicide]

He can throw it there, yes. It’s grounding, but he can throw it there.

No, it is not grounding.

Looks like you need to re-explain the college rule for the 41st time. (hey retread: one of your brethren has already posted verbatim said rule...)

 

[Hawkize31]

Iowa fans complaining about officiating after that game is laughable

Ignoring a dozen self inflicted mistakes to make 1 holding call your primary excuse for losing is laughable.

 

[herbicide]

If the QB is outside the tackle box, he can throw the ball into the stands as long as the ball goes past the line of scrimmage.

What universe are you living in where a QB throwing outside the tackle box, past the LOS is intentional grounding?

Except of course, he still was in the tackle box.

FWIW, his arm was hit, so I agree it shouldn't of been grounding. But I digress, what a dumb thing to be discussing because the call ended up being inconsequential to the outcome of the game...

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

This is incorrect. If the QB is outside the tackle box, he can throw the ball into the stands as long as the ball goes past the line of scrimmage. Stanley was outside the tackle box and was clearly attempting to throw the football at a linemans feet when he was hit. Like multiple posters have mentioned, I have never ever seen that type of play ruled intentional grounding before.

FIFY

 

[Cat Stevens]

Correct

It probably wasn't holding there TBH, but I can see why it was called at the same time. It looked a lot worse until you see the replay. I wouldn't want to be a football official. Too many subjective rules that you have to make in split second.

Wasn't the first time a holding call was wrong and it won't be the last. I know it sucks when it happens. I still think about the phantom holding call against Iowa when they lost to NW in 2009.

So the guy looking at the play not throwing flag should mean nothing then?

Get the **** out of here with that ********

 

[Lemmiwinks]

Except of course, he still was in the tackle box.

FWIW, his arm was hit, so I agree it shouldn't of been grounding. But I digress, what a dumb thing to be discussing because the call ended up being inconsequential to the outcome of the game...

He was outside the tackle box, that isn't even being debated here.

 

[Statefan10]

He was outside the tackle box, that isn't even being debated here.

Can you challenge if his arm was hit or not?

 

[Lemmiwinks]

Can you challenge if his arm was hit or not?

Not sure to be honest.