[News] Will Hill Disagrees With Ref's Holding Call On Game-Sealing Interception

[Nitemare]

I look at Will Hills play in much the same way I looked at the pass to Crockett against Denver last week. Clearly there was contact against Crockett and it wasn't called. Now this week there's contact while going for the ball, initiated, according to Hill, by the TE, and it's called against the Ravens. The officials need to be consistent. They control more outcomes than they should.

But with that said, if the defense had been able to contain the Raiders at all for the first 59 minutes, and if Aiken doesn't fumble on the first series, it might have been a different outcome.

[boldtown]

how about stopping them before the fifty instead of letting them make big plays

[whobilly]

Didn't Hill eventually fumble the ball back over to the Raiders anyway at the 30?

What kind of clueless player even starts running with the ball at that point?

[EdTheMythicalOne]

No it isn't. Here are a couple quotes directly from the NFL rulebook:

 

Illegal contact beyond five-yard zone:

 

"A defender MAY USE HIS HANDS or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver."

 

"A defender CANNOT INITIATE contact with a recevier"

 

The receiver clearly initiated the contact. It wasn't close or questionable at all. The Ravens did get the benefit of a lot of nit-picking calls, but by rule, Will Hill's int was 100% clean.

 

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2015-nfl-rulebook

(section 4, article 3)

I see a lot of people don't like it when you tell it like it is.

 

The refs had been calling close plays ALL DAY LONG. Whether it is right or not, that is how it was. As a player, you have to understand what is going on. Why don't we take a look at this:

 

http://russellstreetreport.com/2015/09/22/ruling-on-the-field/analyzing-will-hill-holding-call/

 

This is an article that actually thinks it should have been a no-call. It states that some of the rules were questionable as it was hard to tell who actually initiated contact and to see if the TE was attempting to evade or not. But what is included are some videos of the play in question. The very  top one, the first part of that video shows the whole play.

 

Keep these things in mind:

 

1) The refs had been calling holding penalities on the secondaries all game long on both teams. They were calling a "tight" game so to speak.

2) The play is happening in real time, not slow motion.

3) Penalties are not reviewable.

4) You can't tell if Hill put his hands on Rivera first or the other way around, but what you can see clearly is that Hill has his arm fully extended first.

5) After the initial contact, which isn't where the call was made in my opinion, the players bounce off each other. Rivera (The TE) turns in, which I would assume is how the pattern was called. Right after he turns, Hill hits him again and the players jostle. Rivera is knocked off his route and Hill is able to sneak in under and get the pass.

 

So in summation the first part of that play probably would not have gotten the flag. Two guys bump into each other. It is what happened right after that where I think the penalty was called.

[RavensBaltimore]

I see a lot of people don't like it when you tell it like it is.

 

The refs had been calling close plays ALL DAY LONG. Whether it is right or not, that is how it was. As a player, you have to understand what is going on. Why don't we take a look at this:

 

http://russellstreetreport.com/2015/09/22/ruling-on-the-field/analyzing-will-hill-holding-call/

 

This is an article that actually thinks it should have been a no-call. It states that some of the rules were questionable as it was hard to tell who actually initiated contact and to see if the TE was attempting to evade or not. But what is included are some videos of the play in question. The very  top one, the first part of that video shows the whole play.

 

Keep these things in mind:

 

1) The refs had been calling holding penalities on the secondaries all game long on both teams. They were calling a "tight" game so to speak.

2) The play is happening in real time, not slow motion.

3) Penalties are not reviewable.

4) You can't tell if Hill put his hands on Rivera first or the other way around, but what you can see clearly is that Hill has his arm fully extended first.

5) After the initial contact, which isn't where the call was made in my opinion, the players bounce off each other. Rivera (The TE) turns in, which I would assume is how the pattern was called. Right after he turns, Hill hits him again and the players jostle. Rivera is knocked off his route and Hill is able to sneak in under and get the pass.

 

So in summation the first part of that play probably would not have gotten the flag. Two guys bump into each other. It is what happened right after that where I think the penalty was called.

It doesn't matter if Hill extended his arms first, because he is allowed to use his hands to protect himself agaisnt "impending contact". The TE was clearly about to run right into him, so there was impending contact. After the guy ran into him, Hill was just going for the ball, which he has a right to do. The guy got knocked off his route because he ran into Hill and then got beat to the ball. Hill did nothing but stand his ground, use his hands to protect himself, and go for the ball. Other than get out of the way, there's nothing else he could have done. That's just a bad call. It isn't justified by anything that happened earlier.