[Rich]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

First of all let me say that I never meant to stir anything up in my reply - it's just that Rich's statement was contrary to what I thought I knew about the horsecollar foul. Like some of the others who have posted, my State's interpretation for the past 2 years has been, "second contact by defense negates the horsecollar." To me, the caseplay I posted supports that. B1 initiates contact, B2 applies additional contact, no HC. I do realize Rich's position, and respect it, but I think it's reading too much into the rule according to the interpretation's I've seen.

AU, I would like to turn your last statement back to you and ask you if you can find an official casebook or ruling interpretation that would support your opinion? Is there a recorded instance where 2 or more defenders contact a runner who has been grabbed by a "horsecollar," and the ruling is that the HC is a foul?

I'm not trying to stir up anything either, but I would counter that given the case play and the rule, saying that contact by a second player negates a HC foul is actually putting words in that aren't there.