Take on Horse collar
 

Association meeting last night - they were showing one of training tapes and plays put together by Bill LeMonnier.

Runner is grabbed by the pads - swung all the way around in a 360 - and then falls forward in his original direction and goes down with the ball.

I tend to read rules to literally but by rule this is not a horse collar tackle IMO... but I also know everyone in the stadium will be screaming.

It was a good debate but no concensous - what would you call?

Easy: No foul, by rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Did Bill say it was a horse collar?

Peace

Nope
 

Bill didnt say either way.

Horse collar tackles were made illegal to prevent injuries that these types of tackles cause, particularly knee/leg injuries. If the runner falls forward, there's no risk of these type of injuries. That's why the rule specifies backwards or sideways. Legal play per the rule, as Rich said.

No horse collar penalty as the runner was not pull down backwards and fell in a forward motion. The issue I am running into is officials calling horse collar fouls when runner is pulled down by the back of the jersey and not necessarily pulled down backwards. If it's the jersey and the hand is not inside of the pad, is that a horse collar foul?

Not according to the high school rule. The grab has to be on the inside part of the pads or jersey. Just grabbing the jersey is not enough. The NCAA added the "name plate" to their definition and there are some officials that probably think that is the NF rule. As of now, it is not.

Peace

If the purpose of the rule is player safety, why does it matter where the defender grabs the runner?

Because the rule says that a player must grab the inside of the jersey or pads.

I understand that. I'm just trying to figure out why the rule wasn't written to cover any instance where the runner is forcibly jerked down backwards.

Then you would have inconsistency in the rule and application.

Peace

Yeah. Like that never happens. Like we never have to make any judgment calls. :rolleyes:

I think you'd have more consistency, because then it'd be one less thing to need to see closely. Just hand or hands "up there", and resulting backwards jerk of the body.

Can you just imagine the variables, confusion and arguments about the "meaning of" either, "jerked down backwards" or "backwards jerk of the body"

The rule, as written, is pretty clear to anyone who wants to understand it's purpose, as it applies to BOTH teams EQUALLY.

Because by grabbing inside the jersey creates more leverage for the defender and allows him/her to pull at a more sudden and greater force than if just the jersey was pulled.

Combine that with pulling from the top is easier and more violent than pulling from the mid back area, and you have the foundation for a horse collar foul.

I don't imagine there'd be much of that uncertainty, because it's a rare event. It's really hard to pull someone down backwards from behind unless you have a really great grip & are dug in pretty well yourself. If you have such a great grip, who cares how you got it?

Seems like the same way they extended grabbing the face mask to grabbing any helmet opening, horse collar should go similarly. If the object is to protect the neck, what difference does it make what part of the helmet was grabbed? If the object is to protect the knees, what difference does it make how the player was collared?

You would make almost any tackle a potential foul. That is silly on so many levels. It is different to grab something that once grabbed can be jerked in a direction. Not so much the case if you grab the helmet without grabbing onto an appendage directly.

Peace

How do you get that? It would still have to be from behind & in the vicinity of the neck with the hand reaching in behind the neck, & the player's upper body would have to be pulled backward relative to the lower body. It's pretty rare to see that happen! But if you do see it happen, why should the rules make you see what part of the player's equipment was grabbed? It makes no difference as to the danger the provision was trying to stop -- the player was jerked back in that manner -- but then you should have to see whether that hand was just pulling the shirt by the collar or pulling the harness under the shirt?!
How is that different? The rules makers wanted to reduce the danger to the neck once they saw players getting grabbed by the recently-added face mask when the chin strap is on tight. Years later they saw that the player's neck could be jerked the same way if another helmet opening were grabbed, so they amended the rule to treat that similarly.

Here they looked at the effect on the knees of a player's being pulled down by similar equipment attached to the upper body. If it's possible for a player to be so pulled down by some attachment other than the harness, such as a shirt collar, why differentiate between pulling one & the other, especially when it can be hard to see which was pulled? (That was another reason for adding helmet opening: cases where it was hard to tell whether the face mask or another edge was grabbed.)