NFHS Survey up
 

The NFHS football rules change survey is up and it has two questions that deal specifically with the A-11 which would make it illegal and close the loop hole that the A-11 takes advantage.

I encourage any of you that are NFHS members to take the survey prior to its close on December 5.

feedback
 

Thanks, and ...

Most importantly, in addition to the people who have actually worked A-11 games, coached in A-11 games, and worked A-11 games as Officials, most of the feedback has been very positive indeed.

Lastly, below is the quote from Mr. Brad Cashman, Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee, and the Link to his interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Cashman, "It's nothing more than a spread offense. It's not that difficult to defend, and it's not difficult to officiate.”

Link to the Philadelphia Inquirer article:

PIAA not likely to ban radical offense | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/12/2008

Why don't you post the part of the article that doesn't align with "your side?"


Amen. Good luck when this finally does get banned.

reality
 

RichMSN:

I linked the entire article for everybody who has not already read it, and there are only 7 states and D.C. who did not allow it this past season, not 10 as the article incorrectly states.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, Mr. Brad Cashman - Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee was responding in part to the North Carolina SRI words, NOT MINE...and so the Chairman's direct words and quote carry TREMENDOUS weight because he understands BOTH sides, not just one side or the other. It is clear based on Mr. Cashman's quote the A-11 will not ruin the game in the least.

In fact, there are obviouly a whole lot of people who love the wide open, innovative aspect of the A-11, how it helps smaller teams be slightly more competitive, and all of the variables it offers up.

And now that our teams have played 22 straight games over two years without one of our players suffering a major injury in the A-11, it definitely helps to keep the kids safer too. Very much a strong point indeed.

Happy Holidays,

KB

A-11 offense sparks controversy

Here is also a link that clearly shows everyone is not "sold" on the offense.

BTW, both Kurt and I were referenced in this article.

Happy Thanksgiving. :D

Peace

reality
 

Again, does the A-11 make a Travesty of the game?......WAS one of the items Reviewed and Discussed BEFORE it was declared Legal and OK to use.

In fact, MANY officials who worked our A-11 games during the past two years have made it clear the A-11 Does NOT, (repeat) does NOT make a Travesty of the game.

Just the opposite, many a Refs said it was keeping them on their toes and quite Refreshing, a challege welcomed.

Now what do you say to Those Officials who have actually worked games where the A-11 was used and to them it was not a big deal and perfectly OK by them???

Happy Thanksgiving too. KB

Blah, blah, blah. Only those who share your view have credibility. What's point of anyone saying otherwise, you'll just find people that align with your view.

Before you do this, though, please let us know what the intent and purpose of the numbering exception is and why they call it "scrimmage KICK" formation?

Hey Jeff, will you sign my A-11 Installation Manual?

Anytime.

Just make sure you send me $100 for shipping and handling first. :D

Peace

Same reason "grabbing the face mask" includes grabbing a helmet opening (edge) but is still called (AFAIK) "grabbing the face mask" -- convenience.

What else is Fed surveying for football? I mean what other questions?

Robert

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

I'm not a huge fan of it, either, and its originator is a bit full of himself, but, whatever. It takes advantage of a loophole that, like many loopholes, is exploited in a way that the rules book writers didn't intend it to be used. That's, I guess, fair play.

And necessity is the mother of invention, so the small school staying with a bigger school thing, fine. Whatever.

A-11 seems to me to be neither the greatest thing since sliced bread nor the worst thing since socialism. It is what it is until it isn't anymore. But, to me at least, the biggest problem is that it exploits something that exists for a different purpose - not that it can't be defended or officiated, because it's been proven that it can be defended and officiated.

Well besides the A-11,......
 

They ask about dropping the LOD from OPI, making the previous spot the basic spot for fouls by A behind the previous spot on loose ball and running plays, allowing the team in possession of the ball to choose either the spot where the helmet came off the ball carrier OR replay the down as an option are what I recall.

I can't pull it up to review it now that I've completed it<headsmack thingy>

Just remember, or if you don't really know... the survey is just that .. it's a survey to get the feel for the pulse of those taking it which includes a lot of coaches.

Those that get a lot of "yes" responses may come up for a vote in January or whenever they do this. At that time, the item may make it into the rules for 2009 and then again, then may defer it until some future year.

My problem
 

. . . with Kurt is that he is simply doing everything that is not what the National Federation of State High Schools stand for -- he is taking advantage of a rule that is written to save expenses (cost of uniforms) and playing it into his advantage.

The spirit of the rule is clear -- it is for a scrimage kick and he has basically cheated the system by taking advantage of a loop hole.

Let's hope that intelligence and the understanding of what NFHS sports are about will end this charade and simply kill this illegal formation.

Regards,

Tim Christensen
Publication Committee Member

High School Today

The Voice of Education-Based Athletic and Fine Arts Activities

Is that really the rationale?

Happy Thanksgiving
 

I simply keep restating facts based on two years of the offense and the results regarding lack of injuries, balance of the game, and quoting key people.

Also, I have MANY times referenced both sides of the story when it comes to features about the A-11, and have gone out of my way to SHOW RESPECT to the people who do not like it. And, we have many articles linked/posted on our web site that covers both sides. So what you are saying is again, not true.

It is interesting to note on your end...

If Mr. Brad Cashman (Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee) had gone on the record and said the A-11 was bad for football and that it was a travesty of the game, wow, can you imagine how some of you would be trumpeting those words?

But now, since the Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee Did Just the Opposite....now all of the sudden he is only "one guy" and it doesn't matter.

So, let me say it AGAIN for the zillionth time:

"I respect and fully understand that many people like this new offense, and that others do not like it, and that is perfectly OK to be on one side or the other, or indifferent too. There is plenty of room in America for more than one brand of football."

Happy Thanksgiving, KB

I'm so looking forward to not having to read this tripe in a few months. One way or the other. Sheesh.

You're right, there's always soccer and rugby...

The point you make about not having a serious injury...I'm sorry, that's just a fluke happening then. You can have teams that run the most basic of formations and never have serious injuries, and at the same time you can have a back or receiver running downfield and get brought down by a horse-collar tackle, and severely mess up your legs, regardless of what original formation was used at the beginning of play.

Kurt is trying to sell everyone on this offense, because he is in it for the money. He has tapes and videos for sale to promote this offense. I did not want to say that earlier, but it is more and more clear to me the more and more he talks about the legality of this issue. That is why he references the same sales pitch on every website and gives the same quotes. Then he accuses everyone of giving only their “opinion” when they reference other comments that contradict his position. He does not care about if the offense is good or bad for the game. He only cares that he makes money off of this. Who else sends testimonials about some crack study that it makes the game safer? Usually to have a study accepted, it has to be researched for much more than a 2 year period and you consider many other possible factors. You cannot just assume that only one factor is keeping players safe. We also have more field turf, better equipment, more emphasis on illegal hits (even the NFL has done a much better job of awareness) and probably better coaching techniques across the board. All of these things are factors in injuries and probably many other things I cannot even think of right now.

Kurt keeps repeating that (one person) off the NF Committee says, when there is probably more to their comments and other committee members have expressed concern publicly. I think he believes we are all stupid at this point. He also ignores that many states took a position they would outlaw the offense and these are voting members into the NF process and they could influence the position the committee members will vote on. I have not heard this much buzz about any rules change and the rules somehow change. I could be wrong, but I see the rule being changed in the next couple of years. The only reason it will not be changed now, is because the NF Football Committee will not know how to change the rule, similarly to other college or pro rules that have been adopted in recent years. Or they may deem there are not enough schools using the offense that this makes much of a difference to change this rule.

Peace

I was looking at the diagram of the A-11 offense in one of the links on this board, and to me, the alignment isn't that much different than the lonesome polecat offense I had read about in the past. Matter of fact, I've seen a version of this in 8-man football, and it's not that hard to officiate, just so long the offense meets the requirement of 5 men on the line.

Could an moderator retitle this thread and start a new one for other possible rule changes beyond the scrimmage kick formation exception?

I like no LOD & 15 yards for OPI or LOD & 5 yards.
Extend 8.2.2. to include carry over for USC on either team on scoring plays.

The part that makes it trickey is that none of the players will assume an initial position on the LOS until right before the snap. They shift, pause for the required second and then go. If they're all wearing eligible numbers, that can make things a little interesting.

Holy Moly Rutledge, you keep saying/stating things I never or would ever do, and it continues to make you look...........!

It has been interesting to note that I have GONE OUT OF MY WAY TO SHOW RESPECT FOR PEOPLE OF DIFFERING OPINIONS ABOUT THE A-11, AND FULLY UNDERSTAND PEOPLE DO, DON'T OR COULD CARE LESS ABOUT the A-11.

However, when you come on this board and others, and bang the Error/Incorrect statement Drum over and over again, it is important to ensure people know how vitally wrong you are.

You just don't understand how long we took in thinking about ways to help our smaller team compete, and how much we researched everything, submitted everything nationally and then via our State before it was declared OK and Legal to use two years ago, which has gone well thank God.

MONEY??? Are you joking???

There are THOUSANDS of male and female coaches worldwide whose books and dvd packages are available out there for other coaches to pick up and learn from.

We are simply One of them, in fact, if we were really in it for the money (that is sheer lunacy) we would have retained all production and profit rights.........BUT, we are not doing that, instead, we have done like MANY other coaches, when AFM thought other coaches would want to know about our system, we accepted their invitation to do INSTRUCTIONAL BOOKS AND DVD PACKAGES, JUST LIKE THEIR MANY OTHER COACHES DO FROM AROUND THE NATION.

In fact, Many Officials have called us after watching those videos and Thanked Us for putting them out there!

That is reality, and not what you guys are spewing.

We were HONORED that AFM asked, and feel proud to be one of their many coaching staff's featured in their stable of instructional series.

The PURPOSE of showing the AFM video store link on Here, was NOT to sell any videos, but to merely Counter the erroneous statements made on this site by a few people who are totally wrong.

We are simply one set of coaches in the clinic and teaching circle, many, many others out there too Thank God.

* Nothing you do or say will ever change that reality, except in your own perception.

Happy Thanksgiving, KB

Aye, I was wondering what the trickery part was. The diagram wasn't too clear, I could only make out the alignment itself. Regarding taking the initial position on the LOS until right before the snap, wouldn't that constitute an illegal shift? Don't have my book handy here at work.

It would not be an illegal shift if no one is on the line yet. ;)

Peace

Kurt,

You are starting to sound like BillyMac. You keep repeating the exact same words on several sites. ;)

I do not need the sales pitch. I know what I already think about the offense and I already know what some of the committee members think about the offense. You need to be trying to convince them, not me. You better sell more tapes; they might not be useful much longer.

Kurt, stop trying to sell everyone on your offense. We are not making the decisions to change or to keep the rule the way it has been. If they change the rule, it will not be because of the conversations we have here directly. What I say is not going to change what the committee thinks or how they vote. You defend the comments I and others make like we have a direct line to the committee. We are not talking about whether to go to war or not. We are talking about a game and whether a rule will change in that game that people all over the world couldn’t care less about. And yes, a lot of what I say is my opinion. But I have enough sense to know that my opinion is not in the minority about the possibility of a change.

Peace

misc
 

Rutledge:

Again, it is you who states I am trying to sell people on the offense,,,,,,,,,but in reality, I have said time and again, I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE DO, DON'T OR COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE A-11, AND I TOTALY UNDERSTAND THAT, I respect ALL Opinions about the type of football people want to see, coach, play or officiate in.

There is plenty of room in America for more than one Brand of football, and that is perfectly OK, best of all that is best for the KIDS. :)

Take Care, KB

Could you post some names with that? I find it hard to believe that officials are buying and watching your videos on the A-11 and then thanking you for making them.

Our staff has sent out many a free dvd's to Officials to learn from, and posted ALL of our games online at Streaming A-11 Football Games "Live" On The Internet In 2008 for Officials and Coaches and Players to learn from for Free too.

Sorry you do not believe it...........that matters none, respectively.

KB

Or respectfully, even. :)

When do the new rules come out? February? April? I would like to start counting the days... :rolleyes:

As for both sides of the issue, "This too shall pass (no pun intended)"

For one, I'd consider it a challenge to officiate. And one of the reasons I officiate is the challenge.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

reality check
 

It is very interesting to note, that after the A-11 was given the Green Light by the powers-that-be, the concerns of those powers-that-be in terms of things to be watched for by them were:

1. Can it be properly Officiated? (Answer: Yes, by many Officials who have actually worked A-11 games, and of course the quote from Mr. Brad Cashman, Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee making it clear the offense can be properly officiated).

2. Does it give the Offense an unfair advantage? (Answer: No, as evidenced by the teams who did not do well in the A-11, with other teams doing OK, and of course some A-11 teams making the Playoffs), just like with other systems of offense).

* The fact that the A-11 has helped to keep the players even safer as evidenced by Piedmont's 22 games in the A-11 with no major injuries, along with other teams now putting together their files with positive results in terms of less injuries to their players, is a HUGE, HUGE benefit that WILL NOT be ignored by the powers-that-be, etc.

Many people have benefited from this new style of offense, but in Reality, nobody has lost a thing.

Sincerely,

KB:)

Yes somethng has been lost although I doubt you can understand it. The integrity of the game is lost with this ridiculousness. Your deliberate attempt to circumvent what you know to be the spirit and intent of the numbering exception rule puts you in that miniscule minority of people who can't follow the rules as they wer emeant to be followed. Furthermore, by marketing this so well to others you have co-opted them into your unethical ways.

Again, not that I expect an answer, but what the heck,,,,What is the spirit and intent of the numbering exception rule?

If you respect all opinions, then why are you YELLING at a poster who disagrees with you?

Empirical evidence with nothing scientific to back it up. I could probably find dozens of local schools who haven't suffered a serious injury over the previous two seasons.

The survey is wanting our opinions about adding NCAA rules; the 'horse collar' penalty, a visible play clock, a 40/25 clock, no LoD on OPI, ending A-11, no free kick after fair catch, B can earn a 2-pt. conversion on A's turnover during PAT, fouls by offense enforced at PS.

Apparently, helmets coming off the runner is a big problem. Who knew.

Okay, sure, would be great but expensive, whatever you want, what is LoD?, fine, please don't, why bother? and okay, fine.

There. Sorted. :D

I think the question was about allowing A to pick up a blocked PAT kick and run it in for 2 points. I don't think they are wanting to go the college route on this (yet)

Let's hope not. That has to be the most convoluted of all differences between the codes. Consider than the concept of a PAT is that the team that has scored a TD (only a TD) is rewarded with the opportunity to "try" and add another point, by meeting certain conditions.

The defense has not earned any reward opportunity, other than the fact they have the opportunity to prevent the scoring team from adding these bonus point(s). Why should the team that has allowed their opponent to score a TD be afforded any opportunity to score themselves?

Just playing devil's advocate since I work under NCAA rules only but...

The extra point is danged near automatic now. So it is almost a gimmee. Why not make the offense be somewhat concerned that an error on their part could result in a score by B?

1) Horse collar...fine by me, it is a safety thing.
2) Play clock...the coaches around here don't even want the BJ visible count. Most schools don't have the money.
3) 40/25 clock...the clock operators we have get confused enough as it is, no thank you please.
4) No LoD on OPI...either that or make the yardage penalty less, maybe like illegal touching.
5) Ending A-11...by all that is holy, yes.
6) No free kick after fair catch...who cares, I mean really?
7) B scores on a try...no.
8) Fouls by offense behind the LoS...besides the occasional holding call, is this really a big deal?

I'm surprised the ability to bring a kick out of the EZ vs it being an auto-TB is not up for consideration.

The offense has earned the opportunity to "try" for a bonus point. The defense has earned nothing, but is given a fair opportunity to prevent the offense from earning their bonus.

Why would you want to reward the defense for allowing their opponent to score a TD?

The NCAA rule was changed in 1988 as there was thought that the extra point was too much in favor of the offense and the change was needed to restore some balance. They also hoped to reduce the number of PAT kicks. They achieved the 1st goal but did not do much on the 2d.

two upcoming features
 

Dear Officials:

Two great pieces coming out this month: a) ESPN Magazine - should be a great piece,

and b) the NY Times called today, and the A-11 Offense will be featured as one of great inventions in the Country in 2008 in their annual issue.

* That is great news for: the kids, the coaches, the Refs, the fans and the NFHS and CIF...plus all of the other teams, coaches, players and states who ramped up the A-11 in 2008.

:)

I guess if you call an invention that cannot be used the following year great. :D

Peace

This will the 8th installment of the series by the NY Times Magazine

Interesting disclaimer from last year's list:


"They're not the best, not all the most promising .... They're not even the most popular. The ideas are not necessarily good ideas."

And an example of some of the great ideas from last year's list:

Lap dancers get better tips when they are ovulating.

You are in great company there KB!

Oregon and another state had this rule an experiment. Happened a few times.

I do think A should be able to pick up a blocked PAT and score. Mechanically tough with 5 (and less.)

Where are all the horse collar injuries? I'm not seeing them.

I haven't seen any either (This is my first year though), but I sure do hear the coaches and fans yelling for a call though.

I agree for the same reasons, and beyond that I'd like to see the try abolished. 2-way scoring is going in the exact wrong direction.

Eliminating the try would considerably shorten the rule book, simplify scoring, shorten games, and finally get rid of something that was on an asymptotic trend toward elimination until it was reversed 50 years ago. The try is a way to decide games via a fluke. No other major game (unless it's a relative -- rugby) provides an opp'ty for a minor score following a major score.

Robert

Thast's an argument for abolishing the try, not glorifying it.

The solution was so simple (abolishing the try outright) they couldn't see it.

Darn, I should've multi-quoted. But at least now the thread won't be so dominated by A-11 discussion.

Robert

I find it strange that this is a concern all of a sudden. It's not as if the mechanics of the game have recently changed, nor the construction of the harness style shoulder pads AFAIK (or shirt collars). Previous efforts to curb knee injuries have resulted in rule changes only after long study & deliberation. How could this danger have been lurking unrecognized for so long? And why, of all the ways a player can wind up folded under like that, must this particular technique, and only against a ballcarrier, be singled out as a cause?

Robert

Give it time. We've only been playing football for 150+ years in this country.

I am not either. I have only seen the horse collar injuries at the pro level. And they ere primarily from one person on the Dallas Cowboys, and those were from Roy Williams.

I have yet to see a college or high school injury from this tactic.

Peace

Where do you get the info from re the trend towards eliminating the try. I do not read it that way in Nelson's book. The try has been in since the game's inception (I suspect owing to the game's spinning off from rugby). I see where there were many discussions and changes related to where try would be attempted from and point values but nothing related to the elimination of the try.

Welcome to officiating. It is funny sometimes when you hear fans yelling for something that is not part of the high school rules.

The concern I've heard (and largely agree with) is the true horse collar tackle is very rare at the high school level. Most HS players are not strong enough to reach out with one hand of a player at full speed, grab his shoulder pads/jersey, and immediately pull him down backwards. Coaches, players, and fans will assume any tackle involving the shoulder pads should be a penalty and there will be a lot of inconsistent application by officials. It is a safety issue but a true horse collar is so rare in HS that I don't know if we need a rule specifically about it. It wouldn't surprise me if we see it in the next couple years though.

Yeah, both the NFL and NCAA instituted the rule for safety reasons. But what do they know?
I had 3 possible horse collar type plays this year. One resulted in a minor knee injury, one resulted in a concussion, one resulted in not much of anything.

Yes, and I do expect to hear it from fans, since most are unaware that high school athletics have their own rule set. However when I have the youth coaches yelling about it, that's another problem.

It can get funnier. I saw one horse collar tackle at a youth game this year. I hear a woman behind me yell, "Watch the clipping ref! He pulled him down from behind! That's just as bad as a face mask!"

My senior year our WR caught a long pass in game 3 and was horse collared from behind. he suffered a spiral fracture and needed titanium rods in his leg. needless to say he was done for the year.

J,

By the same token, when was the last time you've seen someone severely injured from a facemask penalty? In all of my years of playing and watching, I've never seen anyone hurt badly from it... yet it is a safety rule. I've actually seen more injuries from horse collars.

I think my favorite was in baseball this year, I believe it was U12 or U10, late in the game. Defensive team wants to intentionally walk a batter, plate umpire calls time/dead ball and awards batter first base (NFHS rules). Offensive coaches and parents are up in arms because they believe the pitcher has to throw four balls (OBR), and because they think there's a chance of the pitcher throwing over the catchers head so that other runners can advance. They were very critical of the plate umpire, but I saw that umpire a few weeks later and said he received a call from the coach after the game saying that he made the correct call.

You should have been running the A-11. It completely prevents injuries.

:D :D :D :D

On another board, he has since amended his stance on this issue. He now says that it makes things "slightly" safer.

awesome
 

This is great information about the Horse Collar tackle and other items, appreciate it.

And yes, we are pleased the A-11 has made the game even safer for the kids.

Appreciate the heads up about these other issues very much too.

KB:)

NFL and NCAA vs. NFHS is comparing apples and oranges. Pro and college players are bigger, faster, stronger. There are numerous differences between the codes of each game.

I constantly hear people yelling for a horse collar penalty on any tackle from behind. The vast majority of these would not qualify as a horse collar to begin with, and that small portion that do very rarely result in any injury.

Football is a contact sport. Injuries happen and I'm all in favor of reducing the risk. I just don't see the disproportional risk involved with horse collar tackles in high school ball.

I favor having a ban on horse collaring in football period. It's a tackle that shouldn't be taught. I used to do horse collaring when I played back in the 80's, and my coaches would yell at me for doing it, because they felt it was dirty playing. The butt-chewing I endured would even heighten when I caused injury to the player I horse collared.

Many of you talk about the lack of injuries resulting from horse collaring at the HS level. Yes, the injuries are far and few, but the ones that do happen can be nasty. I know one kid who had his knee completely pulled out of joint from a horse collar. Another one suffered a broken leg. Matter of fact, one horse collar tackle I made in high school left a gash on the quarterback's arm, because when I pulled on him, and then started to turn him towards the sideline, the momentum pulled him in the air and he slid right into the team bench. The grass was a bit wet, and boy, I look back on that and regret it to this day.

The try originally started as a continuation from a punt-out (and potentially a series of punt-ons), so abolishing that (which was done earlier in Rugby Union than in American or Canadian football) reduced the try to a much simpler and less time consuming affair. I call that a step toward elimination.

Then, the fact that the try became a kind of digression from the game, rather than a link in a scoring effort, reduced its importance, so I call that another step toward elimination.

The reduction in scoring value of the try vs. the touchdown that caused it to be awarded, I call a step toward elimination. From the time an unconverted try first got a scoring value, until the 2 point conversion was introduced, that ratio had declined from 2:1 to 1:6 -- a factor of 12 -- so is it much of a stretch to project that trend down to 0?

Robert

Please explain.

Um, what's to explain? A player was brought down via a horse collar type action. He remained down, looked pretty loopy to me, the trainers determined he had a concussion and I believe off he went to the hospital.

Does anybody really teach this tackle, or is it more of an instinctive, oh-my-god-i-can-only-get-one-hand-on-the-runner-and-when-i-do-i'm-pulling kind of a deal? if guys were in better position or could tackle normally, maybe they wouldn't be in bad positions where their last resort is to reach out and pull.

What's to explain is whether the concussion was just coincidental, or whether there's something about collaring someone that makes a concussion more likely than by other forms of tackling. Seems to me it'd be less likely to cause a head hit than other types of tackling.

Robert

I was thinking the same thing -- that the previous poster was under some kind of misconception that collaring was a coached technique. It's such a difficult take-down, and so rarely useful, that nobody would waste time coaching it.

A horse collar can only be done from behind the runner, and from there it's almost the only kind of tackle that can be done, unless you're faster than the runner and can overtake him. If you're not, about the only other way is to launch yourself at the runner's legs, which not only risks a kick in the face, but also can produce an ACL injury to the ballcarrier if you manage to get your shoulder on a leg. So it seems to me that allowing the horse collar would be safer than banning it.

Robert

I guess that would depend on whether the back of the head bounces off the turf after the runner is pulled over backwards.

Maybe not directly taught, but indirectly implied when teaching tackling. In other words, coach says "if you miss a shot at wrapping his legs up, and you're behind him, do whatever you gotta do!"

And a horse collar can't cause an ACL injury? I believe the NFL banned it because some players were suffering serious knee injuries because of it.

O&B has a good comment.. no coach I have ever known has taught this kind of tackle.
Making "legislation" to penalize it will not stop it. Maybe making it an auto-eject offense might, but even then I have doubts

15 yards or touchdown, 15 yards or touchdown.......hmmmmm......they will still horse collar, regardless of the rules.

Not that it can't, only that it's much less likely to do so than a hit on the leg.