GB@Chicago - Horse Collar Tackles

[bisonlj]

There were two plays toward the end of the game that were borderline horse collar tackles. The first was on the GB kick return after the tying Chicago TD. The defender grabbed the inside back of the shoulder pads and ran with the player out of bounds. At least 3 yards out of bounds (while still holding the inside of the shoulder pads), he picked up the returner and threw him to the ground. There was a flag and it was announced as unnecessary roughness, late hit out of bounds. The announcers kept referring to it as a horse collar tackle as well. I tried to explain to the person watching the game with me that it was not a horse collar tackle, but he kept believing the announcers. The late hit was definitely the right call.

The second one came on the first play from scrimmage in OT for Chicago. The TE catches a pass in the flat and runs toward the sidelines. The defender grabs the inside of the back of the shoulder pads, but then gets his other arm around the front of the runner, runs with him for 3-4 yards and then tackles him with both players falling forward. The official flagged it for a personal foul - horse collar tackle. The person I was watching with said, "See, I told you that was a horse collar." I tried to argue with him that it wasn't and the official got it wrong (it happens). He said if the official was wrong then the announcers would have said so or the Packer coach would have complained. I had to remind him again that the announcers do not know the rules and the coaches often don't either. I also pointed out they never showed the GB coach so we have no idea if he was complaining or not.

Does anyone else feel these were not horse collar tackles by rule?

[OverAndBack]

The first one looked like a horse collar tackle, but the fact that it was blatant and as far out of bounds as it was (as you said) meant, to me, that UR was the correct terminology to use. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Had Peterson simply let go of the guy, that's it, it's over. But he yanked the guy down and threw him to the ground. As it's out of bounds, I would imagine that's the proper nomenclature. So even though it was a horse-collar tackle, it wasn't a Horse Collar Tackle. The penalty is the same, right? So it's a difference that makes no difference.

The other one I was out of the room for, so I didn't see it. But announcers not being clear on stuff, that's par for the course. Tirico has room for every incredibly long anecdote that means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things, but no time to actually study the game properly.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

The first one looked like a horse collar tackle, but the fact that it was blatant and as far out of bounds as it was (as you said) meant, to me, that UR was the correct terminology to use. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Had Peterson simply let go of the guy, that's it, it's over. But he yanked the guy down and threw him to the ground. As it's out of bounds, I would imagine that's the proper nomenclature. So even though it was a horse-collar tackle, it wasn't a Horse Collar Tackle. The penalty is the same, right? So it's a difference that makes no difference.

The other one I was out of the room for, so I didn't see it. But announcers not being clear on stuff, that's par for the course. Tirico has room for every incredibly long anecdote that means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things, but no time to actually study the game properly.

I assume the NFL definition of a horse collar is similar to the college. When I attended a college clinic last summer, they were showing video on what was and was not a horse collar. They emphasised a real horse collar foul by definition is a grab and immediate pull down. If the player grabs the shoulder pad and then gets his other arm in front of the runner to bring him down (especially forward), that is not a horse collar. If he pulls the runner down sideways or forward, that is not a horse collar. If the tackle is within the tackle box (don't remember the exact definition), that is not a horse collar. Based on those definitions, Peterson tackled the returner by the back of the should pads, but even if that had been in the middle of the field, it would not have qualified as a horse collar because he didn't immediately pull him backwards.

[aschramm]

First off, I'll start with the disclaimer that I'm a Packers fan. That being said...

The first one, definitely was a late hit out of bounds (which was the penalty that was given). I personally thought it was a horse-collar, as it seemed the defender had his hand inside of the shoulder pads. Either way, I believe the penalty yardage is the same, so no big deal in that part.

The second one I thought was very borderline. Not that it mattered much though, the Packers defense just felt like playing 3 quarters again last night.

This statement, "He said if the official was wrong then the announcers would have said so" is just so full of wrong...

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by aschramm

The first one, definitely was a late hit out of bounds (which was the penalty that was given). I personally thought it was a horse-collar, as it seemed the defender had his hand inside of the shoulder pads. Either way, I believe the penalty yardage is the same, so no big deal in that part.

In the college rules, this is only one factor in determining it is a horse collar tackle. Not all tackles done this way are a foul. He actually picked up him up doing this and then threw him down (an incredibly athletic move when you think about it). It wasn't a play where he pulled the runner backward from behind.

I'm sorry to hear you are a Packer fan. I am a Vikings fan so I had a vested interest in the game but I am looking at this as a learning official, not as a "fanboy".

[BktBallRef]

I thought both were good calls and violations of the horse collar rule, based on what's been called all season.

The first one was OOB but it was still a horse collar. Had the play ended inbounds, there's no doubt it would still have been flagged.

In the second, while he did have the other arm on him, there's no doubt he pulled him down by the collar.

[wisref2]

I believe the NFL rule is a bit different than the college rule. In NCAA, the take down has to be immediate - I don't think the NFL rule includes that wording.

I, too, am a Packer fan and thought the call against the Packers was a good call, and a rather obviously simple call.

[OverAndBack]

The NFL rule:
Section 2, Article 1: "All players are prohibited from: (d) grabbing the inside collar of the back of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately* pulling down the runner. This does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket."

*Underline is mine, not in the rule book.