Can a player be tackled in the endzone? If so, why not a horse collar tackle?

"Grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and subsequently pull the runner to the ground (Horse-collar tackle)."

Note 2-32-13...A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball.

The fact that possession is lost or the ball becomes dead negates the horse-collar aspect.

A player can be tackled but the HC rule says "runner". He's no longer a runner when the ball is dead. The out of bounds or end zone aspects are less of an issue because it could still easily be considered a late hit because it's dead ball. This would be so much easier if the NFHS came out and said that if a runner is grabbed by the HC and this player is subsequently brought to the ground by the HC, this would so much easier. Using the word subsequent (as opposed to immediate) has also caused some issues.

I am a Cowboys fan, so I watched many of the games that Roy Williams made his signature horse collar taking out the knees and legs of players such as TO. The horse collar tackle is dangerous. I think from a safety stand point, it is a good move for NFHS to adopt the rule. I just think it should be complete. It is like saying it is only illegal to spear the runner.

I think a blanket personal foul for a player to horse collar an opponent would completely encompass the safety issues surrounding this unsafe practice.

If its not the runner then its just called holding, since tackling any player other than the runner is holding, and a horse-collar requires a grabbing of the jersey. i.e. holding.

From the books and the on-line rule interp meeting in NE they have pretty much made it clear they want this foul penalized anywhere under the jurisdiction of the officials, field of play, end zone, out of bounds, press box, ya know everywhere.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Horse collar. Touchdown. A's choice: move the convert from the B-5 to the B-1 or the kick-off from the A-45 to the B-50.

CANADIAN RULING:

Horse collar. Add 15 yards to the end of the run, or PLS if the end of run is behind LS. AFD in either case.

So by repeating the phrase "the runner", they don't simply mean "the same player", they mean "the same player, who continued to be a runner", huh? Yeah, I guess it looks like it, as opposed to just writing "him" or "that player".

But then what's the basis for "evening up" by calling it a personal foul if the runner visibly (so can't be said to be simulating) loses possession or the ball becomes dead after the initial grab? If it wasn't a foul the season before the rule was adopted, how can you call it a foul now? Or are you going to deem it unnecessary roughness every time someone follows thru on an already initiated tackle in quick succession to a touchdown's being scored or the runner's stepping out of bounds or losing the ball visibly?

You know, there are other absurdities created by their wording. Looks like if you grab an opposing ballcarrier by one of those places, lose your grip, and then "subsequently" while the runner remains a runner, "pull" him down by some other means, that's a HCT.

Robert

Oh, I think collaring any other player of offense or defense and deliberately pulling him down would've been called unnecessary roughness any time during the past century or so. Illegal use of hands if it was just to slow him down, but bringing him down would have to be UR, wouldn't it?

Robert

That's what I was told last night in WI (Men. Falls HS meeting), as well. Dead ball personal foul.

I would call it a dead ball personal foul and leave it at that. I suppose adding the HC signal after the dead ball and PF signals wouldn't be a very big deal because it is (the HC) a personal foul and it would be pretty obvious the player was HC'd at the tail end of the play...or technically after it. You'd be more correct, IMO, to just carry out the DBPF and move on.

Illegal use of hands if it was just to slow him down, but bringing him down would have to be UR, wouldn't it?
Not in any way if he's a ball carrier....

They (WIAA spokesman) went even further with a transparency showing the defender holding onto the ball carrier without the ball carrier going down and then being finished off by another defender and it was adamantly stated that that is in no way a horse collar...only if the "offender" pulls the ball carrier down backward or to the side while grasping the side or back of the jersey or pads.

This will be edited again next year in some fashion by NFHS, I'll bet.

Illinois's HC
 

Illinois officials have been instructed to not heed the NF interp sighted earlier. They are to call it a HC whether the ball carrier is OB or in the EZ.

If you'll backtrack the thread you'll see that was not the case meant.

In NY, we're being told that if the ball carrier crosses the goal line while being brought to the ground by HC, it by definition is no longer a HC as the ball is dead when it breaks the plane of the GL, but we can and should throw a PF on it, just not call it HC. As someone else said in this post, it's still the same penalty in effect, just a difference in semantics

There's an inconsistency in the 2009 Rule Book. The rule defining HCT refers to the runner, which by definition requires a live ball.

On the other hand, the "Comments on the 2009 Rules Revisions" on p. 86 has this about HCT:

"HORSE-COLLAR TACKLE ADDED TO ILLEGAL PERSONAL CONTACT (9-4-3k – NEW): This
change now defines a horse-collar tackle and adds this act to the list of illegal personal contact
fouls in Rule 9-4-3k regardless of where it occurs on the field. The new provision
makes it illegal to grasp the inside back or side opening of the collar of the jersey or shoulder
pads of the runner and subsequently pull the runner to the ground. The
Rules Committee felt the need to continue to address risk minimization issues for the runner."

If they're serious about risk minimization and the bolded clause, then that would imply that we should call it in the endzone too, even though the ball carrier is no longer a runner.

I expect that the rules committee is already aware of the discrepancy and will make an editorial change next year.

In the meantime, flagging it for a HCT or for a PF hardly matters, as long as you're flagging it.

...then all the football governing bodies would've thought this horse collar business thru better rather than acting rashly on a confluence of cases in the NFL. Someone attempting to tackle from behind a runner who cannot be caught up to has 2 choices: reach out high, or dive low. Although I understand the pathophysiology of the horse collar tackle now, I still can't believe it endangers the knees more than the other choice, which is to dive at the legs. If they wanted to reduce that danger, they'd have to drop the exception to the prohibition on clipping as applied to the ballcarrier. The rulesmakers, however, seem to have acted with the idea that the player who would've attempted a HCT just won't do anything else.

It will take a while to develop meaningful statistics on this because successful HCTs were rare, therefore prohibiting them will only slightly increase the number of cases of tacklers putting their shoulders against the back of the runner's legs, but eventually they'll find the number of ACL injuries to runners increased a little after the HCT was banned. Or maybe those stats will never become clear, because other changes in the game will have introduced confounding variables.

Robert