Those words "regardless of where it occurs on the field" may have to be put to use for that somewhat rare case where a team-B played intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble in the end-zone and while trying to run it out... he gets Horse-Collared.

Surely, this is a foul that has to be called, and we might as well call it as it is... a horse-collar tackle.

I don’t have many examples of legal use of HC to differentiate from HCT personal foul.

Notes:

9-4-3k (NEW): The horse-collar tackle has been added to the list of illegal personal contact fouls, regardless of where it occurs on the field.
It is 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.

Mbyron:
“1. Let's be careful: a horse collar (grabbing the side or back of the jersey or pads) is NOT illegal. A horse collar tackle is always a foul, wherever it occurs on the field (according to the note on p. 86 of the 2009 rule book)…
(a) B grasps the back or side collar of A's jersey or shoulder pads, and (b) subsequently brings A [backwards] to the ground.”

Situation:
B1 grabs A1, from the side, by the collar with one hand and immediately grabs the waist or chest with the other hand.

According to NFHS can HCT be called?
1) If B1 pulls A1 immediately forward and down
2) If B1 pulls A1 laterally (not down) pivoting/spinning around B1 (initially forward until the spin changes A1s direction backward) and then pulls A1 down and back (A1 is facing backward or his end zone, but is pulled down from behind, but now has not been ‘running’ since his momentum was stopped by B1 and has essentially been a passenger of B1’s spin.
3) B1 spins A1 around and throws A1 back and to the ground violently using A1s momentum against him. Diff PF?
4) B1 pulls A1 immediately forward down and to the side

Answers and explanations would help me clarify this for people more confidently. Thank you in advance.

The two things you need to look at it are this:

1. Was the back or side of the collar grabbed? If the defender grabs the font collar, that's not a foul.

2. What was the "force" (for lack of a better term) of the tackle? A HC is a player being pulled down by the shoulder pads or the collar; merely grabbing the collar doesn't automatically mean we've got a flag. The pull can be backwards or sideways, and it doesn't matter which direction the runner is facing or going at the time.

If B1 grabs the collar, but then wraps up with the other arm and "rides" the runner down, the HC really wasn't the force of the tackle, so it's not likely that I've got a foul. Likewise, if B1 grabs the runner by the collar, but then B2 comes in and actually makes the tackle, I've got nothing - B2 is the one who made the tackle.

You'd think that if they wanted to penalize only those actions that endangered A1's knees, that they wouldn't want any of those to be penalized as HCT. I could see some cases of 2 & 3 being UR if there was a less violent way for B1 to effect the tackle.

Robert

There is no problem with this as the B player is a runner. The reason horse-collar cannot be called on A when he has entered the end zone is because the ball is dead and he ceases to be a runner.

At the rules meeting I attended, our clinician told us and he had a slide on the power point that said that if there is a horse collar tackle taking place and the runner ends up in the end zone and the horse collar tackle continues and the runner is taken down by said horse collar, it is a penalty.

Absolutely correct, that is, if the A runner crosses B's goal line the ball is dead, therefore, he ceases to be a runner and as a consequence it cannot be a horse-collar tackle because you can only tackle the runner. Yet, it is a personal foul for unnecessary roughness.

A very technical interpretation of the rules, see 2-32-13.

Since B1 did not make the tackle and A1 did not subsequently come to the ground, I have no foul in. Also he scored so technically he was not tackled.

Cant wait to hear the morons on the sidelines and their many different intrepretations of the rule.

Happened in my 3rd play in my first scrimmage of the season. Just my luck! Play A22 was on a long run down the sidline. Stepped OOB and was HCT OOB. Threw flag. Talked it over with the R and he went with PF as it was a late hit OOB. That's the interp he got in White Hat class.

Mbyron, not sure how to use the quote box yet but you wrote this:

"This play could be a HCT. What we need to know is whether B1 pulled A1 down backwards. The requirements for calling a horse collar tackle are: (a) B grasps the back or side collar of A's jersey or shoulder pads, and (b) subsequently brings A [backwards] to the ground."

Where did you get "backwards" from? Is that an assumption or a rule I missed?

Reason I ask: first game of season as R, I was following QB on a sweep. he was HC and pulled down to the side (actually more dangerous to the knees than backwards.) I didn't throw the flag because in our meeting that week one of our board members was adamant that a "backward" pull down (not a side) only would contstitue a HC.
In hindsight I should have flagged what was a violation IMO of the spirit of the HC rule. I'm glad the player was not hurt...

9-4-3k doesn't qualify the HC with a "backwards"...

thanks

Our WIAA interp meeting in WI (that RichMSN pointed out) called for grasping inside the back of the pads or jersey and pulling down from behind OR to the side. Any frontal pull does not constitute the HCT, neither does the play where a player being dragged along by the ball carrier holds the runner up and he's finished off by another defender...this was listed on the website as well:
Horse-collar Tackles – illegal if from the side or back
Rule 9-4-3k
It is a foul to grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and
subsequently pull the runner to the ground. (Foul occurs when the runner is down.)
Examples:
a) Defender grabs the runner’s collar from the back or the side and pulls him down to the
back or side. This is a foul whether the player goes immediately to the ground or is
ridden for several yards before going down, but action must take him down.
b) Defender grabs the runner’s collar from the front and pulls him down. This is not a foul because the collar was not grabbed from the back or side.
c) Defender grabs the runner’s collar and rides him for several yards before he falls forward.
This is not a foul. This example comes directly from NFHS. Perhaps the ruling is because there is no buckling of the knees in this situation and it is knee injuries that the rule is intended to reduce.
d) Defender grabs the runner’s collar and while still being held by the collar, a second defender comes in and assists in tackling the runner. This is a judgement call. If the horse collar is responsible for the runner going down, it is a foul. If the second tackle is responsible for the runner going down, there is no foul.
e) Defender grabs the runner’s collar, but the runner breaks away. This is not a foul because the runner did not go down.
f) Defender grabs the back of the runner’s collar and eventually brings him down, but before the runner goes to the ground he scores a touchdown or goes out of bounds. This is a personal foul for unnecessary roughness, but not a horse collar foul because the runner did not go down before the play ended.
g) Defender grabs the jersey at the top of the shoulder area and pulls him down. This in not a foul because the collar was not grabbed.
h) Defender grabs the back collar of the runner and as the runner is going down he fumbles the ball. This is not a horse-collar foul because the player is no longer a runner once he fumbles and therefore when he goes down, it is not the “runner” going down. It may be
unnecessary roughness.

The interpretations relating to HC not being called in the EZ relate to situations involving a score into that EZ, where the ball becomes dead the instant the score occurs. Following an interception or fumble recovery in one's own EZ does not cause the ball to become dead, instantly, so the HC penalty would apply.

If it's a difference between a HC and no call, the HC should absolutely prevail. The difference between a HC and UR call is only in the signal given, and although HC would be appropriate it really makes no significant difference.