9-4-3k Horse collar

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Play 1 is definitely not a horse collar as per interpretation A1 is no longer a player in possession per Situation 1 NFHS 2009 Football Rules Interpretations.

Aw, now come on! I wasn't enthusiastic about the adoption of rules against horse collar tackles to begin with, but if the governing bodies are going to do so because they believe it to be an important safety measure, it seems ridiculous to have this "saved by the bell" aspect to it.

If this tackle is completed with the ball in the field of play, it's a personal foul for the horse collar. If somebody initiated such a move on after the ball became dead, or on an opponent who didn't have or pretend to have the ball to begin with, it would be unnecessary roughness regardless of the horse collar rule. But...if somebody starts to pull a ballcarrier down by such means, and the player so grabbed is in fact pulled down, but not before losing possession of the ball or its becoming dead...it doesn't count?! Does the rule say the fouled player has to continue to be a ballcarrier throughout the action?

Robert

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Aw, now come on! I wasn't enthusiastic about the adoption of rules against horse collar tackles to begin with, but if the governing bodies are going to do so because they believe it to be an important safety measure, it seems ridiculous to have this "saved by the bell" aspect to it.

If this tackle is completed with the ball in the field of play, it's a personal foul for the horse collar. If somebody initiated such a move on after the ball became dead, or on an opponent who didn't have or pretend to have the ball to begin with, it would be unnecessary roughness regardless of the horse collar rule. But...if somebody starts to pull a ballcarrier down by such means, and the player so grabbed is in fact pulled down, but not before losing possession of the ball or its becoming dead...it doesn't count?! Does the rule say the fouled player has to continue to be a ballcarrier throughout the action?

Unfortunately, yes it does! That's the bone of contention on this rule and one I don't think the NFHS intended. I think they REALLY want us to still flag it but just as a personal foul and not as a horse collar.
Robert

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Unfortunately, yes it does! That's the bone of contention on this rule and one I don't think the NFHS intended. I think they REALLY want us to still flag it but just as a personal foul and not as a horse collar.
Robert

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

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

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.

[jaybird]

Does the rule say the fouled player has to continue to be a ballcarrier throughout the action?

Yes it does.

[ppaltice]

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.

[Reffing Rev.]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

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.

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

[RochesterRef]

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RochesterRef

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If they're serious about risk minimization

...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

[Theisey]

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.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Theisey

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.

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Theisey

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.

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.

[movingthechains]

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.