9-4-3k Horse collar

[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.

[Rock Chalk]

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.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

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.

[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.

[bigjohn]

[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.