9-4-3k Horse collar
 

B1 has grasped the inside back of runner A1's collar (horse collar) A1 pulls B1 across the plane of the goal line for a TD and then is horse collared by B1 in the same motion.


B1 has grasped the inside back of runner A1's collar (horse collar) in the field of play and is attempting to make the horse collar tackle. At the same time B2 and B3 tackle runner A1 from the front of A1 and make the tackle of A1 in the direction of B1's pull. I would be hard pressed to call this a horse collar although it meets the requirements.

No foul in either case unless the official feels a PF has occurred. It is not a HC tackle though.

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).

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.

The previous poster suggests that this is not a foul "unless the official feels a PF has occurred." Presumably his rationale for passing on this flag is that the ball is dead on the TD.

But a HCT is always a PF for illegal contact. This is a dangerous play, and I will flag it even though the ball is dead, given that it meets the requirements of a HCT.

2. I don't think this play does meet the requirements, since B1 did not tackle the A1, his teammates did. The fact that the force of their contact drove him where B1's HCT was taking him does not meet the requirements for the foul. IMO your instinct to pass on this sounds correct.

Discussion thread I generated from a scrimmage I worked last night.

NFHS Forum: The horse-collar rears its ugly head

This is the interp that has been stated in Illinois. No foul.

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.

Huh?

In WI, if a player is horse collared and the tackle occurs after a TD, it's penalized as a dead ball foul. This was described at the rule interp meeting. Am I reading this situation wrong?

Not sure about WI, but in IL that is what we are being told as well. If a HC tackle occurrs outside the field of play the official should penalize this as a dead ball, personal foul. In otherwords, do not signal that it was a HC but rather a plain PF. *shrug*

As SVM said, this is not HC but could definitely (and probably should) be a DB PF. It's a semantics thing based on how the rule was written. The result is the same.

Keep in mind we've all probably spent more time talking about this rule than we will be enforcing it. This type of tackle just doesn't happen that often at the HS level.

Keep in mind we've all probably spent more time talking about this rule than we will be enforcing it. This type of tackle just doesn't happen that often at the HS level.[/QUOTE]


Good point. I can think of only 1 situation where I would have called a horse collar last year, although coaches asked for it almost every game and I had to remind them it was Friday night game , not Saturday, or Sunday. Now that it is a NFHS rule I know i'd better prepare for it

It would be nice to view what constitutes a horse collar tackle and what does not rather than just have the written rule. anybody have any video?

Try this link.

After some lengthy discussions with my crewmates on such things as how well the rule is written and the spirit of the rule, I expect we will see some clarifications over the next couple of years. Similar to how PSK has evolved.

I didn't think I had seen one all year last year (at least not a legitimate one) but I watched a video of our first game and saw a tackle I would definitely consider a HC. It was near the sideline and not someplace I would be looking as an umpire. I'm sure the number of screams for HC will outnumber the number of actual HC even though the HS rule is much more liberal than the collgee rule.

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

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?

"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

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.