9-4-3k Horse collar

[phansen]

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.

[bigjohn]

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by phansen

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.

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.

[HLin NC]

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

NFHS Forum: The horse-collar rears its ugly head

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by phansen

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.

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.

[Rich]

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.

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?

[svm1010]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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*

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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?

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.

[phansen]

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by phansen

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.

[svm1010]

Originally Posted by phansen

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?

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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by phansen

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?

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.

[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