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.

[whitehat]

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

[Canned Heat]

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.

[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.