Horse-collar (NF

[InsideTheStripe]

Correct.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

Correct.

Agreed.

[Illini_Ref]

Dave Gannaway, Assistant Director of the IHSA (IL. HS Association) and Bill Laude, lead interpreter, said that in Illinois the horse collar rule will only be called on the BALL CARRIER and not someone who has taken a fake hand-off.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

Dave Gannaway, Assistant Director of the IHSA (IL. HS Association) and Bill Laude, lead interpreter, said that in Illinois the horse collar rule will only be called on the BALL CARRIER and not someone who has taken a fake hand-off.

Nonsense, what is the reason for this interp? The rule is there to protect players from serious injury. If it's a good fake and B1 HC tackles A2, I'm throwing the flag 100% of the time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

Nonsense, what is the reason for this interp? The rule is there to protect players from serious injury. If it's a good fake and B1 HC tackles A2, I'm throwing the flag 100% of the time.

Calm down, it is not about a safety issue, it is about the definition. And unless this is your state, you can do what you want.

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

Dave Gannaway, Assistant Director of the IHSA (IL. HS Association) and Bill Laude, lead interpreter, said that in Illinois the horse collar rule will only be called on the BALL CARRIER and not someone who has taken a fake hand-off.

That's a terrible interpretation. I'd love to hear their justification because is simply incorrect based on the wording of the new rule and the established definitions in Rule 2. I don't see anything under the football case situations regarding a horse collar only applying to the ball carrier in the IHSA officials center and until I do I'm going with the published NFHS rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

That's a terrible interpretation. I'd love to hear their justification because is simply incorrect base on the wording of the new rule and the established definitions in Rule 2.

States have a right to make interpretations of the rules. And BTW, Illinois was the co-author of the horse-collar rule. This was actually the intent of the rule until the NF messed it up as usual. This is much more inline with the NF rules than the interpretation the NF gave back in July. The NF even wanted a horse-collar foul on a player that fumbled the ball, which clearly was not the definition of the horse collar.

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

States have a right to make interpretations of the rules. And BTW, Illinois was the co-author of the horse-collar rule. This was actually the intent of the rule until the NF messed it up as usual. This is much more inline with the NF rules than the interpretation the NF gave back in July. The NF even wanted a horse-collar foul on a player that fumbled the ball, which clearly was not the definition of the horse collar.

Peace

Of course they have that right.

When they don't publish their interpretations it leads to inconsistency. If I didn't read this forum, how would I know that the IHSA has decided to rewrite either the horse collar rule or the definition of a runner?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

Of course they have that right.

When they don't publish their interpretations it leads to inconsistency. If I didn't read this forum, how would I know that the IHSA has decided to rewrite either the horse collar rule or the definition of a runner?

This interpretation was given back at the rules meetings and on our personal web pages about a month ago. It has been rather well known they did not want a horse collar tackle call on this play (notice I said call).

Peace