Horse-collar (NF

[JRutledge]

Maybe you need to stop trying to find the exact wording and use a little common sense in what the ruling actually means.

For one a simulated runner is not going to be a simulated runner very long. The reason the definition of a runner is in place to give the defense an opportunity to reasonably hit that person who might be carrying out a fake or is thought to have the ball because of a fake handoff. So the opportunity to tackle this person is very brief if not so short that you would be called for all kinds of foul if you just hit them by rule (before this new rule I might add). A quarterback in an option scheme for example would no longer be a runner or even a simulated runner at that point. Now can you do whatever you want as a defense? Of course not. A defender could still be responsible for other illegal personal contact rules that applied before this rule was in place. So instead of this being a "Horse collar” foul, the action just turns into a PF because the same act is deemed dangerous. BTW, the NF did not take this position at all. They would by rule allow you do this act and not be responsible for anything, the IHSA wanted the action outlawed (not the definition, the action) The same the ruling you show does not apply to a runner that was grabbed by the collar (from behind or the side) and now fumbles the ball. Are they are runner if you fumble or lose control of the ball? Of course not.

Also Illini_ref asked a Rules Interpreter directly (which any of us can do) what the ruling is on a situation that was not listed earlier. Just like multiple rules that have gray areas or unclear interpretations from the NF or the IHSA. He contacted Bill Laude and/or Dave Gannaway directly. Not only is this what the IHSA tells us to do, they talk about this a lot on the website and at rules meetings or on the rules video. And since the intent of the rule was to consider the act illegal, the only thing that you seem to be hung up on like many is what the penalty is called. The same act is illegal according to the IHSA; they are just saying that it is not a “horse collar” because that was not the intent of the rule. Maybe that is hard for you to wrap your mind around, but it sound rather easy to me. This was exactly what was clarified at the two live rules meetings I attended and people asked all kinds of questions about an action that I have yet to see this once by any standard (and not matter what you call the foul).

And if you do not like what I have to say, the contact information of these two people is readily available and you can ask them yourself. I am just sharing what I know and I did not make the ruling or the interpretation. But I can tell you from contacting IHSA people in the past, and asking this of National Federation people, the NF takes the position that interpretations are supposed to come from state associations primarily, not always form them. The NF posts interpretations, but states can take those interpretations further and they not only realize this, it is encouraged. Also, every year a new rule that has holes in the rule; states take all kinds of positions. I know an official from South Carolina that also has a license in Illinois and according to him, South Carolina took a similar stance that the IHSA did on this issue, mainly because the two heads of those states that sit on rules committees, were the authors of the horse-collar rule.

I tend to not rely on what people say here for any ruling when I want clarification. Now maybe the website you have does not show the contact information, but if you still need it, send me and email and I will pass it along to you. No website or interpretation is going to answer every possible question or concern and if that is what you or I are looking for. It is not the case because that has never been the function of these interpretations. You have to get clarification if you have it from the right people. And the sad part is they say that so many times in their literature I’m amazed people do not take advantage of this on a regular basis. The reason Illini_Ref asked these individuals in the first place, because we could not come to a consensus on another board discussing this very issue. He told us what he found out, if you do not believe him, contact those people yourself and report what they tell you here.

Peace

[Canned Heat]

This is posted on many state websites regarding NFHS interpretations of the HC. Pay special attention to the latter part of the document.

NFHS
2009 Football Rule Changes
Prepared by Paul Hoole, CDFOA Interpreter

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.
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 judgment 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.

I have to admit...if every coach got a look at this prior to the season, there'd be alot less barking for the HC call...and we've had dozens. I remember our posts some months back on how you'd rarely see a HC, nor hear anyone griping for it. I wish.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The reason Illini_Ref asked these individuals in the first place, because we could not come to a consensus on another board discussing this very issue. He told us what he found out, if you do not believe him, contact those people yourself and report what they tell you here.

Peace

It's not that I don't believe Illini_Ref. I just think the private 'ruling' afforded him is inconsistent with the written rules and that the written rules are not currently superseded by any of the current public 'rulings' posted by the IHSA. It simply wouldn't occur to me to contact either Ganaway or Laude on something spelled out so clearly in the rules. I simply don't see anything gray or unclear.

9-4-3 (k)

Grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and subsequently pull the runner to the ground.

2-32-13

A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball.

Where's the gray? What's not clear?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

It's not that I don't believe Illini_Ref. I just think the private 'ruling' afforded him is inconsistent with the written rules and that the written rules are not currently superseded by any of the current public 'rulings' posted by the IHSA. It simply wouldn't occur to me to contact either Ganaway or Laude on something spelled out so clearly in the rules. I simply don't see anything gray or unclear.

9-4-3 (k)

Grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and subsequently pull the runner to the ground.

2-32-13

A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball.

Where's the gray? What's not clear?

If the rule was so clear, why did the NF feel compelled to give an interpretation on the rule? You must did not read the previous post.

Here is the bottom line. You do not work for the National Federation. You are licensed by the IHSA. If the IHSA tells you what to do, you do it or do not work games under their umbrella anymore. And when the head clinician/rules interpreter and the sport's administrator give you a ruling that must be what they want to do. Now if you have a problem with this that is your issue you will have to deal with. I have had similar situations happen outside of football in my other sports and we do what they tell us or we "$h!t or get off the pot." I know what I am going to call; you can call what you like. It really does not matter to me.

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the rule was so clear, why did the NF feel compelled to give an interpretation on the rule? You must did not read the previous post.

Here is the bottom line. You do not work for the National Federation. You are licensed by the IHSA. If the IHSA tells you what to do, you do it or do not work games under their umbrella anymore. And when the head clinician/rules interpreter and the sport's administrator give you a ruling that must be what they want to do. Now if you have a problem with this that is your issue you will have to deal with. I have had similar situations happen outside of football in my other sports and we do what they tell us or we "$h!t or get off the pot." I know what I am going to call; you can call what you like. It really does not matter to me.

The federation did not feel compelled to give an interpretation on the action described in the OP. In the OP we have a runner, who remains a runner throughout the action, taken down by a what was described as a HCT. The federation did give guidance, which the IHSA has publicly overruled, as to what is to be called when what would be a HCT is applied to a non-runner or when a runner becomes a non-runner between the time the runner's collar is grabbed and the non-runner is subsequently taken down.

Maybe in your infinite wisdom, you can tell me when the runner in the OP ceased to be a runner and why of the rulings published by the IHSA that deal with NON-RUNNERS would apply. The bottom line is that the IHSA has not issued a PUBLIC ruling that pertains to this situation.

I'll be more than happy call the action a PF WHEN the head clinician/rules interpreter and the sport's administrator ACTUALLY DO give me a ruling (public or otherwise) that pertains to the play. I'm NOT going to chase them around for that ruling based on message board hearsay especially when it flies in the face of the clearly written rules under which we play .

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

The federation did not feel compelled to give an interpretation on the action described in the OP. In the OP we have a runner, who remains a runner throughout the action, taken down by a what was described as a HCT. The federation did give guidance, which the IHSA has publicly overruled, as to what is to be called when what would be a HCT is applied to a non-runner or when a runner becomes a non-runner between the time the collar is grabbed and the runner is subsequently taken down.

Maybe in your infinite wisdom, you can tell me when the runner in the OP ceased to be a runner and why of the rulings published by the IHSA that deal with NON-RUNNERS would apply. The bottom line is that the IHSA has not issued a PUBLIC ruling that pertains to this situation.

I'll be more than happy call the action a PF WHEN the head clinician/rules interpreter and the sport's administrator ACTUALLY DO give me a ruling (public or otherwise) that pertains to the play. I'm NOT going to chase them around for that ruling based on message board hearsay especially when it flies in the face of the clearly written rules under which we play .

I think the problem is you are stuck on the definition as if nothing can be said about that definition by anyone. That is fine, but I have learned that if the rule was clear and accepted by everyone, you would not see any interpretations to clarify or change the basic understanding. And the NF did come out with a ruling near the end of July and many states gave a separate interpretation all over the county because the NF ruling also did not go by the written definition and caused confusion.

Look, when PSK came out several years ago the NF tweaked the rule two more times to get what they wanted to fit all the current definitions and rules. When the rule to allow a penalty to be applied on the succeeding spot, was changed about 4 times to accommodate (not changed) definitions and get the rule where it appears today.

Interpretations are here to clarify holes in the intent and spirit of a rule. That is why there is a casebook.

You can keep talking about what it says or implies all day long. If they wanted called the way you suggested, they would have said to do what the rulebook says. Obviously that was not the intent of the rule and next year I want you to come back here and complain when they change the definition of a horse collar and maybe even add exceptions to the rule like they have at the college levels. The rules do not even say that the runner must go backwards, but all the literature and video examples show players going backwards. That was also an IHSA interpretation of the horse collar rule. And what you are essentially complaining over a definition, not an action. You are still going to likely call a foul if the same action takes place; you are just not going to call it a horse collar. I really do not see why this is hard to understand?

Peace

[Forksref]

If a runner goes OOB and is then tackled by a HC, but the rule interpretation says it is no longer a HC tackle because he is OOB or in the EZ, then why should we apply a PF if we didn't call it a PF in years past? If the runner was not slammed down or roughed unnecessarily, then I wasn't calling it a PF in years past. I think the interpretation that says it is not a HC is not continuing to protect the runner, which is the intent of the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Forksref

If a runner goes OOB and is then tackled by a HC, but the rule interpretation says it is no longer a HC tackle because he is OOB or in the EZ, then why should we apply a PF if we didn't call it a PF in years past? If the runner was not slammed down or roughed unnecessarily, then I wasn't calling it a PF in years past.

I completely agree with you on this. I am not likely calling anything, because there are no rules that say this is a PF. But that being said, that is what our state suggested could be called. I am just not of the philosophy we should call something.

Peace