Horse-collar (NF

[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