Horse-collar (NF

[Illini_Ref]

A know that a horse collar can only be committed on a runner.
Here is my question.

A runner by definition includes someone who simulates possession of a live ball. Let's say that a handoff is faked to the FB. At this time the FB is brought down by a HC tackle. Assume that a reasonable player would assume that he had the ball.

He fits the definition of a runner, so he has to be protected by the HC rule. Correct?

[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

[jontheref]

We have had many discussions on our board about this and I cant really understand why. By definition, a horse collar may only be called on a runner or someone simulating a runner. However, any foul that resembles a horse collar is going to be called as a straight PF anyway--so I really don't get it. Same enforcement, one less signal. What am I missing?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jontheref

We have had many discussions on our board about this and I cant really understand why. By definition, a horse collar may only be called on a runner or someone simulating a runner. However, any foul that resembles a horse collar is going to be called as a straight PF anyway--so I really don't get it. Same enforcement, one less signal. What am I missing?

What "resembles a Horse Collar, that's not a horse collar, and what would make it a PF, other than what would otherwise be a horse collar that didn't produce a runner going down inbounds in possession of the ball?

[IMSports007]

One of the plays in the Redding guide says this exact play should be treated as a horse collar.

The player faking the running play is afforded the same protection as the actual runner.


My question is this... we've been told that the horse collar can only be called in the field of play...

For example, a player tackled by horse collar who lands in the endzone, no horse collar can be called. It's the same situation for a runner going out of bounds and is taken down by horse collar. The interpretation for this came straight from Referee magazine.

Any comments?

[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

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Maybe your personal page is different than mine because I can't find any references stating the definition of a runner varies from the NFHS definition and that a HCT on a runner (who is simulating possession of the ball) should be called a PF. I see a bulletin that no judgement is needed on a non-runner being taken down by what would be a HCT if the player were a runner. This bulletin states that this action is always a PF.

I attended two rules meetings in person (IACAO & an association) and viewed the online rules meeting and don't recall the changing of the definition of a runner or a HCT.

Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 Horse collar

Boys Football

This is just a reminder to all officials that to have a horse collar tackle you must have the back or side of the collar and the force must be applied BACKWARDS. That is the rule.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

8/12 Clarification on Horse collar

Boys Football

SITUATION 1: A1 is carrying the football when B1 grabs him by the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey. A1 then: (a) fumbles the football and is subsequently brought to the ground by B1; (b) crosses the goal line to score a touchdown and is then brought down by B1; or (c) crosses the sideline and is then brought down by B1. RULING: The official must judge whether or not a personal foul has occurred, but if called, it cannot be a horse-collar tackle. COMMENT: B1's contact on A1 meets part of the definition of a horse-collar tackle in that he grabbed the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey. However, in (a), when the runner (A1) fumbled the football, he was no longer a runner. In (b) or (c), when the runner (A1) crossed the goal line or sideline, the football became dead and A1 was no longer a player (in possession of a live ball). (2-26-13; 9-4-3k)

Officials and Coaches: This is the exact ruling that has been sent out by the NFHS. The IHSA is more restrictive in this ruling this year as stated in the online rule interpretation meeting. The IHSA will not have the officials make a judgment on whether this is or is not a personal foul once the runner crosses the goal line or the sideline. In (b) and (c) above, this Will be considered a personal foul as the horse-collar was the reason the player who carried the ball was brought to the ground. Remember, that when the ball crosses the goal line or the sideline, the ball is dead and we no longer have a runner by definition but we do still have the act of bringing that runner to the ground by the horse-collar act.

The IHSA will error on the side of safety and this will be called a personal foul and the penalty assessed accordingly.

[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