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

[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

[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?