Horse Collar or Not?
 

Had this last night,using NF rules. The runner was tackled by the inside of the back of the shoulder pads and pull back by his left hand. The right hand was in front and around the runners waist. So one hand in front around the waist and the other hand grasping the inside of the back of the shoulder pads and pulled the runner down backwards. Horse Collar or not??

If a hand was inside as you say it was and he went down backwards...you've already answered the question. The left hand is a non-factor IMO.

If you feel the tackle was caused by the pulling of the "horse-collar" then you have a foul. If you feel that the use of the other hand contributed more to the tackle, then you could have nothing. Basically it is not a foul unless the action of the "horse-collar" was the reason the runner went backwards. It is hard to tell by your description as it does seem like this is likely a foul, but it does not have to be.

Peace

Well I passed on this call, as i felt that the arm around the waist was a helping factor in the tackle.

I think that you might have missed this call, if that was your only reason for passing (I wasn't there, and so won't presume to judge).

The rule specifies necessary conditions for calling HCT. If the play meets those conditions, then it's a HCT, whatever else happened. If the runner had stopped his fall with his hand and landed on his side instead of his back, for instance, I'm still calling HCT.

Is Fed rule the same as NCAA?

NCAA rule uses the word "immediately". If one hand is around waist, it doesn't sound "immediate" to me.

No the rule is not the same. The way it is being interpreted by many states is that you have to go backwards relatively quickly. But that is the problem with the rule; the intent and the wording do not always make sense.

Peace

I had a similar play a couple of weeks ago and has sparked a number of conversations among our community.

A42 runs into B76 at line of scrimmage. B76 stands up A42 and runner is moving backwards. THe defensive lineman continues the tackle and in wrapping up the player, the hand grabs the inside of back of shoulder pads. Player goes down backwards. Offensive coach is going nuts. I passed due to the player was already moving back and was by no means pulled down via Hc.

Your thoughts

Here's a link to a play we had earlier this season. I'm the back judge and passed on the call because the runner was tackled forward. My wing flagged it. As a crew we discussed it and stayed with the HCT call.

What do you folks think?

YouTube - HCT full

The runner did not go backwards. He actually fell forward.

And for the record I have seen this play before as I personally know one of the official's involved and he sent me this play for my opinion.

Edit: I had some information incorrect. This was ruled a horse collar by our state, but it goes against what we were told in some interpretations. We were told if they runner did not go backwards, this was not a horse collar in all the literature that was sent to officials. This is not "classic" to me if the runner goes forward. But as said to me, "What do I know?"

Peace

force of the tackle
 

It was explained to me that if the horse collar grab was the force that pulled the runner to the ground then it should be a HCT. So if you thought that the runner was pulled down by the shoulder pads regardless of any other part of the body then if it were me I would have called HCT.

I had a similar situation last night. I know I technically got the call wrong by rule, but the tackle was so violent that there's no way I wouldn't call this.

B1 grabbed A1 by the inside of the shoulder pads in the back. As A1 and B1 were engaged B2 added another arm to the tackle in the front. However, the force of B2 had no affect on A1. As B2 was touching A1, B1 pulled the runner backwards and down by the inside of the shoulder pads.

Basically, in my opinion, B2 had no true affect on the force of the tackle so I flagged it. I know by high school rule that since B2 was involved somehow in the tackle it should not have been. But if we keep letting that go, someone's really going to get hurt!

JRut:
Dave Gannaway (Illinois' administrator in charge of football) told me this is, in his words, "A classic horse collar tackle."

JRod:
Just because a second tackler is involved in the tackle does not negate the HCT. Which was the primary force of the tackle? B1 or B2? If it's B1, it's a HCT. If B2 caused the tackle despite B1's pad-grab, it's not a HCT.

yup
 

Radio: you're right

I'd go with HCT because his knees buckled and I think the HC caused that. The rule was put in to protect leg injuries. This is not clear cut but IMHO it was a HCT.

That's the way I understood it as well. Another defender getting involved doesn't automatically mean that there's no HCT. If he's already being pulled down by the tackle, and B2 hits him on the way down, he's still be horsecollared. But if B1 holds him by the collar, and the B2 comes in and is the one who makes the tackle, no foul.