The Official Forum
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Horsecollar (https://forum.officiating.com/football/58984-horsecollar.html)

Rich Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroKen62 (Post 690994)
no, because other contact was involved.;)
About the only way I'll call a horsecollar is one runner, one defensive guy, a hand inside the collar at the back or side, and a pull down backwards or to the side.
Then I guess I have nothing more to say on the subject. We disagree.

Rich Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroKen62 (Post 690994)
no, because other contact was involved.;)
About the only way I'll call a horsecollar is one runner, one defensive guy, a hand inside the collar at the back or side, and a pull down backwards or to the side.
Oh, one more thing: The rule and case plays also say nothing about which direction the runner is pulled down. It's only relevant in NFHS rules where the hand is, not the direction of the tackle. This was mentioned in our state meeting as a common misconception of this rule and the rules committee was mentioned as a source. I'm sure other states have communicated differently.

BroKen62 Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 691000)
Oh, one more thing: The rule and case plays also say nothing about which direction the runner is pulled down. It's only relevant in NFHS rules where the hand is, not the direction of the tackle. This was mentioned in our state meeting as a common misconception of this rule and the rules committee was mentioned as a source. I'm sure other states have communicated differently.
i agree with that. All my information came from our State meeting last year, where our State Director showed the NFHS powerpoint slides like what was posted here, and gave the "official interpretation." Therefore, until something else official comes down the pipe to change things, we will just have to agree to disagree. Seems like the problem is greater than just our differing opinions!

mbyron Thu Sep 02, 2010 01:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroKen62 (Post 691004)
i agree with that. All my information came from our State meeting last year, where our State Director showed the NFHS powerpoint slides like what was posted here, and gave the "official interpretation." Therefore, until something else official comes down the pipe to change things, we will just have to agree to disagree. Seems like the problem is greater than just our differing opinions!
And I agree with that: the situation illustrates the danger of a state interpreter basing his rulings on the comic book. :rolleyes:

BktBallRef Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 690939)
I got what you said the first time. But I would be trying to not call this if another player made contact with the runner (opponent).
Exactly. Too much is being read into the 9.4.3M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 691000)
Oh, one more thing: The rule and case plays also say nothing about which direction the runner is pulled down. It's only relevant in NFHS rules where the hand is, not the direction of the tackle. This was mentioned in our state meeting as a common misconception of this rule and the rules committee was mentioned as a source. I'm sure other states have communicated differently.
Rich, I'd suggest you read 9.4.3L and 9.4.3N. Both plays state it is not a horse collar foul if the runner is pulled down forward, no matter where the hand is inserted in the collar.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03pm.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1