Horsecollar

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by cowboys

Is it a horsecollar penalty if more than one player is involved in the illegal act? Some of my crew believe that if more than one player is involved in the horsecollar tackle it's not a violation.

That's correct. If one player horse collars but a teammate makes contact with the runner before he's brought to the ground, it is not a foul.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

That's correct. If one player horse collars but a teammate makes contact with the runner before he's brought to the ground, it is not a foul.

If the horse collar is what brings the runner down, we're throwing flags regardless of how many people make contact.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If the horse collar is what brings the runner down, we're throwing flags regardless of how many people make contact.

You may want to rethink that, based on this casebook play - specifically situation "b"
*9.4.3 SITUATION M: A1 is running in the open field and B1 grabs A1’s shoulder pad opening from behind and pulls and: (a) A1 does not go down from the contact; (b) B2 comes in and tackles A1 while still in B1’s grasp; or (c) A1 runs four more yards before being pulled down. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b); illegal horse-collar foul in (c) because runner subsequently went down because of the horse-collar foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If the horse collar is what brings the runner down, we're throwing flags regardless of how many people make contact.

Then you're making up your own rules.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Then you're making up your own rules.

Sorry, I'm quoting you, but the first sentence below refers to the other poster:

Read the case play again. What I said was, "If the horse collar is what brings the runner down....."

In A, he doesn't go down and in B he doesn't go down from the HC. Where are we saying anything different?

What I'm saying is that contact from a second person doesn't absolve the person with the hand in the cookie jar from a HC penalty if that's what brings the runner down.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Sorry, I'm quoting you, but the first sentence below refers to the other poster:

Read the case play again. What I said was, "If the horse collar is what brings the runner down....."

In A, he doesn't go down and in B he doesn't go down from the HC. Where are we saying anything different?

What I'm saying is that contact from a second person doesn't absolve the person with the hand in the cookie jar from a HC penalty if that's what brings the runner down.

Rich, for two years, our state supervisor of officials who is on the NFHS Rules Committee, has told us that contact during the tackle by a second opponent negates the horse collar. It removes the official having to make a decision as to whether the first defender brought the runner down or the second defender. I don't see anything in the case play that changes that.

Obviously from the responses here, other rules committee members are communicating the same thing to their officials.

I've got nothing.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Rich, for two years, our state supervisor of officials who is on the NFHS Rules Committee, has told us that contact during the tackle by a second opponent negates the horse collar. It removes the official having to make a decision as to whether the first defender brought the runner down or the second defender. I don't see anything in the case play that changes that.

Obviously from the responses here, other rules committee members are communicating the same thing to their officials.

I've got nothing.

At our rules meeting this year, we were told too many officials were looking for excuses to not call a HC foul. They explicitly said that there is no requirement in NFHS rules that a player be pulled down in any specific direction, just that the hand be inside at the side or back and that be the primary reason the player was brought down. So at least one member of the rules committee (or his representative, at least) is saying something different.

As I always say, all officiating is local.

[AUgrad2006]

Regardless of what individual members of the rules committee might or might not be saying, my first reference will be their published rules and case ruling.

The rule 9-4-3k states "No player or nonplayer shall grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and subsequently pull that opponent to the ground." I don't see any part of the rule that says such a player must be the only one to touch the runner to violate the rule, just needs to pull the runner/opponent to the ground in the manner prescribed.

The Case Book play (9.4.3 M) only cites a situation where a player, B1, is grabbing the inside of the A1's shoulder pad and A1 is tackled by B2. The use of the phrase "B2 comes in and tackles A1" indicates that the contact which brough A1 down was B2's contact, not B1's. The wording of the case play also implies that A1 was not going down until the tackle is made by B2.

If B1 grabs the inside back of the shoulder pad, pulls A1 backwards and has pulled A1 almost all the way to the ground when B2 makes secondary contact, I'm inclined to believe that B1's contact was what brought A1 down and B1 has committed an illegal horse-collar foul.

If there is another rule or published case play/approved ruling to counter this I would be interested to review it but until then, I have to stick with what's already published.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If the horse collar is what brings the runner down, we're throwing flags regardless of how many people make contact.

Well, let's see - From this statement it seems to me you are saying that it doesn't matter whether or not there are multiple tacklers - if b commits the horsecollar, according to your statement, you are automatically going to throw a flag.

Now, let's look at the caseplay again: *9.4.3 SITUATION M: A1 is running in the open field and B1 grabs A1’s shoulder pad opening from behind and pulls and: (a) A1 does not go down from the contact; (b) B2 comes in and tackles A1 while still in B1’s grasp; or (c) A1 runs four more yards before being pulled down. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b); illegal horse-collar foul in (c) because runner subsequently went down because of the horse-collar foul.

We'll just deal with b, because that's the application in question. B2 comes in and tackles A1 WHILE STILL IN B1'S GRASP. Clearly B2 is another player who makes contact, and according to your post, you say you would still throw a flag for HC even though this caseplay officially says not to. Notice also that at no time does it say specifically whether the horsecollar is what brought A1 down or not, just that B2 and B1 both were involved in the tackle. For B1 to be cleared, he would have to release his grip, which apparently did not happen.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

Well, let's see - From this statement it seems to me you are saying that it doesn't matter whether or not there are multiple tacklers - if b commits the horsecollar, according to your statement, you are automatically going to throw a flag.

Now, let's look at the caseplay again: *9.4.3 SITUATION M: A1 is running in the open field and B1 grabs A1’s shoulder pad opening from behind and pulls and: (a) A1 does not go down from the contact; (b) B2 comes in and tackles A1 while still in B1’s grasp; or (c) A1 runs four more yards before being pulled down. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b); illegal horse-collar foul in (c) because runner subsequently went down because of the horse-collar foul.

We'll just deal with b, because that's the application in question. B2 comes in and tackles A1 WHILE STILL IN B1'S GRASP. Clearly B2 is another player who makes contact, and according to your post, you say you would still throw a flag for HC even though this caseplay officially says not to. Notice also that at no time does it say specifically whether the horsecollar is what brought A1 down or not, just that B2 and B1 both were involved in the tackle. For B1 to be cleared, he would have to release his grip, which apparently did not happen.

The case play says that B2 tackles A1, so the implication is that B2 is who brings the runner down. No foul. What I said is clearly different.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The case play says that B2 tackles A1, so the implication is that B2 is who brings the runner down. No foul. What I said is clearly different.

+1

As I read what you're saying, you are NOT contradicting the case play.

[MRH]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The case play says that B2 tackles A1, so the implication is that B2 is who brings the runner down. No foul. What I said is clearly different.

I agree. The way I read it is it was NOT the action of the horse-collar that brought the runner down.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The case play says that B2 tackles A1, so the implication is that B2 is who brings the runner down. No foul. What I said is clearly different.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I understand the statement "while still in the grasp of B1" to mean that B1 had at the very least a basic part in the tackle, since he did not let go. Would you say that if both B1 and B2 brought the runner down, you would call horse collar?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I understand the statement "while still in the grasp of B1" to mean that B1 had at the very least a basic part in the tackle, since he did not let go. Would you say that if both B1 and B2 brought the runner down, you would call horse collar?

It's all judgment. Either I'm saying to the coach:

(1) B1 brought the runner down with the HC (and I really don't care if B2 was touching A1 or not), or
(2) Sure, B1 had his hand there, but B2 was the one who tackled A1.

So I'd have to see the play. However, I'm not looking for an excuse to absolve B1 -- if I think he's responsible for bringing A1 down, I'm throwing a flag.

We had 4 HC fouls last week -- 2 in a JV game on Thursday and 2 in the varsity game on Friday. All were called to the letter and spirit of the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's all judgment. Either I'm saying to the coach:

(1) B1 brought the runner down with the HC (and I really don't care if B2 was touching A1 or not), or
(2) Sure, B1 had his hand there, but B2 was the one who tackled A1.

So I'd have to see the play. However, I'm not looking for an excuse to absolve B1 -- if I think he's responsible for bringing A1 down, I'm throwing a flag.

We had 4 HC fouls last week -- 2 in a JV game on Thursday and 2 in the varsity game on Friday. All were called to the letter and spirit of the rule.

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).

Peace