Horsecollar

[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]

First of all let me say that I never meant to stir anything up in my reply - it's just that Rich's statement was contrary to what I thought I knew about the horsecollar foul. Like some of the others who have posted, my State's interpretation for the past 2 years has been, "second contact by defense negates the horsecollar." To me, the caseplay I posted supports that. B1 initiates contact, B2 applies additional contact, no HC. I do realize Rich's position, and respect it, but I think it's reading too much into the rule according to the interpretation's I've seen.

AU, I would like to turn your last statement back to you and ask you if you can find an official casebook or ruling interpretation that would support your opinion? Is there a recorded instance where 2 or more defenders contact a runner who has been grabbed by a "horsecollar," and the ruling is that the HC is a foul?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

First of all let me say that I never meant to stir anything up in my reply - it's just that Rich's statement was contrary to what I thought I knew about the horsecollar foul. Like some of the others who have posted, my State's interpretation for the past 2 years has been, "second contact by defense negates the horsecollar." To me, the caseplay I posted supports that. B1 initiates contact, B2 applies additional contact, no HC. I do realize Rich's position, and respect it, but I think it's reading too much into the rule according to the interpretation's I've seen.

AU, I would like to turn your last statement back to you and ask you if you can find an official casebook or ruling interpretation that would support your opinion? Is there a recorded instance where 2 or more defenders contact a runner who has been grabbed by a "horsecollar," and the ruling is that the HC is a foul?

I'm not trying to stir up anything either, but I would counter that given the case play and the rule, saying that contact by a second player negates a HC foul is actually putting words in that aren't there.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm not trying to stir up anything either, but I would counter that given the case play and the rule, saying that contact by a second player negates a HC foul is actually putting words in that aren't there.

IMO inserting words is the result of a more fundamental error, namely that of misinterpreting the case play.

The case play covers one possible case, namely where an additional tackler prevents a horse collar from becoming a horse collar TACKLE, and thus prevents the foul.

Another possible case is one where an additional tackler, perhaps approaching from behind the runner, also grabs the runner's jersey or pads from the side or behind, and also pulls the runner backward to the ground. That would be a double horse collar, and to my mind, an obvious horse collar tackle foul. It seems preposterous to claim that it's no longer a foul because there are now 2 players committing a horse collar tackle.

To conclude from the first possible case that "second contact by defense negates the horsecollar" seems to me a misinterpretation of the case.