Horsecollar

[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

[waltjp]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by waltjp

This slide doesn't contradict a single thing I've written. If (based on what you quoted), it's (1), it's a foul. If (2), no foul. I think I've been pretty clear in what I've written -- haven't I been?

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

This slide doesn't contradict a single thing I've written. If (based on what you quoted), it's (1), it's a foul. If (2), no foul. I think I've been pretty clear in what I've written -- haven't I been?

Apparently not, because this illustration seems to contradict exactly what you have been saying. It seems to support the general consensus that "additional contact negates the HC foul."

Anyway, I have a tendency to be bull headed and stubborn on things I shouldn't be, so I humbly surrender. I can see where in the technical sense of the rule, you would be correct, but I still can't envision anything in real life that would make me call a HC if there is additional contact.
Peace, Grits, and Gravy to you and yours.