Horsecollar

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

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."

Other contact results in runner being downed is far different than other contact occurs.

I'm done with this, too. No reason to keep beating the same drum. However, I will say that there seems to be far less than a "consensus."

Let me throw this hypothetical at you, though. This happened in Week 1 in my varsity game.

A23 runs right. He's held up pretty quickly by multiple B players. Maybe a second before we would've ruled progress stopped, a B player on his knees reaches up from behind, reaches into the back of A23's collar, and pulls A23 straight back to the ground. Would you flag this?

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Other contact results in runner being downed is far different than other contact occurs.

I'm done with this, too. No reason to keep beating the same drum. However, I will say that there seems to be far less than a "consensus."

Let me throw this hypothetical at you, though. This happened in Week 1 in my varsity game.

A23 runs right. He's held up pretty quickly by multiple B players. Maybe a second before we would've ruled progress stopped, a B player on his knees reaches up from behind, reaches into the back of A23's collar, and pulls A23 straight back to the ground. Would you flag this?

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

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]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

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]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.