Horsecollar
 

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.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

The number of players involved is not considered. If the criteria are met for a HC, then it's a HC.

You need to clarify what you mean by that. If the runner is grabbed by the collar and then another defender helps bring them down then it is not a foul for obvious reasons. The foul only occurs when the one player is involved in the take down. Then again that is why we get paid the big bucks to make that decision. Judgment call all the way and always will be.

Peace

Good point JRut...use your judgement and decide if the horsecollar tackle was the act that took the ball runner to the ground. (IMO)

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.

I realize you are discussing NF rules here. And just out of my curiosity, what would you have if both players clearly grabbed the runner from the back, inside the collar and immediately pulled him to the ground backwards.

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

Horse-collar <s>tackle</s>.

Actually it is "Horse-collar" but I digress (They removed the word "tackle" out of the wording). Heeeheee. :)

Peace

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.

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.

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.

+1

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