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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

Then I guess I have nothing more to say on the subject. We disagree.

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!

And I agree with that: the situation illustrates the danger of a state interpreter basing his rulings on the comic book. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Too much is being read into the 9.4.3M.

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.