Horsecollar foul

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

you want to know why coaches are being told different things from different crews - here's your answer! We can't agree on it ourselves.

It doesn't matter. Tony and I may disagree and he may say I'm full of crap, but it's based on something he was told by his interpreter, and I'm OK with that, although I disagree.

We were *specifically* told at our rules meeting what I've posted and I think it's consistent with the written words. When *our* crews are told something at *our* rules meetings and then ignore what they're told, I think that's a problem.

It's probably a whole lot of arguing over something that wouldn't happen often. It's pretty hard for someone to be pulled down on his face with a hand in the side or back of the jersey collar or pads.

And since I'm primarily a white hat, it's rare that I ever see a horse collar as the primary calling official. I do get to explain things to coaches from time to time. For some reason a lot of coaches think the white hat gives me some magical powers.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It doesn't matter. Tony and I may disagree and he may say I'm full of crap, but it's based on something he was told by his interpreter, and I'm OK with that, although I disagree.

We were *specifically* told at our rules meeting what I've posted and I think it's consistent with the written words. When *our* crews are told something at *our* rules meetings and then ignore what they're told, I think that's a problem.

It's probably a whole lot of arguing over something that wouldn't happen often. It's pretty hard for someone to be pulled down on his face with a hand in the side or back of the jersey collar or pads.

And since I'm primarily a white hat, it's rare that I ever see a horse collar as the primary calling official. I do get to explain things to coaches from time to time. For some reason a lot of coaches think the white hat gives me some magical powers.

I see your point. I hadn't thought about it being geographical, but that's right. There should at least be consistency throughout a particular association.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Really? Citation, please. "Pulled down" doesn't specifiy a direction no matter how many times you say it.

It's right there in the case play, Rich. But I guess you're going to tell us that if we asked the author of the case book play "What if he's PULLED forward instead of FALLS forward?" the author would say "OH! That's entriely different!"

C'mon Rich. The case play is there to tell us that back/side is a foul, forward isn't a foul, not that pull is a foul but fall isn't.

The whole point of the horse collar rule is that the head/neck are snapped backwards with a horse collar tackle from the side or behind. It's whiplash. There's no snap of the head if he's pulled or falls forward. Further, the NFHS isn't going to ask us to determine whether he fell or was pulled. That's just ludicrous.

Now, if you've been told to call it that way, fine. But that is not the way it's written and I haven't found any other state interp or NFHS interp that agrees with you. So again, no need to sell it here. I don't see anyone buying it. I'm done, we'll just agree to continue to disagree.

[bisonlj]

I agree with Rich on this and any official interpretations I've seen support him as well. I think the rule as written is way too liberal and penalizes things that aren't really a safety issue. Grabbing the horse collar and pulling the guy forward (very clearly different than a player falling forward) is not a dangerous tackle but by rule is a 15-yard penalty.

The other difference between NFHS and NCAA is the use of the word "subsequent" versus "immediate". If I grab a runner and hold on for 3-4 steps and then pull him down, the dangerous element of this type of tackle is almost always removed. But by rule it's a foul.

I much prefer the NCAA version of this rule. It's more in sync with the safety issue it's trying to prevent.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The whole point of the horse collar rule is that the head/neck are snapped backwards with a horse collar tackle from the side or behind. It's whiplash.

No, it was supposed to be to protect the knees, as was explained first to me here. If you're collared while running forward, your head will snap forward, not backward. It could bounce backward, of course, but the neck is not what this rule is about. If it were about protecting the neck, then all neck tackling would be outlawed, regardless of direction. And if it were about whiplash, then tackling from behind via contact with the back would be forbidden.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Really? Citation, please. "Pulled down" doesn't specifiy a direction no matter how many times you say it.

And Jeff, I've been very clear in saying that if the result of the person going down is the horse collar it's a foul. Falling means something else entirely. If you're going to claim I have changed my story, it's encumbent on you to cite how I have -- otherwise you're just making that up.

Here's the thread, Jeff: Please tell me where I've changed one thing I've said:

Horsecollar

I do not believe I said you changed what you were saying. It just seems to me you are trying to claim something is illegal when there are case plays and interpretations from the NF that are not. Now of course your state or region can advocate something should be illegal despite the interpretations of the NF and that is their right to do so. I am just saying to you that does not fit the NF's purpose of the rule. And in that other discussion you said that you were calling it regardless of another player being apart of the tackle, almost like a face mask penalty. That just does not go along with the interpretations from the NF that last two years. I am not trying to get into the issue with you on Tony; I just think the rules do not support your claims at this time.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, it was supposed to be to protect the knees, as was explained first to me here. If you're collared while running forward, your head will snap forward, not backward. It could bounce backward, of course, but the neck is not what this rule is about. If it were about protecting the neck, then all neck tackling would be outlawed, regardless of direction. And if it were about whiplash, then tackling from behind via contact with the back would be forbidden.

The rule came in place in football because Roy Williams from the Dallas Cowboys hurt two players by pulling them down. The second time was with T.O. of the Philadelphia Eagles where T.O. broke a leg when "horse collared" by Williams. The next year this rule was put in place and a year or two the NCAA followed, and then of course the NF had to follow them.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, it was supposed to be to protect the knees, as was explained first to me here. If you're collared while running forward, your head will snap forward, not backward. It could bounce backward, of course, but the neck is not what this rule is about. If it were about protecting the neck, then all neck tackling would be outlawed, regardless of direction. And if it were about whiplash, then tackling from behind via contact with the back would be forbidden.

Right, it protects the legs. That, from everything I heard, was the main intent of the rule.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not believe I said you changed what you were saying. It just seems to me you are trying to claim something is illegal when there are case plays and interpretations from the NF that are not. Now of course your state or region can advocate something should be illegal despite the interpretations of the NF and that is their right to do so. I am just saying to you that does not fit the NF's purpose of the rule. And in that other discussion you said that you were calling it regardless of another player being apart of the tackle, almost like a face mask penalty. That just does not go along with the interpretations from the NF that last two years. I am not trying to get into the issue with you on Tony; I just think the rules do not support your claims at this time.

Peace

Again, you are attributing things to me that I did not say, and I do not appreciate that. I have not seen one case play or written interpretation that contradicts a single thing I have written.

I said that if the force of the horse collar is what brings down the runner, it doesn't matter if another defensive player has touched the runner. This is what is stated in the case plays and also in Redding. What is specifically said is that if another player tackles the runner, it's not a horse collar. Others want to interpret that as "if anyone touches the runner, it's not a foul."

So if we have a play like this:

A24 runs the ball and is held up by B92 lying on the ground who grabs A24's legs. B77 comes up from behind and grabs A24 by the collar and pulls him back to the ground violently using the collar

it's not a horsecollar foul?

Sorry, but the tackle is still being made with a horsecollar and if someone can point to a case play that eliminates that as a foul, I'll be glad to say "I stand corrected." Nobody has done that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Again, you are attributing things to me that I did not say, and I do not appreciate that. I have not seen one case play or written interpretation that contradicts a single thing I have written.

I said that if the force of the horse collar is what brings down the runner, it doesn't matter if another defensive player has touched the runner. This is what is stated in the case plays and also in Redding. What is specifically said is that if another player tackles the runner, it's not a horse collar. Others want to interpret that as "if anyone touches the runner, it's not a foul."

So if we have a play like this:

A24 runs the ball and is held up by B92 lying on the ground who grabs A24's legs. B77 comes up from behind and grabs A24 by the collar and pulls him back to the ground violently using the collar

it's not a horsecollar foul?

Sorry, but the tackle is still being made with a horsecollar and if someone can point to a case play that eliminates that as a foul, I'll be glad to say "I stand corrected." Nobody has done that.

I do not think the issue is touching, the issue is did the horse collar action the only reason the runner/opponent is brought to the ground. If all a player does is hold up a guy and another player takes them out or down, then I do not have a foul. And that is consistent with all the rulings from the NF directly, not from a book that half the time does not understand high school football rules (Reddings). I am also not telling you what to do or how to judge these plays. I am looking for reasons not to call these kinds of fouls instead of trying to find reasons to call these fouls. I understand it is a safety call, but I do not want to be overly technical only because a runner is being pulled down by the collar. They must go backwards and they must be the main reason they are going to the ground or I will not have a call.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They must go backwards and they must be the main reason they are going to the ground or I will not have a call.

Peace

You do realize you've just contradicted 9.4.3 Situation L (b) that you posted yourself. It's amazing that you're telling me that I'm not following the published case plays and interpretations and then you're simply making one up yourself.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You do realize you've just contradicted 9.4.3 Situation L (b) that you posted yourself. It's amazing that you're telling me that I'm not following the published case plays and interpretations and then you're simply making one up yourself.

OK I did not include the "side" in my latest response, sue me for not being specific in the last post, but I have been very consistent as to what the intent of this foul is. Not the first time and certainly will not be the last I leave out a description.

Rich do not get mad at me, I did not say you were making anything up, that was someone else. I simply said you were not following the interpretation or the intent of the rule and you claimed that there was nothing in the rule that suggested that it is not a foul if the player falls forward. And I also understand that there are officials that think they have to save players from something and try to find reasons to call anything that appears to be illegal or are overly technical. Rich you do not have to answer to me as an official. I am not like others here that feel you must agree with me or else. I will not be PMing you because we do not see this eye to eye. I am just pointing out that what you said did not apply to what the casebook said and what has come from the NF. Your state can and will trump that. That is probably the problem here because in your area they want this called no matter what. But that was not the reason the NF wrote the rule and they made it clear from day one that this was to prevent a specific act and simply pulling someone down by the collar was not enough to have a foul overall.

Peace

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Really? Citation, please. "Pulled down" doesn't specifiy a direction no matter how many times you say it.

And Jeff, I've been very clear in saying that if the result of the person going down is the horse collar it's a foul. Falling means something else entirely. If you're going to claim I have changed my story, it's encumbent on you to cite how I have -- otherwise you're just making that up.

Here's the thread, Jeff: Please tell me where I've changed one thing I've said:

Horsecollar

Had one on Friday night and had one in a youth game on Saturday.

Both plays were "jersey only" versions of the HC. One (HS) had the ball carrier running down the sideline, was caught from behind by use of HC tackle...easy one.
Second one...kid was running a sweep to the right and was caught by the cornerback on the right side neck opening as he tried cutting back. Ball carrier was taken to the ground, but was able to turn and went down forward, but by the act of the HC tackle. Coach was right on top of it howling the whole way, as you can imagine...and this coach was right. Had a play a week ago where the defender had the back jersey openeing and slipped off, ball carrier did not go down....coach yelled for HC. Explained during the next T.O. that the player was not taken to the ground by the act, and that's the definition. He agreed and we moved on.

The problem alot of us have is working where only the Head Coach needs to attend the rules meetings, leaving their staff, and most times coaches from lower levels, out of the meetings so the complaints and screaming from the sidelines are from coaches who have no clue what the rules are or that they've been revised. Rather impractical, but I would like to see any head coach at any level in high school, required to at least attend the yearly meeting.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I simply said you were not following the interpretation or the intent of the rule and you claimed that there was nothing in the rule that suggested that it is not a foul if the player falls forward.

Jeff, I'm done with your input on this thread after this one last response:

(1) I never said that it could be a foul if the player falls forward. It's not. There's a case play that covers that and I've consistently said that from the start.

(2) Too many people (coaches, spectators, broadcasters, and unfortunately officials) think the guy *has* to be pulled backwards. And that's what you said. If you think that's an adequate statement on your part, you're mistaken.

I would never PM you on something said here on the board. I've never done that, and I don't know why you'd even bring that up. Never has been my style. And I'm certainly not mad. I just don't like when people try to paraphrase something I've written and put their own spin on it. If you want to quote what I say, there's a button for that.

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Jeff, I'm done with your input on this thread after this one last response:

(2) Too many people (coaches, spectators, broadcasters, and unfortunately officials) think the guy *has* to be pulled backwards. And that's what you said. If you think that's an adequate statement on your part, you're mistaken.

The problem is (IMO) that too many people in general think that anytime someone even grabs at or near the collar (pads or jeresy), that it instantly qualifies as a HC.

Had a QB duck to avoid a sack late last year. Defensive player on the ground grabbed the QB up near the letters by the collar and pulled the QB (crouched forward) onto his knees and down the ground facing forward. Coach came unglued figuring this was an "easy horse collar" and asked how and why we didn't call it. Coach was eventually issued a UC for his antics. The AD (who I know well) asked me what took place a few days later. Mentioned what happened and forwarded the verbage on the HC, including case book references to him, in the email...and he in-turn to the coach. Got a personal apology from said coach early this year.

My exact reasoning for why I think all head coaches at every level, need to attend rules meeting annually. Would take care of alot of issues...IMO.

For the record....I attend the same meetings that RichMSN does here in WI and was told the same thing.