Horsecollar foul

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Canned Heat

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.

Thanks.

BTW, if there's any doubt whatsoever on whether the collar was involved or not, the flag stays in the waistband. To me, this aspect is no different than a face mask or any other foul. If we don't see it, it's not a foul. I had a coach screaming for a horsecollar foul a few weeks ago -- it was the QB so I was following right behind -- and the defender grabbed the shirt just above the numbers, but never got the hand inside. Easy for me to see, but not as easy for the coach who was across the field. I sent a message over to the coach through the wing, but I'm not sure the coach bought it. Too bad.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Yesterday afternoon, we had a horsecollar foul with a runner brought down by a lone defender -- brought down with a hand inside the back collar. There were three flags on the play -- from the line judge, umpire, and back judge.

Setting aside the likely mechanical issue of having 60% of the officials looking at the tackle, it was clearly a foul.

However, we had a lot of screaming from the defensive sideline, so much so that I walked over there momentarily. They were upset because a crew told them just 2 weeks ago that "the hand has to be inside the pads" for it to be a horsecollar foul. I told the coach there was no such requirement in HS football and he started in with the "why does one crew tell me one thing...." stuff.

I asked this question weeks ago, but I'll ask it again. Why will some officials go to such extreme lengths to avoid throwing flags?

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the previous crew for what the coach alleges they said. For all you know the play two weeks ago involved a defender grabbing a handful of jersey and pulling the runner down.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

That part was a joke.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You can sell that crap all you want to Rich, nobody's buying it here.

Interesting... Try to keep from putting words in everyone else's mouth. "nobody's buying it?" Everyone I know calls it exactly as Rich describes. Please show me what rule you're using to not call a HC on a defender who puts their hand inside a jersey or shoulderpad and pull the ballcarrier immediately down and forward.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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 way I'm reading this caseplay is that the defender grabbed FROM BEHIND, but not with enough force to be the reason for the tackle - and the ballcarrier fell forward... meaning the grabbing of the pads was not the cause of the tackle.

[Canned Heat]

Most coaches shut it rather quickly when you (or your wing) explain to them that: "by rule, the act of the horse collar tackle has to take that player to the ground."

Like I said...most of the complaints you get are coaches, players, bystanders, or fans that think the second a hand is in there, it's a foul. Which, judging by the way things are progressing in this sport...will be the next modification.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Interesting... Try to keep from putting words in everyone else's mouth. "nobody's buying it?" Everyone I know calls it exactly as Rich describes. Please show me what rule you're using to not call a HC on a defender who puts their hand inside a jersey or shoulderpad and pull the ballcarrier immediately down and forward.

Part of the problem is that there is no specific caseplay either way. There is a specific caseplay for backward being a foul and sideways being a foul, but not forward. Conversely, there is no caseplay that says pulling forward is not a foul. IMHO there needs to be clarification one way or the other. I don't think the absence of a caseplay supports either case. I can't hang my hat (although i want to) on the fact that because falling forward is legal, pulling forward is legal as well. But Rich, you can't hang your hat on the notion that just because pulling forward is not in the casebook, it must be a foul because "direction doesn't matter," when clearly in the FED powerpoint interpretations they say it is. Because of the lack of specific wording in the rule or casebook, all we have to go on is the "official" interpretation of the guys in charge, and as you can see from this thread and the last, there is a wide variety of interps out there. JM2CW.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

Part of the problem is that there is no specific caseplay either way. There is a specific caseplay for backward being a foul and sideways being a foul, but not forward. Conversely, there is no caseplay that says pulling forward is not a foul. IMHO there needs to be clarification one way or the other. I don't think the absence of a caseplay supports either case. I can't hang my hat (although i want to) on the fact that because falling forward is legal, pulling forward is legal as well. But Rich, you can't hang your hat on the notion that just because pulling forward is not in the casebook, it must be a foul because "direction doesn't matter," when clearly in the FED powerpoint interpretations they say it is. Because of the lack of specific wording in the rule or casebook, all we have to go on is the "official" interpretation of the guys in charge, and as you can see from this thread and the last, there is a wide variety of interps out there. JM2CW.

I guess if we wanted to, we could use the actual words from the actual rule. Maybe that's just me.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I guess if we wanted to, we could use the actual words from the actual rule. Maybe that's just me.

I agree with that, except for the fact that apparently this rule is not clear enough to stand on its own. BTW, there are many in the FED book that cannot be applied correctly without added interpretation. That's why they give us a casebook.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

I agree with that, except for the fact that apparently this rule is not clear enough to stand on its own. BTW, there are many in the FED book that cannot be applied correctly without added interpretation. That's why they give us a casebook.

Honestly, and I'm not trying to pick on you or start something, it seems to me this rule is completely clear. I think there is often too much reliance on the casebook, and if it's not there, that makes the rule unclear, when in fact the rules are plenty clear. I do recognize that there are SOME places in the FED book (and a few in NCAA too) that the clarification helps... but in 90% of the cases, if you JUST had the rulebook and were faced with the caseplay, you should be able to get the right answer without the casebook. And in THIS case, the rule is pretty cut and dried, and the fact that they put in a few cases without putting in every possible case seems to have actually muddied things for you rather than clarifying them.

I don't have the book in front of me. But if you could paste the rule here and then explain why you read the rule (sans casebook) to say a forward horsecollar is not illegal, maybe I'd have a clearer picture of why you say it's not clear. As of right now, and the last time I read this rule, it seems very clear.

[BroKen62]

I agree with what you are saying, and by the exact wording of the rule and the casebook play, it seems to imply that direction is not a factor. But, when you look at the intent of the rule, it seems highly unlikely that pulling a runner down forward poses very minimal danger of breaking a leg, ankle, etc. Couple that with the powerpoint slide my state association handed out, along with the verbal interpretation, and i quote, "for a horsecollar foul to occur, the player must be pulled down from the side or back," and it seems to me that the intent of the rule was to prevent a backward or sideways pulling down of the runner. Again, I know it's based on assumptions, which is why I say there needs to be further clarification of this rule. If I had not sat in on the state meeting and heard the official interpretation with my own ears, I would agree with you guys 100%.

[JRutledge]

Rulebooks define the rules while the Casebook (or interpretations) tell us how to call under those rules or provide the intent of the rule. That is how it is in all situations and sports. That is why the two books are never alone or separate from each other.

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Honestly, and I'm not trying to pick on you or start something, it seems to me this rule is completely clear. I think there is often too much reliance on the casebook, and if it's not there, that makes the rule unclear, when in fact the rules are plenty clear. I do recognize that there are SOME places in the FED book (and a few in NCAA too) that the clarification helps... but in 90% of the cases, if you JUST had the rulebook and were faced with the caseplay, you should be able to get the right answer without the casebook. And in THIS case, the rule is pretty cut and dried, and the fact that they put in a few cases without putting in every possible case seems to have actually muddied things for you rather than clarifying them.

I don't have the book in front of me. But if you could paste the rule here and then explain why you read the rule (sans casebook) to say a forward horsecollar is not illegal, maybe I'd have a clearer picture of why you say it's not clear. As of right now, and the last time I read this rule, it seems very clear.

Rule

9-3-4 k

Grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and subsequently pull that opponent to the ground (Horse-collar).

Maybe you could explain how one would pull someone down resulting in a "forward horse collar" using the inside of the back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey? I'm no expert, but it seems to me that taking someone down forward with the grip required for a horse collar tackle would require pushing rather than pulling.

[BroKen62]

YouTube - roy williams breaks terrell owens leg

[asdf]

Every presentation I have witnessed that included an interpretation involving the horsecollar rule included one or two NFHS "mechanigrams" that show a large red arrow pointing in a backwards direction and towards the ground.

As stated prior, this is a safety related rule aimed at protecting the knees.

Grabbing the collar and having the runner tackled in a forward direction does not impose the danger to the kness.