Horsecollar foul

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why do some officials claim it's a horse collar foul if the hand is inserted inside the collar but the runner is pulled forward to the ground?

Because the rule (9-4-3k) says absolutely nothing about the direction the runner is pulled, only where the hand may not go. Those that say the runner must be pulled down backwards are adding their own interpretation. If the hand is in the back or side and the player is pulled to the ground by that action, it's a horsecollar foul.

The player being pulled down to the side is specifically mentioned in 9.4.3 Situation L, play (b) as a foul.

The only case play that addresses a player going forward is a play where the player *falls* forward. If he's pulled forward (which can certainly happen if the hand is in the side of the jersey), there's nothing that absolves the defender and of the crew for calling the foul.

Redding says this: The rule does not require the tackle to be immediate, so if the back or side of the collar is grabbed and the runner takes several steps before he is pulled down, it is a foul. The foul, however, does require the runner to be pulled down by the collar, so if a defender grabs the collar and releases or tackles him around the waist after using a grip on the collar slows him down, it is not a foul. The collar must be used to pull down the runner for the foul to occur. Also, please note there is no exception for specific players or specific locations, such as a quarterback in the pocket or a runner between the tackles.

Like I said before, many officials are simply looking for excuses to *not* call the foul when it's right in front of them with the defender's hand in the cookie jar and the runner being pulled down.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Because the rule (9-4-3k) says absolutely nothing about the direction the runner is pulled, only where the hand may not go. Those that say the runner must be pulled down backwards are adding their own interpretation. If the hand is in the back or side and the player is pulled to the ground by that action, it's a horsecollar foul.

The player being pulled down to the side is specifically mentioned in 9.4.3 Situation L, play (b) as a foul.

The only case play that addresses a player going forward is a play where the player *falls* forward. If he's pulled forward (which can certainly happen if the hand is in the side of the jersey), there's nothing that absolves the defender and of the crew for calling the foul.

Here is the

Case Book-*9.4.3 SITUATION L:
A1 is running in the open field and B1 grabs A1's shoulder pad opening from behind and:

(a) pulls A1 down abruptly backwards;

(b) pulls A1 down to the ground from the side;

(c) rides A1 for several yards before pulling A1 backwards to the ground;

or (d) rides A1 for several yards before A1 falls forward.

RULING: Illegal horse-collar foul in (a), (b) and (c),
legal in (d)

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Like I said before, many officials are simply looking for excuses to *not* call the foul when it's right in front of them with the defender's hand in the cookie jar.

I agree, but that does not mean the coach was "accurate" about what he was told or did not misinterpret the conversation.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the

Case Book-*9.4.3 SITUATION L:
A1 is running in the open field and B1 grabs A1's shoulder pad opening from behind and:

(a) pulls A1 down abruptly backwards;

(b) pulls A1 down to the ground from the side;

(c) rides A1 for several yards before pulling A1 backwards to the ground;

or (d) rides A1 for several yards before A1 falls forward.

RULING: Illegal horse-collar foul in (a), (b) and (c),
legal in (d)




I agree, but that does not mean the coach was "accurate" about what he was told or did not misinterpret the conversation.

Peace

What you posted is exactly what I paraphrased in my post that you quoted.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

What you posted is exactly what I paraphrased in my post that you quoted.

I posted this to give the exact wording. My point was that you have said in the past that it did not matter if the player fell forward, which I believe was the point Tony was making. And you said that the rule does not say anything about a player going forward, but almost all their literature says otherwise. If you look at the NF PowerPoint this year and the clarification of the new wording, every example shows a runner/opponent going backwards. And this casebook clearly says that a player going forward is not a foul.

I also think what the coach was told might have been technically wrong, but realistically right. I have not seen a successful horse collar without them grabbing the pads. If a player only grabs the jersey that might be difficult to accomplish the horse collar. And unless you saw the play in question the coach was referring to, it might be a little difficult to know why the official did not make a call. This is why I said I tend to not trust the words of a coach. Coaches have agendas and it sounds like he was trying to split hairs over what he was told so that you would not call the foul. I cannot say based on your OP that the official was trying to dodge not calling a foul. Maybe you know the individuals involved which might change the way this is perceived, but that does not mean what they told the coach was completely wrong either.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Because the rule (9-4-3k) says absolutely nothing about the direction the runner is pulled, only where the hand may not go. Those that say the runner must be pulled down backwards are adding their own interpretation. If the hand is in the back or side and the player is pulled to the ground by that action, it's a horsecollar foul.

The player being pulled down to the side is specifically mentioned in 9.4.3 Situation L, play (b) as a foul.

The only case play that addresses a player going forward is a play where the player *falls* forward. If he's pulled forward (which can certainly happen if the hand is in the side of the jersey), there's nothing that absolves the defender and of the crew for calling the foul.

Redding says this: The rule does not require the tackle to be immediate, so if the back or side of the collar is grabbed and the runner takes several steps before he is pulled down, it is a foul. The foul, however, does require the runner to be pulled down by the collar, so if a defender grabs the collar and releases or tackles him around the waist after using a grip on the collar slows him down, it is not a foul. The collar must be used to pull down the runner for the foul to occur. Also, please note there is no exception for specific players or specific locations, such as a quarterback in the pocket or a runner between the tackles.

Like I said before, many officials are simply looking for excuses to *not* call the foul when it's right in front of them with the defender's hand in the cookie jar and the runner being pulled down.

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

To try and basis your stand on the word "falling" versus "pulling" is absolutely ridiculous.

Whether he's pulled forward or falls forward, it's still NOT a horse collar foul. To the side or back is a horse collar.

I think you're probably a very good official and have great rules knowledge, but you're out to lunch on this one. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to point out how wrong you are about this rule.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

To try and basis your stand on the word "falling" versus "pulling" is absolutely ridiculous.

Whether he's pulled forward or falls forward, it's still NOT a horse collar foul. To the side or back is a horse collar.

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

[BroKen62]

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

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.

[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 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.

[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.