Horsecollar foul

[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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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

Your citation can be found in 9-4-3k. It only took two years!

The opponent must be pulled down backward or sideward. Forward is not a HCT.

The rule hasn't changed. It was always supposed to be interpreted this way but thankfully, they've finally clarified it for those who thought "forward" was a foul.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Your citation can be found in 9-4-3k. It only took two years!

The opponent must be pulled down backward or sideward. Forward is not a HCT.

The rule hasn't changed. It was always supposed to be interpreted this way but thankfully, they've finally clarified it for those who thought "forward" was a foul.

(Delurking for a moment...)

That doesn't make you right then or me wrong then. It could simply mean that because of discussions like this they went back and decided what they actually wanted to say in the rule / case play. Good for them.

I only do what my superiors tell me, as do you.

(Relurking...)

[BktBallRef]

What it means is they clarified the interpretation for those who misunderstood it (meaning your superiors).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

(Delurking for a moment...)

That doesn't make you right then or me wrong then. It could simply mean that because of discussions like this they went back and decided what they actually wanted to say in the rule / case play. Good for them.

I only do what my superiors tell me, as do you.

(Relurking...)

Well I the NF felt they had to clarify for your superiors or others like your superiors. In my state this was not an issue and made very clear what the rule meant. But that did not stop people from needing the exact wording in the rulebook or casebook to understand the rule. The problem is the NF did not make it clear as they often do not when they bring a new rule from a different level. After all, the other levels (where this rule came from) was very clear and it was never intended to be a foul for falling forward.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I the NF felt they had to clarify for your superiors or others like your superiors. In my state this was not an issue and made very clear what the rule meant. But that did not stop people from needing the exact wording in the rulebook or casebook to understand the rule. The problem is the NF did not make it clear as they often do not when they bring a new rule from a different level. After all, the other levels (where this rule came from) was very clear and it was never intended to be a foul for falling forward.

Peace

As usual, you didn't read clearly. RichMSN never once said it was a foul for *falling* forward. He even posted the case play that exempted the play where the player fell forward.

He said that his supervisors said it was a foul if the player was *pulled* forward. Now you'll explain why I'm wrong and you're not and how I'm the one with a comprehension problem.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

As usual, you didn't read clearly. RichMSN never once said it was a foul for *falling* forward. He even posted the case play that exempted the play where the player fell forward.

He said that his supervisors said it was a foul if the player was *pulled* forward. Now you'll explain why I'm wrong and you're not and how I'm the one with a comprehension problem.

First off this was a thread that was started almost two years ago.

Secondly I was just commenting on what I did read. I know his supervisor said this as I remember the conversation. Just stating that that interpretation is wrong and always was wrong if you paid any attention to the literature that was out there when the rule was created and since. The problem is it was not in the proper places so that everyone can clearly see. But it did not take a rocket scientist to figure that out either. Also I know Rich a little and I do remember other conversations he has stated bout this. Better yet, read Rich's response in post #9.

I am not explaining why you are wrong, but you do need to get the stick out of your azz. As you have noticed that Rich has not said a single word about this since this thread was reopened. And you were not even a person on this thread at that time. Heck if you paid any attention there was a question about this in post #4 or so by BktBallRef.

And if you also noticed I was really not talking about Rich in this thread. I was making a general statement that even was an issue in my state. Now the NF has seemed to have cleaned this up in their literature and that is a good thing.

I know, I did not read the entire thread.

Oh, Rich is a big boy and I am sure if he has a problem with what I said he will tell me. He does not need your help or any help to tell me or anyone what he feels about something. And unlike you we know each the others real name.

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.

[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%.