Horsecollar foul

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.