Horsecollar foul

[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

[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.

[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.

[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