Horsecollar foul
 

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 do not have a whole lot of faith in what coaches say another official or crew said to them. They often do not understand the basic rule themselves and when an official explains something to them they often want to debate or question what they are being told.

I can how the wording with the "pads" can be misinterpreted by a coach that does not understand the rules themselves. I am not so sure that this is only on the official. And since the rule reads the way it does this seems like semantics of what this foul is.

Peace

Except, Jeff, I believe the coach. Why? I heard other officials argue this at association meetings and at the state rules meeting where the interpreter said very clearly the spirit and intent of the rule as we are to enforce it.

Around here I see a lot of games played with less than 5 penalties total. I'm guessing those fouls are all false start / encorachment fouls the crew CAN'T pass on. These crews have the attitude that the best game is the game played where the flags stay firmly in the pants. I've never concerned myself with that. We talk about having a good penalty filter and knowing how we're going to interpret certain fouls (holding, block in the back, etc.) but I'm not concerned if we have 20 flags in a game and they are all well supported by film and philosophy.

I do not completely disagree with what you are saying. I just do not spend a lot of personal time or concern with what another official told a coach the week before. It is not in the game that we are calling, so what someone else told you, is not something I can honestly defend. And even if the coach is right about what he was told, why is he not reading the rule for himself so that he knows he was told the right things?

I read this board all the time and read people say things that do not apply to the rules or use wording that is not exactly perfect with the rule. I do not take their word for it, I look up the wording myself to confirm what I might not be sure about. The question I have is why do coaches just take our word for something no matter what we tell them about rules? And this is not just a football question it seems to happen in all sports.

That being said officials are like a lot of people. They do not call things they completely understand only to find out later they are wrong if brought to their attention. Or they do not have the courage to just call what the rule is. It sounds to me Rich like the issues you guys are having up there is another issue if only 5 penalties are being called and all of them are pre-snap fouls like a false start and encroachment. In my area those officials are not seen as guys that really know what they are doing if the only thing they are worried about is a number of penalties they call in a particular game. We do not tell players or coaches to violate the rules; we just penalize it when it happens.

Peace

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? :confused:

The best piece of advice I ever got was, "People who tell you stories about others, are the people who tell others stories about you." The same applies to those who put words in other's mouths.

As for what other officials might do, all you can control is being the best official YOU can be, and doing what YOU know is right. The best way I've found to answer a question about what might have happened at some other game, is to direct my answer specifically and directly to whatever rule may be involved, rather than any previous play situation.

If you hear an other official offer an interpretation you disagree with, the best you can do is offer a correction. If he refuses to listen, tha's on him. If you don't bother to mention the disagreement, that's on you. You'd be surprised how much you might learn from correcting others whom you "thought" were wrong.

That is excellent advice.

Peace

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.

All I said to the coach was, "I can't comment on what another crew does. All I can say is the rule is clear and it includes the jersey as well as the pads." He continued to complain, but by that point, I was winding the clock and getting ready for the next play.

I am not shy in association meetings -- one advantage to being the person that runs the meetings, I guess. People don't always agree and that's OK, but I know this will be mentioned again this week.

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.

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

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.

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:

http://forum.officiating.com/footbal...rsecollar.html

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.:confused: