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:

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. :rolleyes:

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Right, it protects the legs. That, from everything I heard, was the main intent of the rule.

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

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

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.

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. :D

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.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the previous crew for what the coach alleges they said. For all you know the play two weeks ago involved a defender grabbing a handful of jersey and pulling the runner down.

That part was a joke.

Peace

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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%.

Rulebooks define the rules while the Casebook (or interpretations) tell us how to call under those rules or provide the intent of the rule. That is how it is in all situations and sports. That is why the two books are never alone or separate from each other.

Peace

Rule

Maybe you could explain how one would pull someone down resulting in a "forward horse collar" using the inside of the back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey? I'm no expert, but it seems to me that taking someone down forward with the grip required for a horse collar tackle would require pushing rather than pulling.

Every presentation I have witnessed that included an interpretation involving the horsecollar rule included one or two NFHS "mechanigrams" that show a large red arrow pointing in a backwards direction and towards the ground.

As stated prior, this is a safety related rule aimed at protecting the knees.

Grabbing the collar and having the runner tackled in a forward direction does not impose the danger to the kness.

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.

I love this! So true. Great reminder for me and great piece of advice to hold onto when dealing with others.

(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...)

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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