RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: wlemonnier on February 10, 2010, 08:36:07 PM
-
Curious... while watching a DVD of a high school football game, I saw the Umpire throw a flag for a horse collar tackle on a run up the middle right at the line of scrimmage. No question it was a horse collar but not knowing the Federation rule, I wondered if Federation didn't have the exception on horse collar fouls between the tackles like NCAA.
-
There are no exceptions based on the field location of the horse collar tackle in NF.
-
Curious... while watching a DVD of a high school football game, I saw the Umpire throw a flag for a horse collar tackle on a run up the middle right at the line of scrimmage. No question it was a horse collar but not knowing the Federation rule, I wondered if Federation didn't have the exception on horse collar fouls between the tackles like NCAA.
No. In FED, rule is the same anywhere on the playing field.
But don't go by what you saw in FED games this past year. It may have been one of the most missed calls all year. We were even called for a HC tackle (in a playoff game) on a runner that wasn't tackled. Explanation: "Well, your player TRIED to horse collar him." I wanted to suggest that the official TRY to read the rule.
But being a good coach, I shut up and just shook my head.
-
jg-me...
Thanks for the clarification on NF ruling on the horse collar tackle... no exceptions with field location. I've got about 6 HC video clips that I am putting into a training DVD and for the most part they were all called correctly. This one caught my attention and now I can use it as a positive example of a well officiated play.
Atlanta Blue...
As for the explanation that "He tried to HC the runner"... obviously a poor choice in words. I'm sure the official read the rule. Unfortunately it takes some repetitions of anything before we master something. Some learn faster than others. HC, helmet hits, etc. are calls we don't get to see in practice and experience. I'm glad as a coach you took the high road and passed on the "come back" remark. Being a class act is something we can all learn from.
-
Rumor has it there will be some adjustments to the Fed HC rule this spring. There were disagreements about out of bounds and scoring plays where the ball was technically dead and would have to be a PF instead of an HC. Also problematic was if there is an assist on the tackle from a teammate, its not a HC.
-
Rumor has it there will be some adjustments to the Fed HC rule this spring. There were disagreements about out of bounds and scoring plays where the ball was technically dead and would have to be a PF instead of an HC. Also problematic was if there is an assist on the tackle from a teammate, its not a HC.
There was also a problem if the player fumbled the ball as a result of the HC, as he was no longer a runner.
Atlanta Blue...
As for the explanation that "He tried to HC the runner"... obviously a poor choice in words. I'm sure the official read the rule. Unfortunately it takes some repetitions of anything before we master something.
Bill:
Oh, I'm sure he read it, this was an official chosen to work the second round of the playoffs. But despite reading it, either he didn't understand it or he reacted instead of thinking through or watching the whole play. That was my point, it was one of the most misunderstood and misapplied FED rules this past season.
And we had it go the other way, too. We worked with our players in the pre-season to teach them to stay off the collar, but despite our efforts, sometimes a kid grabs whatever he can as that runner goes by. It's certainly not an intent to hurt the runner at all, it's in desparation to get him tackled. First game of the year, my mike LB breaks through the line and grabs a tailback by the collar that is moving laterally in the backfield, pulling him to the ground. My LB jumps up grabbing his helmet KNOWING he has just done something wrong. No flag.
I asked him about it afterward: "Coach, as soon as a I grabbed the runner, I KNEW I was going to get flagged. That's EXACTLY what you told us not to do, and I didn't mean it, I was just reaching to grab whatever I could, but it sure was a horse collar."
I think the definition needs refinement (which I hear we will see next week when the rule changes are published), and I think it's a foul on which HS officials need a lot more work. It was missed both ways a good bit this season. I'm glad you are making it part of your training, and hope it's a MAJOR point of discussion. I think, being a new rule, it was probably one of the most misunderstood and misapplied rules all season.
-
There was also a problem if the player fumbled the ball as a result of the HC, as he was no longer a runner.
Yeah, forgot that one.
Our supervisor was telling me during the season that the rule would probably get tweaked come spring.
-
I agree with everything AB said. (As much as it pains me to agree 100% with a coach... LOL)
We all know that there are some rules that need a few years to get "fine tuned" (to put it mildly) after they're rolled out by the NFHS, and I really think that the HC qualifies. I suspect we'll see some tweaking for the next two or three years.
-
I agree with everything AB said. (As much as it pains me to agree 100% with a coach... LOL)
Don't you just HATE when that happens? ;D
-
I really do. I'm not sure you count as 100% coach, though, since you've seen the light for softball (or baseball, I don't remember which)... ;)
-
I really do. I'm not sure you count as 100% coach, though, since you've seen the light for softball (or baseball, I don't remember which)... ;)
Baseball (although I have done a little softball here and there). This will be my 41st year (I started when I was 12 - literally).
-
I really do. I'm not sure you count as 100% coach, though, since you've seen the light for softball (or baseball, I don't remember which)... ;)
He's really an official in coach's clothes. ;D
-
Why is there an exception of a HC between the tackles in NCAA - is there a lesser chance of injury there ?
-
Still need some HCT education at the Fed level... for the coaches. Varsity game Saturday night and a player for the team on my sideline chases down the runner and performs the equivalent of a clothesline by grabbing the back of the shoulderpad collar and yanking the runner off his feet. The kid's feet were higher than his head from the sudden stop. Both covering officials (BJ and LJ) flagged the defender for a HCT.
When the defender gets back to the sideline, an assistant coach puts his arm around the player's shoulders and tells him "don't worry about it, I know you didn't do anything wrong". I had to say, "Coach, that was a textbook HCT and is a personal foul so he DID do something wrong." The coach gets a puzzled look on his face and asks, "He can't grab the collar?" :!#
-
Still need some HCT education at the Fed level... for the coaches.
Not just coaches, officials too. Reasons I have heard for it not being called:
Coach, he pulled him down to the side, not backward.
Coach, he only grabbed the jersey, not the shoulder pads.
And this year: Coach, he didn't pull him down in bounds.
I agree, MANY coaches don't know the rule. But there are more than a few officials that don't know it either.
-
Coach, he only grabbed the jersey, not the shoulder pads.
I obviously don't know the specifics of the case you're stating, but I've had this exact explanation for a coach who wanted an HCT call last year. The thing is, the defender had grabbed ONLY the jersey and not the collar of the jersey but the resulting tackle made it look like an HCT. The defender grabbed a fist-full of jersey at the top of the runner's number and pulled him down. Did it mean the same injuries to the runner's knees could have happened? Yes. Was it an HCT? No.
EDIT: OK, not the EXACT same explanation. I said something more along the lines of, "He grabbed the jersey, not the collar."
-
So, can you have a horse collar tackle without the hand being inside the jersey collar? Put another way, Can you grab the inside of the shoulder pads through the shirt?
I think it is possible to grab the shoulder pad collar through a loose fitting shirt.
-
It's not a horse collar tackle with (a) the horse collar, and (b) the tackle. If you're judging that - even though he didn't have the collar of the jersey, he had the collar of the pads - hit it.
One of my favorite "mouth of coaches" came the first year the HCT rule came into place. B picked off a pass on the last play of the first half, and as he was returning it one of the A players grabbed him by the collar, but the B player brushed him off and kept going. He didn't make it to the end zone, and the B coach (on my side, natch) went nuts for a horse collar foul. I let him rant for a few seconds and said, "Coach, you're absolutely right that your player was grabbed by the collar. But you can't have a foul for a horse collar tackle without the tackle itself."
He thought about it for a second, nodded, said "OK", and wen to join his team.
-
But you can't have a foul for a horse collar tackle without the tackle itself.
Wish you had told that to the HL that called it against us in a playoff game last year. Our player definitely grabbed the runner by the collar and pulled him out of bounds, never to the ground. Flag is dropped. Explanation: "Coach, he tried to horse collar him."
That was the last playoff game that crew worked last year.
-
So, can you have a horse collar tackle without the hand being inside the jersey collar? Put another way, Can you grab the inside of the shoulder pads through the shirt?
I think it is possible to grab the shoulder pad collar through a loose fitting shirt.
Anything is possible, so yes you could have an HCT in that situation. If the collar of the jersey OR shoulderpads are grabbed from the back or sides AND the resulting tackle is to the back or sides, then an HCT has occurred. There's no requirement that the jersey collar must be grabbed in addition to the shoulderpads collar.
-
Wish you had told that to the HL that called it against us in a playoff game last year. Our player definitely grabbed the runner by the collar and pulled him out of bounds, never to the ground. Flag is dropped. Explanation: "Coach, he tried to horse collar him."
That was the last playoff game that crew worked last year.
Tough break, AB. Didn't indirectly cost you the game, I hope...
-
Tough break, AB. Didn't indirectly cost you the game, I hope...
No penalty EVER directly cost us a game. It may have contributed, but if we put ourselves in a position that it affected the outcome, they we did more than the officials did to cost us the game.
Don't get me wrong, bad calls have HELPED us lose games, and bad calls have helped us win some, but they were never the DIRECT cause in either case.
-
Did it mean the same injuries to the runner's knees could have happened? Yes. Was it an HCT? No.
Intresting that you talk about knee injury for HCT as the motivation for implementation.
Our trainer (med school student) focused on the whiplash effect on neck and head as the reason for the rule (and also the difference to NCAA rules about the tackle box, where the runner is primed for contact and should have his neck muscles tensed - where in open field the runner would typically have less 'expectation' of a hit/pull from behind).
-
The reason the HCT foul was implemented in the first place was because of a pro player (Roy WIlliams of the Cowboys) who loved to tackle that way. After an unusual number of knee and ankle injuries to runners when tackled like that, they took a look at the mechanical forces involved and realized the risk to the lower body was extreme. See the following Flash presentation:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2005/horse_collar_tackle/horsetest.swf
-
The reason the HCT foul was implemented in the first place was because of a pro player (Roy WIlliams of the Cowboys) who loved to tackle that way. After an unusual number of knee and ankle injuries to runners when tackled like that, they took a look at the mechanical forces involved and realized the risk to the lower body was extreme. See the following Flash presentation:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2005/horse_collar_tackle/horsetest.swf
Nice presentation, but shows that Bill Parcell's has no clue about the difference between objective and subjective.
-
Hmmm... a coach not knowing the difference between objective and subjective... Isn't that a requirement to BE a coach? >:D
-
Unrelated to Coach Parcells, I've had three games this year, and thrown two HC fouls - and both of them were blatantly obvious. I don't know if I'm more conscious of it this year than I was last year, or if the players haven't learned about the rule change, or if the players are just sloppier this season...
-
JV game on Thursday and on the first play from scrimmage a tackle is made with an arm around the neck and across the chest. An assistant coach on my sideline starts yelling for an HCT foul and included the following illuminating information: "They changed the rule this year. You CAN'T ignore it now!" ??? When I politely (OK... loudly) asked him what constitutes an HCT foul he gave me a relatively accurate answer, so even when they DO know the rules, we're still going to get undeserved grief from them.
-
Coach, he only grabbed the jersey, not the shoulder pads.
I've heard this one too often by other officials.
Rule 9-4-3k [No player or nonplayer shall] grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and subsequently pull that opponent to the ground (Horse-collar).
You can have a HCT even if the player grabs just the jersey.
-
You can have a HCT even if the player grabs just the jersey.
No, you can't. The horsecollar is grabbing the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pad OR grabbing the inside back or side collar of the jersey. The Fed just didn't repeat the wording twice in the rule.
If a player grabs the exterior of the jersey, its nothing.
Here is the commentary from the 2010 Rule Change Power Point:
Rationale for Change:
The committee revised the wording in the definition of a horse-collar to address situations when player possession was lost or the ball became dead by rule after the back or side of the jersey collar/shoulder pads were grasped.
-
The key word is "collar".
Grabbing the jersey between the shoulder blades below the collar isn't a HC foul.
-
Anything is possible, so yes you could have an HCT in that situation. If the collar of the jersey OR shoulderpads are grabbed from the back or sides AND the resulting tackle is to the back or sides, then an HCT has occurred. There's no requirement that the jersey collar must be grabbed in addition to the shoulderpads collar.
Are you saying that if the runner is pulled down to the front or falls forward, there's no HCT?
-
Are you saying that if the runner is pulled down to the front or falls forward, there's no HCT?
exactly...
-
exactly...
Not interpreted that way here. If you grab the collar and pull the runner to the ground in ANY direction, it's a HCT.
Personally, I think that incorrect, I think you need to CHANGE his direction, but I lost that argument.
Imagine that, they didn't care what a coach thought!
To be fair, the rule does not say you must change his direction, but I thought that was how it was interpreted. 9.4.3.N seems to support that pulling a runner forward counts as a foul as well.
-
Not interpreted that way here. If you grab the collar and pull the runner to the ground in ANY direction, it's a HCT.
Personally, I think that incorrect, I think you need to CHANGE his direction, but I lost that argument.
Imagine that, they didn't care what a coach thought!
To be fair, the rule does not say you must change his direction, but I thought that was how it was interpreted. 9.4.3.N seems to support that pulling a runner forward counts as a foul as well.
Interesting... While we (in Michigan) have been given a clear interpretation that the runner must be pulled down "backwards" or "from the side", 9.4.3M and N seem to contradict 9.4.3L.
(Please don't anybody tell our State Interpreters of this.....)
-
I'm at work and don't have my books here but I think when I looked at this closely it was pretty clear in the case book that it had to be sideways or backwards. But I agree it is not clearly in the rule without that further info...
-
I was originally taught that the runners direction must change, but am now being told that is not true. Here are the relevant rules and case plays:
9-4-3k. No player or nonplayer shall: Grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and subsequently pull that opponent to the ground (Horse-collar).
OK, that says the BACK or SIDE of the collar must be grabbed, but says nothing about direction. But compare that to the second case play:
*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).
In this one, the forward fall is not a foul because the defender didn't pull the runner right to the ground. The delay is what negated the horse collar, not the direction.
Here is the part that "contradicts" the rule, and leads to the Georgia interpretation:
*9.4.3 SITUATION N: A1 is running in the free blocking zone and (a) B1 grabs A1’s jersey collar opening from behind and pulls him down; (b) B1 grabs the front of A1’s jersey collar opening and pulls him down; (c) B1 grabs A1’s jersey at the top of the shoulder area and pulls him down. RULING: Illegal horse-collar foul in (a); legal in (b) and (c).
I don't think this case play really does contradict the rule. It says if you grab the front of the collar and pull him forward it is legal. Section a) seems to IMPLY that the pull must be backward. I guess the situation not covered is grabbing the side of the collar and pulling the runner forward to the ground.
Personally, I still think the Georgia interpretation is wrong, but I can't prove it in black and white rule or case language.
-
I'm at work and don't have my books here but I think when I looked at this closely it was pretty clear in the case book that it had to be sideways or backwards. But I agree it is not clearly in the rule without that further info...
I agree but there's 2 or 3 on the Officiating.com board who disagree.
I was originally taught that the runners direction must change, but am now being told that is not true. Here are the relevant rules and case plays:
9-4-3k. No player or nonplayer shall: Grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and subsequently pull that opponent to the ground (Horse-collar).
OK, that says the BACK or SIDE of the collar must be grabbed, but says nothing about direction. But compare that to the second case play:
*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).
In this one, the forward fall is not a foul because the defender didn't pull the runner right to the ground. The delay is what negated the horse collar, not the direction..
I disagree. Look at C and D. There's a delay in both scenarios. D is not a foul because the runner fell forward, not backward or to the side.
-
AB I don't think delay has anything to do with it in Fed...
-
I was originally taught that the runners direction must change, but am now being told that is not true. Here are the relevant rules and case plays:
9-4-3k. No player or nonplayer shall: Grab the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner and subsequently pull that opponent to the ground (Horse-collar).
OK, that says the BACK or SIDE of the collar must be grabbed, but says nothing about direction. But compare that to the second case play:
*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).
In this one, the forward fall is not a foul because the defender didn't pull the runner right to the ground. The delay is what negated the horse collar, not the direction.
Here is the part that "contradicts" the rule, and leads to the Georgia interpretation:
*9.4.3 SITUATION N: A1 is running in the free blocking zone and (a) B1 grabs A1’s jersey collar opening from behind and pulls him down; (b) B1 grabs the front of A1’s jersey collar opening and pulls him down; (c) B1 grabs A1’s jersey at the top of the shoulder area and pulls him down. RULING: Illegal horse-collar foul in (a); legal in (b) and (c).
I don't think this case play really does contradict the rule. It says if you grab the front of the collar and pull him forward it is legal. Section a) seems to IMPLY that the pull must be backward. I guess the situation not covered is grabbing the side of the collar and pulling the runner forward to the ground.
Personally, I still think the Georgia interpretation is wrong, but I can't prove it in black and white rule or case language.
Yeah, Looks like GA porked the poodle on this one. Situation N doesn't contradict anything: Option A is a foul by rule. Option B is not a foul because of where the collar was grabbed. Option C is not a foul because the collar wasn't grabbed at all - just the jersey on the top of the shoulderpad.
-
No, you can't. The horsecollar is grabbing the inside back or side collar of the shoulder pad OR grabbing the inside back or side collar of the jersey. The Fed just didn't repeat the wording twice in the rule.
If a player grabs the exterior of the jersey, its nothing.
Here is the commentary from the 2010 Rule Change Power Point:
My apologies if that didn't come through in my post -- I was trying to say that the collar of the jersey was considered a HCT, not just grabbing the exterior of the jersey.
-
Keep in mind...per the 2010 revisions....it does not have to happen against a runner to be a HC.
-
Keep in mind...per the 2010 revisions....it does not have to happen against a runner to be a HC.
He had to be a runner when grabbed, he just doesn't have to be a runner when taken to the ground.
There is no such foul as a horse collar tackle against someone who wasn't a runner when grabbed. It might be holding, illegal use of hands or a personal foul, but it's not a horse collar tackle.
-
AB is correct. The first half of the rule remained the same - specifying that the RUNNER is grabbed. What changed was the next part that now says the PLAYER is then pulled to the ground. This gets around that whole mess they had last year where once the ball became loose or became dead by rule, the runner ceased BEING the runner and the HCT rule no longer applied to him.
Just remember that per rule 2, "runners" are the ball carrier AND any players simulating being the ball carrier. So you could conceivably have a down with TWO (or more) HCT fouls.
^talk
-
In the above case play, I think the interpretation is that the runner is not being pulled to the ground, but "falls forward."
I don't think it's possible to be absolute, you have to see the action. But generally if the runner is falling forward while being grabbed by the collar from behind or the side seems to connote to me that he's not being "pulled." This is not to say it's impossible, but the physics of it suggest the runner is not being pulled to the ground. Thus, I think this is the basis of this generalized interpretation. That doesn't mean we can't have an HCT if the guy is grabbed by the collar and goes to the ground forward, but I think that's going to have to be a specific judgment of the specific actions during that play.
-
It appears that in all their study of the leg injuries, they've determined that as long as the body is allowed to fall in a forward direction, the risk of injury is greatly diminished. As this penalty is strictly to prevent injuries, it makes sense to not apply it when the runner falls forward.