Horse Collar Help!

[Curious]

I saw a horse collar called by a new official in an freshman game that the ball carrier was pulled forward and I thought that he made a  mistake and then talking about it in pregame as mbyron states the rule says  "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). The
horse collar foul is enforced as a live ball foul."
There is nothing anymore that says backwards to the ground.

See Case Book Play 9.4.3L  If the runner falls forward, it is NOT a HCT

[ECILLJ]

"Rule 9.4.3.K 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). The
horse collar foul is enforced as a live ball foul."

By rule the runner does not have to be pulled backward for a HC to be called. With that being said, it would be difficult for the defender to grab a runner by the inside back or side collar and pull him forward to the ground, but it is possible. The Case Book says falls forward and not pulled forward. That seems to be the difference in the interpretation.

[Curious]

I saw a horse collar called by a new official in an freshman game that the ball carrier was pulled forward and I thought that he made a  mistake and then talking about it in pregame as mbyron states the rule says  "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). The
horse collar foul is enforced as a live ball foul."
There is nothing anymore that says backwards to the ground.

The rule (9-4-3k) does not specify a direction; but case book play 9.4.3 sit L does.  Now, I guess one could argue that "falling forward" is not "pulled down"; but our mandate is to NOT call HCT if the runner falls forward.

[ECILLJ]

but our mandate is to NOT call HCT if the runner falls forward.
 
Who gave you that mandate?

I can see a situation where a defender grabs the collar and takes the player straight down to his knees in a hard and quick action and the runner falls forward after his knees contact the ground and the defender releases the collar. I am calling HC on this play.

[FBUmp]

The rule (9-4-3k) does not specify a direction; but case book play 9.4.3 sit L does.  Now, I guess one could argue that "falling forward" is not "pulled down"; but our mandate is to NOT call HCT if the runner falls forward.

Agreed.  Pull backwards or to the side is a HCT, although there are those who want to argue the semantics of the case play.  The rule was designed to protect players from the whiplashing effect the tackle can have on the neck and the injuries that can occur to the knees.  Those injuries don't happen when the runner is pulled or falls forward.

[RickKY]

Actually I think the original horse collar tackles were done, legally at the time, by the Dallas Cowboys Roy Williams.  While using this tackling technique he broke the lower legs of both Terrell Owens and Donovan McNabb.  The NFL then passed the rule to make this illegal.

[Curious]

but our mandate is to NOT call HCT if the runner falls forward.
 
Who gave you that mandate?

I can see a situation where a defender grabs the collar and takes the player straight down to his knees in a hard and quick action and the runner falls forward after his knees contact the ground and the defender releases the collar. I am calling HC on this play.

State (Michigan) Athletic Association.  Where are you officiating?

[RickKY]

In KY we're taught that if the HC technique is used to pull the runner down sideways or backwards, we call it, frontwards we lay off.  If there is contact from multiple defenders we ignore the HC.

[ECILLJ]

State (Michigan) Athletic Association.  Where are you officiating?


lllinois- I agree that a player being pulled backward or sideways by the collar is definitely a HC penalty, but I don't think those should be our only criteria for the call. The scenario I gave would be rare, but I think it would warrant the HC.

[Curious]

State (Michigan) Athletic Association.  Where are you officiating?


lllinois- I agree that a player being pulled backward or sideways by the collar is definitely a HC penalty, but I don't think those should be our only criteria for the call. The scenario I gave would be rare, but I think it would warrant the HC.

I should have known it was Illinois by your handle...

Anyway, you MAY have a valid argument; but without state direction or a change, you are are thin ice with respect to rule support.  Careful.

[ECILLJ]

"Rule 9.4.3.K 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). The
horse collar foul is enforced as a live ball foul."

I think the rule supports us with any HC that is called when the players shoulder pad or jersey collar is grabbed and used to pull a runner to the ground.  More than likely, that action would pull a runner sideways or backwards, so we're probably splitting hairs regarding the wording. Good luck with your games this week!

[Bob M.]

The rule, as written, is ambiguous.  There aren't enough case plays or interpretations to clarify what exactly is and isn't a horse collar tackle.  It's constantly argued on discussion boards and even in local clinics. 

I honestly have not seen horse collar tackles as a problem in high school play.  In the three(?) years of the rule's existence, I've seen exactly one HC tackle in my games.  More kids are injured by legal cut blocks on the LOS.

REPLY: I remember the first season they introduced the HC tackle to the NCAA. The late Dave Parry created a video with a whole bunch of clips with his voice-over on what WAS and what was NOT a HC tackle. A good number of them were fairly straightforward, but I recall towards the end of the tape, there was a series of three or four clips where the tackles looked virtually identical to each other. In some Parry said "HC tackle;" in the others, he said "Legal tackle." I may not be the brightest bulb in the lamp, but for the life of me, I couldn't distinguish one from the other.

[RickKY]

Hypothetically speaking...

B1 grabs ahold of A1 by the back collar of jersey and pads, then a) proceeds to spin him around, flinging him to the ground, or b) pulls him down to his knees, then the weight of B1 pushes A1 forward to the ground onto his belly.  Ruling in these cases?

[mbyron]

(a) sounds more toward unnecessary roughness than HCT. (b) sounds like a HCT, since the runner was brought down by the collar.

[HLinNC]

My take- horsecollar on both, the tackle is what brought him "subsequently" to the ground.  The key to remember is the Fed wanted to reduce the injury factor from snapping the runner back or sideways to where the knees were buckling. 

2011 Casebook  play 9.4.3L(d) still allows the forward falling as a legal play.

In a) I assume your spinning of him spins him "forward" in the sense of which goal line he is headed towards but he still physically landed backwards.  b)  he was down when the knees hit and the horsecollar tackle is what put him there, the falling foward occurred after the player was down.

I feel more confident of a) than b) however.

[Magician]

The NFHS rule is way too liberal with it's wording of a HC tackle.  For some reason they did remove the wording that limited the "pull" to only be backward and to the side.  That means pulling them forward is also a foul.  I also dislike the fact they use the word "subsequently" rather than "immediately" like the other codes use.  They also don't exlude these tackles if they take place in close line play.

The safety element of this tackle is that immediate pull from behind in the open field by a defender that loses his own feet and thus is using his entire weight to pull the runner down. The NCAA (and I believe NFL) rules codify that situation.  The NFHS rule makes almost any tackle that involves grabbing the inside collar of the shoulder pad/jersey a foul.

[InsideTheStripes]

The NFHS rule is way too liberal with it's wording of a HC tackle.  For some reason they did remove the wording that limited the "pull" to only be backward and to the side.  That means pulling them forward is also a foul.

Can someone please describe how you could pull a runner forward onto the ground by the inside back or side of the collar?  You'd have to be in front of him and get run over to even be in a position to make a HCT.

[mbyron]

Can someone please describe how you could pull a runner forward onto the ground by the inside back or side of the collar?  You'd have to be in front of him and get run over to even be in a position to make a HCT.

1. Spin the runner so he's facing his own goal line.
2. Use 'forward' to mean 'toward the opponent's goal.'

[InsideTheStripes]

1. Spin the runner so he's facing his own goal line.
2. Use 'forward' to mean 'toward the opponent's goal.'

I don't think many use forward in that context when discussing HCT.   I know i don't.  In my experience, when others talk about forward in this context they are normally talking about the direction a player is facing.

[RickKY]

If the defender is trailing the runner and gaining ground when he grabs the HC, then pulls him down from behind, the momentum of the players moving together could result in the runner still falling forward.  The runner slows because of the grab, the defender then contacts the runner from behind and they fall forward.  Our association reviewed just such a play in our last meeting, and it inspired much discussion about a foul for HC or not.

[Atlanta Blue]

The runner slows because of the grab, the defender then contacts the runner from behind and they fall forward. 

Then that's not a HC tackle.  He wasn't pulled down by the collar, the contact from behind caused the tackle.

That was pointed out in the pictograms that came from the NFHS.  If other contact (by a teammate, or by the tackler) is the cause of the tackle, then grabbing the collar is not a HC foul.

[mbyron]

Then that's not a HC tackle.  He wasn't pulled down by the collar, the contact from behind caused the tackle.

That was pointed out in the pictograms that came from the NFHS.  If other contact (by a teammate, or by the tackler) is the cause of the tackle, then grabbing the collar is not a HC foul.

Correct; that's the distinction drawn by the case play as well.

[Magician]

Can someone please describe how you could pull a runner forward onto the ground by the inside back or side of the collar?  You'd have to be in front of him and get run over to even be in a position to make a HCT.

Because the rule states "subsequently" so it's not an immediate pull.  The defender gets a hold of the runner, slows him down and then pulls him forward.  Or he's running beside him and grabs him from the side and pulls him so he falls forward.  I've seen it a few times in games and the official called it correct by the rule but I don't feel the rule should worry about that kind of tackle.

[InsideTheStripes]

Because the rule states "subsequently" so it's not an immediate pull.  The defender gets a hold of the runner, slows him down and then pulls him forward.  Or he's running beside him and grabs him from the side and pulls him so he falls forward.  I've seen it a few times in games and the official called it correct by the rule but I don't feel the rule should worry about that kind of tackle.

While the rule uses subsequently it uses it in the following context: "pull that opponent to the ground".  If you are behind  your opponent and have him by the back or side of the collar it is physically impossible to pull that opponent to(ward) the ground in the direction he is travelling.

Pull:  to exert force upon so as to cause or tend to cause motion toward the force.

[Magician]

While the rule uses subsequently it uses it in the following context: "pull that opponent to the ground".  If you are behind  your opponent and have him by the back or side of the collar it is physically impossible to pull that opponent to(ward) the ground in the direction he is travelling.

Pull:  to exert force upon so as to cause or tend to cause motion toward the force.

Not if you spin him around or get in front of him.  That's my issue with the use of the word subsequent.  Lots of things can happen between when the runner gets grabbed and ultimately pulled down.  I've seen it a handful of times on the field and on film.  Per the NFHS rule it's a correct call.  I just think it's a poorly worded rule.