Horse Collar Help!

[hortod]

Is it possible to have a flag for a horse collar (defense hand was inside the back of the shoulder pads) when the runner fumbles the ball?  We did not throw the flag due to the thought that the runner must be taken to the ground for it to be a horse collar foul.  Fumble occurred before the runner was down so no flag?  Your thoughts.

Thanks

[mark in ok]

I agree with your call.  The runner must be brought down.

[HLinNC]

Fumble occurred before the runner was down

9-4-3k. 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.

If that was the force that brought him to the ground then yes you did.  The loose ball situation was one of the bugaboos initially when the horsecollar tackle was first banned several years ago.

9.4.3 SITUATION O: A1 is carrying the ball when B1 grabs him by the back or
side of the collar of the shoulder pads (or jersey). A1 then: (a) fumbles the ball
and is subsequently brought to the ground by B1; (b) crosses the goal line to
score a touchdown and is then brought down by B1; or (c) crosses the sideline
and is then brought down by B1. RULING: In (a), (b) and (c), a horse-collar foul
should be called.

[Curious]

Guys,

True: the runner must be brought down.  It looks like he was eventually...but was it by the grab inside the shoulder pads?

So, if it was, the fact that the fumble OCCURED before the runner was pulled down is of no consequence.  IF THE RUNNER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PULLED TO THE GROUND, it is still a horse collar tackle.  The rule has been changed from the original in that, even though (by definition) the fumbling player is no longer a "runner", the horse collar foul is to be applied.

Case Book Play 9.4.3 Sit O covers this.

[Atlanta Blue]

I agree that's what the case play says.  But it leads to this anomoly:

B55 grabs A44 by the collar and jerks him backward, buckling his knees.  Ball comes flying loose, at which point B55 releases the "runner", who regains his balance and does not fall.  No foul.

B55 grabs A44 by the collar and jerks him backward, buckling his knees.  Ball comes flying loose, at which point B55 releases the "runner", who falls to the ground as a result of the jerk to his collar.  Foul for horse collar.

Exact same action caused the fumble, the only difference is whether the runner falls or not.  Doesn't seem right.  If the horse collar action (note I didn't say "tackle) causes the fumble, the result should be the same, and right now, it's not.

What this case play says to the defense is: grab him by the collar and j#rk the h#ll out of him.  If the ball comes loose, let him go, because unless you pull him DOWN, it's not a foul.

[mbyron]

I don't see it as anomalous. The rule penalizes a horsecollar TACKLE, not merely grabbing and pulling. The tackle and not the grabbing is the dangerous part.

[Atlanta Blue]

I don't see it as anomalous.

Anomalous.  Nice word.  I like that.

The rule penalizes a horsecollar TACKLE, not merely grabbing and pulling.

I agree.

The tackle and not the grabbing is the dangerous part.

Strongly disagree.  The safety aspect comes from the sudden and unprotected change in direction, not particularly the fall to the ground.  The damage to the knee is done before the player reaches the ground.

[mbyron]

Strongly disagree.  The safety aspect comes from the sudden and unprotected change in direction, not particularly the fall to the ground.  The damage to the knee is done before the player reaches the ground.

I'm not a biomechanics expert, but I always thought that the risk to the knees, ankles, and associated soft tissue came from hyperextension. That's far more likely when the player is brought down to the ground and not just grabbed.

I also suspect that if you were right, then the empirical evidence would demonstrate the need to penalize both horsecollar tackles and the grabbing of the jersey or pads from the back. Since we don't have that foul, I don't think that evidence exists. That's kinda circumstantial reasoning though, so I'm not betting the farm...

[Curious]

I agree that's what the case play says.  But it leads to this anomoly:

Exact same action caused the fumble, the only difference is whether the runner falls or not.  Doesn't seem right.  If the horse collar action (note I didn't say "tackle) causes the fumble, the result should be the same, and right now, it's not.

What this case play says to the defense is: grab him by the collar and j#rk the h#ll out of him.  If the ball comes loose, let him go, because unless you pull him DOWN, it's not a foul.

AB, I agree with what you say; but you have to admit, it's unlikely that the tackler would have the presence to release the runner if he fumbled.  Also, you can j#rk the h#ll out of him by simply grabbing only the jersey!

2-42 defines a tackle as "the use or hands..........to hold a runner or to bring him to the ground"; so the Rules Committee appears to be trying to conform to that definition.  I could, however, support a change in the rule to make it like a facemask foul (runner doesn't have to be "tackled").

It' anomaly!

[hortod]

I like idea brought fourth by Curious.  Why could they not make the Horse Collar foul similar to a facemask foul.  If the hand goes inside the pads with a pull it could be a 5 yard penalty...if the hand goes inside the pads and it leads to a full take down the you have the 15 yard penalty.  Does anyone else like this idea?

[HLinNC]

I didn't like the horsecollar tackle period.  I sure don't want a 5 and a 15 differential.
Its not that difficult- hand in the jerey/sldr pad collar, pulled back or to the side, and subsequently brought to the ground, its an HC tackle.  Don't do it!
Easier to discern than say, the FBZ.

Coaches were screaming for it before it was actually a rule.  They scream for it now when the hand is on the jersey at the shoulder blade.  Its our cross to bear.
I forsee the 5 yd fascemask dying off anyway.

[refsmitty]

So... if the fumble occurs while the hc is taking place but before the runner is taken down - I assume A retains possession.

[bama_stripes]

So... if the fumble occurs while the hc is taking place but before the runner is taken down - I assume A retains possession.

Well, if B recovers the fumble, A will certainly accept the penalty.

[refsmitty]

Yep - stupid question

[mbyron]

Its not that difficult- hand in the jerey/sldr pad collar, pulled back or to the side, and subsequently brought to the ground, its an HC tackle.

Remember that this provision has been deleted from the NFHS rule. 9-4-3k in its entirety now reads:

"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."

[Curious]

I didn't like the horsecollar tackle period.  I sure don't want a 5 and a 15 differential.
Its not that difficult- hand in the jerey/sldr pad collar, pulled back or to the side, and subsequently brought to the ground, its an HC tackle.  Don't do it!
Easier to discern than say, the FBZ.

Coaches were screaming for it before it was actually a rule.  They scream for it now when the hand is on the jersey at the shoulder blade.  Its our cross to bear.
I forsee the 5 yd fascemask dying off anyway.

I wasn't necessarily advocating for a 5 or 15 yd differential; just that, as AB points out, there is just as much danger if the runner is not pulled to the ground and, if safety is what we're after, penalizing the "grab" - not just the "tackle" might help to stop the frequency.

Even if the 5 yarder goes away, a horse-collar foul could be measured by its severity.

What exactly do you "not like" about the HC... HLinNC?

[HLinNC]

I think it was a rule change in search of a problem.

Is it bad?  probably.

Was it that bad?  probably not

[FBUmp]

What exactly do you "not like" about the HC... HLinNC?

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.

[Jackhammer]

Remember that this provision has been deleted from the NFHS rule. 9-4-3k in its entirety now reads:

"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."

This highlights a discussion we had in pre-game last week.  If the runner is pulled down forwards is it a HC?  As pointed out previously the safety aspect deals with the reversal and buckling action on the knee.  Just curious, I think we're all trying to sort this one out.

[Bob M.]

I think it was a rule change in search of a problem.

Is it bad?  probably.

Was it that bad?  probably not

REPLY: I couldn't have said this better...

[Magician]

Here are more examples of HC-like sitautions and the difference between NFHS and NCAA

Runner goes up the middle and is grabbed by a DT near the LOS by the collar and pulled backward immediately
NFHS - 15 yard foul
NCAA - good tackle

Runner in the clear near the sideline is grabbed from behind by the collar.  The defender runs with him for 5 yards and then pulls him to the ground.
NFHS - 15 yard foul
NCAA - good tackle

Runner in the clear near the sideline is grabbed from the side by the collar.  The defender immediately pulls him forward to the ground.
NFHS - 15 yard foul
NCAA - good tackle

I have probably seen 10-15 horse collar fouls called in my HS games the past 3 years.  I think most of them were correct by rule.  Only 2 or 3 of them would have been horse collar fouls in other rule sets and actually had a danger element to them.

[Curious]

Here are more examples of HC-like sitautions and the difference between NFHS and NCAA

Runner in the clear near the sideline is grabbed from the side by the collar.  The defender immediately pulls him forward to the ground.
NFHS - 15 yard foul
NCAA - good tackle

Mag....Interesting; but in this one, it is NOT a HCT by NFHS.  Runner must be subsequently pulled backward to the ground

[KDJBBBJ]

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. 

[RickKY]

Read Horse Collar Clarified on page 90 of your rulebook.

9-4-3k was revised so that the horse collar foul could be called in cases when the runner lost possession, or the ball became dead by rule such as OOB or after it crossed the goal line.  The original rule did not account for these situations.

[mbyron]

Read Horse Collar Clarified on page 90 of your rulebook.

9-4-3k was revised so that the horse collar foul could be called in cases when the runner lost possession, or the ball became dead by rule such as OOB or after it crossed the goal line.  The original rule did not account for these situations.

Right: the rule was originally defined in terms of tackling a "runner," who by definition possesses a live ball. Once a player loses possession, scores, or goes out of bounds he's no longer a runner. But NFHS (reasonably) still wanted the foul called if the illegal tackle were completed in those situations.