Horse Collar Tackle...

[LarryW60]

Hmmm... a coach not knowing the difference between objective and subjective...  Isn't that a requirement to BE a coach? 

[VALJ]

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...

[LarryW60]

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.

[WingOfficial]

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.

[HLinNC]

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.

[bama_stripes]

The key word is "collar".

Grabbing the jersey between the shoulder blades below the collar isn't a HC foul.

[FBUmp]

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?

[lawdog]

Are you saying that if the runner is pulled down to the front or falls forward, there's no HCT?

exactly...

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[Curious]

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.....)   

[lawdog]

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...

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[FBUmp]

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.

[lawdog]

AB I don't think delay has anything to do with it in Fed...

[LarryW60]

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.

[WingOfficial]

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.

[Canned Heat]

Keep in mind...per the 2010 revisions....it does not have to happen against a runner to be a HC.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[LarryW60]

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.
 

[Jackhammer]

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.

[LarryW60]

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.