RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: hortod on September 07, 2011, 06:57:06 AM
-
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
-
I agree with your call. The runner must be brought down.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
So... if the fumble occurs while the hc is taking place but before the runner is taken down - I assume A retains possession.
-
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.
-
Yep - stupid question hEaDbAnG
-
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."
-
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?
-
I think it was a rule change in search of a problem.
Is it bad? probably.
Was it that bad? probably not
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
(a) sounds more toward unnecessary roughness than HCT. (b) sounds like a HCT, since the runner was brought down by the collar.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.