RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on October 23, 2011, 09:50:48 PM
-
As long as they have a microphone, we will have entertainment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNenKWoyDPw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNenKWoyDPw)
-
Do we not think this is a horse collar tackle?
-
No, we KNOW it is NOT a horse collar tackle under NCAA rules
-
He rode him at least 5-6 yards before the pull down. I'd say that does not qualify as immediate.
-
My flag would've been flying high on this one and a correct call would've been given.
-
According to which set of rules?
-
I think this is a foul all day long in any set of rules. Pee wee to NFL. Please don't quote the rule. This is a tackling technique that causes injuries. Therefore it's a foul. You spend more time defending why you didn't call it. If you call this, nobody says a word. Not just the announcers, but supervisors, fellow officials and granny in the 77th row.
-
Have you seen any of the CFO videos on this? There have been examples just like this of a player bveing ridden and the guidance is...no foul.
-
Please don't quote the rule.
Oh my.
-
No I haven't.
-
Try it some time because that is what the supervisors are using, and what your fellow officials should be using. As for the commontatertots on TV and granny in the stands, who cares?
-
Don't need to. This is a foul for a horse collar tackle.
-
This is absolutely a foul for a horse collar tackle. The tackler is inside the collar and he is doing nothing other than attempting to take the runner to the ground at that very moment. Just because they are running at a high speed and the runner advances several yards before he finally buckles does not mitigate the fact that the tackler jerks the runner to the ground using the back of the collar.
The CFO videos in which they say the tackle is not immediate have one of two mitigating factors beyond immediacy:
1. The tackler does something else as they run such as wrapping the runner up and tackling him mostly with that action, or
2. Runs with him for several yards with the hand inside the collar but no pulling action at all. This is not a foul because it gives the runner time to protect himself from being jerked down.
Here everything the tackler does from the moment he gets his hand inside the collar until the runner eventually goes down is a continuous action that is a foul.
-
I think if I were training officials, coaches and players on horse collar tackles, this is the film I would use.
= ^flag
-
I would be most interested in hearing the post-game eval, let's just say that, huh?
PS: HC by my (Canuck) standards.
-
This is absolutely a foul for a horse collar tackle. The tackler is inside the collar and he is doing nothing other than attempting to take the runner to the ground at that very moment. Just because they are running at a high speed and the runner advances several yards before he finally buckles does not mitigate the fact that the tackler jerks the runner to the ground using the back of the collar.
The CFO videos in which they say the tackle is not immediate have one of two mitigating factors beyond immediacy:
1. The tackler does something else as they run such as wrapping the runner up and tackling him mostly with that action, or
2. Runs with him for several yards with the hand inside the collar but no pulling action at all. This is not a foul because it gives the runner time to protect himself from being jerked down.
Here everything the tackler does from the moment he gets his hand inside the collar until the runner eventually goes down is a continuous action that is a foul.
He runs with this player for well over 5 yards, probably closer to 8, after initial contact and attempts to wrap him up and pull with the other hand prior to the pull down by the collar. The runner clearly had enough time to know he was there and protect himself. I'm with Mike and the two covering officials on this one. No flag, this is not immediate.
The last clip on the 2011 CFO Game Video Review #2 has commentary from Rogers Redding on a similar no call with even less riding before the pull down. It will be interesting to see if this play makes the review in a couple of weeks.
-
He runs with this player for well over 5 yards, probably closer to 8, after initial contact and attempts to wrap him up and pull with the other hand prior to the pull down by the collar. The runner clearly had enough time to know he was there and protect himself. I'm with Mike and the two covering officials on this one. No flag, this is not immediate.
The last clip on the 2011 CFO Game Video Review #2 has commentary from Rogers Redding on a similar no call with even less riding before the pull down. It will be interesting to see if this play makes the review in a couple of weeks.
He tries to grab an arm and then grabs the collar. Once he does gets his hand inside the coller he makes no steps at all and really just drags his feet as he tries to pull the runner down from behind.
Those who don't want a horse collar here are being overly technical in there attempt to justify not throwing a flag. The horse collar rule was put in for the safety of the runner and this action meets the spirit of what the rules committee is trying to eliminate. Man up and throw the flag. Any coordinator who wouldn't support this would be very foolish.
-
I just watched CFO video 2 and the last two clips are not about horse collars. Clip 29 is but the flag was picked up because the horse collar wasn't grabbed - different reason.
Is there another clip on the CFO video?
I'd sure like to see RR weigh in on this one as it does appear to be a HTC but for whatever the official interpretation of "immediately" which I'm still not clear on. The action subjects the runner to the exact kind of injury the HTC is designed to prevent, don't you think?
It seems to me that jerking a playing down hard by the horse collar ought to be a foul regardless of how long the tackler was in contact. It's the quick and immediate jerking down and backward while the ball carrier is running forward that exposes him to injury.
-
I'd sure like to see RR weigh in on this one as it does appear to be a HTC but for whatever the official interpretation of "immediately" which I'm still not clear on. The action does subject the runner to the exact kind of injury the HTC is designed to prevent, don't you think?
It seems to me that jerking a playing down hard by the horse collar ought to be a foul regardless of how long the tackler was in contact. It's that jerking while the ball carrier is running forward that exposes him to injury.
I agree.
-
This particular play brings to question is the "immediate" after the grasp of the collar or when the tackler actually makes a pull? The grasp itself can be pretty inconsequential if the tackler simply runs with the ball carrier, it's the pull that possibly creates the problem.
I find the comments amounting to "the runner had time to protect himself" somewhat odd. The runner is supposed to "protect himself" from the illegal actions of the tackler? Of course I also find it odd so many seem to go far out of their way to find a reason not to call a contact safety foul but will jump at the slightest provocation to hit someone for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-
This particular play brings to question is the "immediate" after the grasp of the collar or when the tackler actually makes a pull? The grasp itself can be pretty inconsequential if the tackler simply runs with the ball carrier, it's the pull that possibly creates the problem.
I find the comments amounting to "the runner had time to protect himself" somewhat odd. The runner is supposed to "protect himself" from the illegal actions of the tackler? Of course I also find it odd so many seem to go far out of their way to find a reason not to call a contact safety foul but will jump at the slightest provocation to hit someone for unsportsmanlike conduct.
+1 :bOW
-
The "ball carrier" occupies a special position in the game. By agreeing to be the "ball carrier" he agrees to subject himself to all kinds of mayhem and assault that he would not be legally subject to were he not the "ball carrier." Yes, there are some things the rulemakers put in there to make his life a bit easier but they have not outlawed other types of hits on him that are potentially more dangerous than a horse collar tackle. So since they have decided to make a horse collar tackle a foul, they had to be very clear about just what was and was not a horse collar tackle. All the bulletins and videos I have seen coming from on high seem to make it clear that if the grasp and pull are not immediate it is not a foul.
If a tackler used his shoulder and drove it into a ball carrier's helmet, would you call that a foul?
Comparing this "horse collar" to uns conduct is apples and oranges. The acts that are covered under uns conduct are NOT part of the game. Tackling a ball carrier is part of the game.
And for what its worth...the play right before this one in the game was a punt return where at least one of the covering officials tweeted it dead after seeing the returner point before receiving the kick. The ACC coordinator publicly indicated that was an incorrect call. There has been even more chit chat in ACC land over this "horse collar" and the ACC did not say it should have been flagged so I think we can assume what their take is.
-
Of course the ball carrier occupies a special position. But that doesn't mean he has to take steps to prevent the tacklers from committing illegal actions. It's the tackler's respsonsibility to avoid doing things that are illegal. Saying the runner "had time to protect himself" because the tackler has grasped the collar but runs with him before pulling would be like saying the runner should have protected himself when a tackler grasps the face mask and then runs with him a while before he yanks on that mask. My question remains, is the intent of the "immediate" part of the rule to be from when the grasp is made or from when the pull is made? All the videos I remember were presented with the grasp and pull being almost simultaneous, it's the delay in bringing him down after the grasp and pull that seemed to negate the foul.
I agree there are plenty of legal hits the runner can take that are potentially far more dangerous to the runner than a HCT. Shoulder to the head of the ball carrier being illegal? Maybe if I deem him to be in a defenseless possition. Does it seem odd to me a shoulder to head hit is ok but a head to head hit is not? Yes. I'll bet we will soon be in a situation where any head shot anywhere will be illegal, but that's probably a different discussion.
I don't think I "compared" the HCT to an US call. What I did state was I found it odd that some officials are quite willing to find an excuse not to call contact safety fouls but are more than willing to call the US foul with the slightest provocation. That's not comparing fouls, that's questioning official decision making.
-
Are you referring specifically to the call on the LSU punter, a call that has now publicly been deemed correct by the Rules Editor and head of the CFO?
-
I'm referring to a general feeling I get reading this board.
-
I just watched CFO video 2 and the last two clips are not about horse collars. Clip 29 is but the flag was picked up because the horse collar wasn't grabbed - different reason.
Is there another clip on the CFO video?
I'd sure like to see RR weigh in on this one as it does appear to be a HTC but for whatever the official interpretation of "immediately" which I'm still not clear on. The action subjects the runner to the exact kind of injury the HTC is designed to prevent, don't you think?
It seems to me that jerking a playing down hard by the horse collar ought to be a foul regardless of how long the tackler was in contact. It's the quick and immediate jerking down and backward while the ball carrier is running forward that exposes him to injury.
There are three plays in the last chapter on video review #2 that is split into chapters by game. They are all from USF vs Pitt and the first and last deal with HCT. RR's exact words on the first play (#27) are "Good job not to call a horse collar tackle on this play. Notice that he does grab the side of the collar but he rides him a few yards and does not take him immediately to the ground, so this is not a foul. Good job to let this one go."
Of course the ball carrier occupies a special position. But that doesn't mean he has to take steps to prevent the tacklers from committing illegal actions. It's the tackler's respsonsibility to avoid doing things that are illegal. Saying the runner "had time to protect himself" because the tackler has grasped the collar but runs with him before pulling would be like saying the runner should have protected himself when a tackler grasps the face mask and then runs with him a while before he yanks on that mask. My question remains, is the intent of the "immediate" part of the rule to be from when the grasp is made or from when the pull is made? All the videos I remember were presented with the grasp and pull being almost simultaneous, it's the delay in bringing him down after the grasp and pull that seemed to negate the foul.
A facemask foul is a clearly defined combination of actions that is illegal; grasp and twist, turn, or pull. There is no timing aspect of the foul. This is an act that the rulesmakers determined was sufficiently dangerous to make illegal regardless of the player involved or the timing of the actions. A HCT is also a clearly defined combination of actions; grabbing and immediately pulling the ball carrier down. There is a time factor written into the rule that cannot be ignored. The time factor is clear and can only refer to the timing between the two described actions; grabbing and pulling down. The application of the rule also applies to only one player that can be fouled. For whatever reasons the rulesmakers made this rule very limited in its scope.
-
FWIW three years later. Note, last sentence.
From the NCAA FOOTBALL RULES COMMITTEE ACTION FOR 2008
“Horse-Collar” Tackle (Rule 9-1-2-p). With this new rule, the committee addresses the potential hazard to a ball carrier that is grabbed by the inside collar of the jersey or shoulder pad and quickly jerked down. The rule prohibits all players from grabbing the inside back collar of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling the runner down. This does not apply to a runner who is inside the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket. A key element is the immediacy of the runner being pulled down, because of the risk of injury.
Also, if horse collar-like tackles are generally unsafe, why is it legal to horse collar a ball carrier inside the tackle box and QB in the pocket?
-
There are three plays in the last chapter on video review #2 that is split into chapters by game. They are all from USF vs Pitt and the first and last deal with HCT. RR's exact words on the first play (#27) are "Good job not to call a horse collar tackle on this play. Notice that he does grab the side of the collar but he rides him a few yards and does not take him immediately to the ground, so this is not a foul. Good job to let this one go."A facemask foul is a clearly defined combination of actions that is illegal; grasp and twist, turn, or pull. There is no timing aspect of the foul. This is an act that the rulesmakers determined was sufficiently dangerous to make illegal regardless of the player involved or the timing of the actions. A HCT is also a clearly defined combination of actions; grabbing and immediately pulling the ball carrier down. There is a time factor written into the rule that cannot be ignored. The time factor is clear and can only refer to the timing between the two described actions; grabbing and pulling down. The application of the rule also applies to only one player that can be fouled. For whatever reasons the rulesmakers made this rule very limited in its scope.
I see no similarities at all in these two plays. The play on the CFO video shows the tackler taking 3 steps once he gets his hand inside the collar and then he pulls the runner forward. No foul.
In this play, the tackler takes at most one step after grasping the collar and even as that step occurs, he is already pulling down and using his entire body weight in trying to take the runner down backwards.
-
Banker,
the point of my argument in that section was regarding the statements the the runner somehow having time to protect himself thus absolves the tackler from his illegal action, which is patently false. I thought that was fairly evident, but apparently not.
I also submit the clip you refer to questionably answers the point. The tackler grabs, begins to pull, ends up spinning around and then finishes pulling the runner down forward. Is merely running with the ball carrier "riding" or is actually pulling him "riding" as RR refers to it? What I would like answered is when does the immediate part begin? The grab, which could be entirely inconsequential, or the pull which is when the problem really begins?
-
The CFO videos in which they say the tackle is not immediate have one of two mitigating factors beyond immediacy:
1. The tackler does something else as they run such as wrapping the runner up and tackling him mostly with that action, or
2. Runs with him for several yards with the hand inside the collar but no pulling action at all. This is not a foul because it gives the runner time to protect himself from being jerked down.
Banker,
the point of my argument in that section was regarding the statements the the runner somehow having time to protect himself thus absolves the tackler from his illegal action, which is patently false. I thought that was fairly evident, but apparently not.
Mike, I agree with you on this. My original response regarding protecting himself was only in reference to a condition that ref6983 asserted. I was merely rebutting his argument by pointing out that if that is a condition to be met then you could say it was met on this play. That is not a condition as far as I am concerned. I am concerned with what the rule says and whether an action is in fact legal or illegal.
My observations regarding your comparison to a face mask foul were simply meant to point out that although both are intended to protect player safety the two are not alike as one is broad and the other narrow. Anytime and anywhere you see a facemask grasped and pulled you have a foul but that is not the case with a HCT. It is very limited in its application rather than broad and the rulesmakers must have done that for a reason.
I also submit the clip you refer to questionably answers the point. The tackler grabs, begins to pull, ends up spinning around and then finishes pulling the runner down forward. Is merely running with the ball carrier "riding" or is actually pulling him "riding" as RR refers to it? What I would like answered is when does the immediate part begin? The grab, which could be entirely inconsequential, or the pull which is when the problem really begins?
I see no similarities at all in these two plays. The play on the CFO video shows the tackler taking 3 steps once he gets his hand inside the collar and then he pulls the runner forward. No foul.
Is there a reference to the direction of the pull other than "down to the ground" in the rule? It does refer to the position of the grab. While no two plays are exactly alike, RR also makes no reference to the direction of the pull down in his comments, only the immediacy. Once again, immediate can only refer to the timing between the grab and the pull down as they are the only two actions described. Therefore it must start at the grab.
-
Mike, I agree with you on this. My original response regarding protecting himself was only in reference to a condition that ref6983 asserted. I was merely rebutting his argument by pointing out that if that is a condition to be met then you could say it was met on this play. That is not a condition as far as I am concerned. I am concerned with what the rule says and whether an action is in fact legal or illegal.
My observations regarding your comparison to a face mask foul were simply meant to point out that although both are intended to protect player safety the two are not alike as one is broad and the other narrow. Anytime and anywhere you see a facemask grasped and pulled you have a foul but that is not the case with a HCT. It is very limited in its application rather than broad and the rulesmakers must have done that for a reason.Is there a reference to the direction of the pull other than "down to the ground" in the rule? It does refer to the position of the grab. While no two plays are exactly alike, RR also makes no reference to the direction of the pull down in his comments, only the immediacy. Once again, immediate can only refer to the timing between the grab and the pull down as they are the only two actions described. Therefore it must start at the grab.
I'm glad you pointed this out as I had not noticed that this aspect was being argued.
The word "immediate" is in the language and, of course, it is a very relative term. In an HCT situation, we don't use a stopwatch and we have been give an specific amount of time when it is or is not a foul. Nor have we ever been given a distance measurement. After all, I don't think many officials are in the business of actually counting steps or yards when covering this play.
So then, at what point is does it no longer become immediate? In my original post, I stated guidelines that give the covering official a reasonable chance of making a consistent ruling. If the time frame is such that, after the initial grab, the runner can protect himself before getting pulled down, then it's not immediate and no foul. Normally this would be several steps, but depending on the speed of both players, it may be more or less.
Interestingly, I agree completely that the timing "starts with the grab". However, we completely disagree on what happens after that. I feel the tackler does nothing but begin the pull down as soon as he grabs the collar and even though they advance several yards, the runner is unable to do anything to avoid getting pulled down and the tackler does nothing to avoid pulling him down.
-
The issue here, really, is a poorly written and inconsistent rule (as one chap noted, why is this not dangerous in the line area?
I see the video as a horsecollar, but then again, the principle we use in Canadian amateur ball is that the grasping occurs inside the shoulder pads (or inside of the jersey) and is the primary point of force used to change the tackled player's direction. (Note that a tackle need not be made, with this interp ...)
-
Interestingly, I agree completely that the timing "starts with the grab". However, we completely disagree on what happens after that. I feel the tackler does nothing but begin the pull down as soon as he grabs the collar and even though they advance several yards, the runner is unable to do anything to avoid getting pulled down and the tackler does nothing to avoid pulling him down.
So, lets say that a tackler grabs and does start to pull immediately and he continues to pull until the ball carrier goes down, with no other action but pulling by the collar, and the ball carrier advances another 10 yards or perhaps 20 yards before being pulled down. Are you saying that it is still a foul even if the ball carrier drags him another 10 yards since he is unable to avoid the ultimate pull down? What about 20 yards? In this case we have a ball carrier who is able and is doing something to avoid being taken down immediately. He takes another 5 steps and advances another 8 yards or more after the grab. After the word immediately in the rule it says "pulling the ball carrier down". Is it the pulling only or is it the pulling down that is to be immediate? If a ball carrier advances the way this one does after the grab I just don't think you have anything.
-
So, lets say that a tackler grabs and does start to pull immediately and he continues to pull until the ball carrier goes down, with no other action but pulling by the collar, and the ball carrier advances another 10 yards or perhaps 20 yards before being pulled down. Are you saying that it is still a foul even if the ball carrier drags him another 10 yards since he is unable to avoid the ultimate pull down? What about 20 yards? In this case we have a ball carrier who is able and is doing something to avoid being taken down immediately. He takes another 5 steps and advances another 8 yards or more after the grab. After the word immediately in the rule it says "pulling the ball carrier down". Is it the pulling only or is it the pulling down that is to be immediate? If a ball carrier advances the way this one does after the grab I just don't think you have anything.
An extreme example, but if the runner is able to drag the guy 20 yards, then he's doing a pretty good job defending himself from a horse collar. No foul.
Here, the players are running full speed and the runner is grabbed by the collar around the 45 the defender stop running at that point and swings his legs around and the runner starts to go down around the 40. Because of the speed of the players and the fact that this was a DB and not a LB, it wasn't unusual for them to advance that distance. Had this gone on another 5 yards before he could pull him down, then no foul as the runner would have then able to defend himself against the HCT.
As stated earlier, the actions of the tackler are very important as well and I would say that if he ran with the runner five yards and then began the pull down in this play, then I don't think we would have a foul.
-
I feel the tackler does nothing but begin the pull down as soon as he grabs the collar and even though they advance several yards, the runner is unable to do anything to avoid getting pulled down and the tackler does nothing to avoid pulling him down.
An extreme example, but if the runner is able to drag the guy 20 yards, then he's doing a pretty good job defending himself from a horse collar. No foul.
It is an extreme example but carries all the elements you stated. It is an example that has an immediate pull after the grab and one in which the ball carrier is not able to do anything to avoid getting pulled down since he is in fact pulled down by the collar and the tackler does nothing to avoid pulling him down by the collar.
-
Banker,
I think we actually agree on this more than we disagree. I just can't see the reasoning behind requiring the pull to happen immediately after the initial grab. Admittedly, in 99% of the cases that pull is going to happen right after the initial grab and then we simply have to judge the immediacy of the tackle. But this clip gives us the case where it does not and that action certainly appears to be what the intent of the rule is trying to prevent. Maybe I'm just hung up on, perhaps incorrectly so, that it's the pull that matters much more than the grab.
-
One thing we need to consider, in my opinion, is that safety rules are designed to modify behavior - that's very evident by the "when in question" guidelines (either written or by practice) attached to targeting, leading with the crown, blocking below the waist, etc.
If we begin splitting hairs on this type of foul we certainly aren't doing much for behavior modification. You know this tackler wasn't thinking "well, since I've ridden him for a number of yards it's ok to jerk him backwards and down by the collar." The next time he will repeat his action regardless of whether he grabbed for awhile or not.
The rules committee is clear that they want to take illegal helmet contact and targeting out of the game. So what happens is you write a rule designed to do that (we all know it's impossible to write a rule which will cover everything in a fluid game like football and take care of thousands of officials personal interpretations), then add the "when in question" component and finally and rightfully expect that we will err on the side of flagging close situations. Pretty soon the coaches will quit complaining about the close ones that go against them and teach the players not to get close to that kind of action.
I would have flagged this act and see what my supervisor has to say about it. It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission when it comes to safety of the players!
-
Zebra,
after our NCAA group meeting last night, all I can say is I too without question am flagging that play. I also will be flagging any substantial hit above the shoulders, defenseless or not (with the possible exception where the runner drops his head to push for extra yards). Orders from on high to be ignored at my own peril.
-
I ran the play by a few west coast officials in my conference - here are their responses:
- foul for HCT. Not totally immediate, but definitely a dangerous act that violates the spirit of the rule
- Foul, I understand a viewpoint of being ridden down. But, the jerk at the end makes this a foul. Lucky, the runner wasn't injured on the play.
- Probably not immediate, but it is a safety issue and when in doubt I think you should call it.
- close ...... a flag would've been supported
-
And yet 3, (and possibly 4 or more) major college officials on the field at that moment judge it NOT to be a foul. Usually in these questionable cases (i.e. the multitude of high hit flags we have seen), when there are that many guys looking at an act, one will flag it if it is even close. Maybe us looking at from above versus them looking at it from field level affects the perception, but until RR calls this a horsecollar, I am sure not doing it. I don't have the pressures any of you do to conform to what some supervisor wants so I can understand you doing otherwise. (But more than one major college official has told me some of the last folks you want to go to for a NCAA rules question is a supervisor, although there may be a few who do have a clue)
-
Some people insist on resisting change. It's clear to me a rather radical move in how we go about calling these safety related situations is now in process. You can get on board with that move or join the guys who thought denying players water to toughen them up was a good idea over there in the obsolete section.
-
And yet 3, (and possibly 4 or more) major college officials on the field at that moment judge it NOT to be a foul.
Of course those, including me, who have rendered their opinions weren't on the game and have the huge advantage of replay, time to think, and perhaps more importantly, no jeopardy of being downgraded for our arm chair opinions!
With that said, we're in the old conundrum - good arguments on both sides, no official interpretation on this type of play from RR (riding for several yards then a quick and immediate jerk backwards and down to the ground by the horse collar) - so what do we do going forward? I guess personal choice - not great for consistency - but either way, flag or no flag, we'll get some feedback from our supervisors.
I'm going to send this clip to my supervisor with a suggestion he run it up to RR (if that hasn't already been done).
-
Good luck I sent him the video of the sideways snapper and still no response
-
When a player grabs a facemask, he has not committed a foul until he twists, turns or pulls the facemask.
When a blocker grabs an opponents jersey, he has technically committed a foul.
When a tackler grabs and tackles a runner by the "horsecollar", he has not committed a foul unless he immediately pulled the runner to the ground.
What all three plays have in common is that the player is at risk of having a penalty called depending on the judgement of the individual official. Did he twist? Did it impact the play? Was it immediate? Most players know that grabbing a facemask, jersey or "horsecollar" puts them at risk for a penalty and yet they still do it.
My point is that we are never going to completely agree on "immediately". If the player doesnt grab the horsecollar, he is not at risk for being called for an HCT (i.e. don't tackle by the horsecollar if you dont want to be flagged). Reasonable people can disagree about HCTs. Until we hear further guidance, there is no moral high ground for either side of this discussion. IMO, we should do the best we can to judge these plays within the letter and intent of the rule and as always error on the side of safety.
Last but not least, I have changed my mind on how i will call HCT based on this thread. It is a great discussion.
-
When a blocker grabs an opponents jersey, he has technically committed a foul.
Takes more than just a grab. Takes a grab that illegally impedes or obstructs an opponent.
Likewise, the tackler can grab the "wrong part" of the jersey or shoulder pads and keep from fouling by NOT immediately pulling the guy down.
-
I sent this video to Dr Redding and his response was simply, "It's a foul."
There ya go. Now we all know how it should be called. :thumbup
-
Takes more than just a grab. Takes a grab that illegally impedes or obstructs an opponent.
Likewise, the tackler can grab the "wrong part" of the jersey or shoulder pads and keep from fouling by NOT immediately pulling the guy down.
I should have said "OVERLY TECHNICAL" and I probably could have made it clear that the blocker was blocking when he grabbed a jersey. Rule 9-3-3-a-2 does state "The hand(s) shall be open with the palm(s) facing the frame of the opponent or closed or cupped with the palms not facing the opponent". In my mind that made it impossible to grab a jersey with your hand completely open (facing the opponent) or completely closed (facing away from the opponent). I reckon that was a leap of faith that may not be a fact.
I would have been better off not mentioning the hold as the comment has distracted from the primary conversation (HCT or not). Why does a player grab a jersey if it doesn't impede or obstruct an opponent? pi1eOn LOL
-
I sent this video to Dr Redding and his response was simply, "It's a foul."
There ya go. Now we all know how it should be called. :thumbup
Thanks Grant. Perhaps the rule needs to be modified, something closer to the Federation's "subsequently".
-
FWIW three years later. Note, last sentence.
From the NCAA FOOTBALL RULES COMMITTEE ACTION FOR 2008
“Horse-Collar” Tackle (Rule 9-1-2-p). With this new rule, the committee addresses the potential hazard to a ball carrier that is grabbed by the inside collar of the jersey or shoulder pad and quickly jerked down. The rule prohibits all players from grabbing the inside back collar of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling the runner down. This does not apply to a runner who is inside the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket. A key element is the immediacy of the runner being pulled down, because of the risk of injury.
I reckon it ain't worth a bucket of warm HACK now.
-
I also will be flagging any substantial hit above the shoulders, defenseless or not (with the possible exception where the runner drops his head to push for extra yards). Orders from on high to be ignored at my own peril.
Some people insist on resisting change. It's clear to me a rather radical move in how we go about calling these safety related situations is now in process. You can get on board with that move or join the guys who thought denying players water to toughen them up was a good idea over there in the obsolete section.
Mike, I really don't want to seem over critical here but just want to make an observation about these statements because I think this may be heading down a slippery slope.
This reminds me somewhat of the activist judge who legislates from the bench (makes law rather than enforce existing law) based upon his own beliefs that he is right and what he does is for the good of society. The judge often supports his decision by citing other activist decisions and a perceived support from society. Another typical tactic is to then further support the actions by criticizing any oposition as being unenlightened and "obsolete".
The fact is that for the moment we disagree on the interpretation of a rule. That is not particularly unusual and with there being so many of us it happens all the time. Perhaps RR will ultimately use his position to bring more clarity to this particular rule. In comparing the game of football to our judicial system though, we essentially occupy every position of authority as it relates to the rules but one. We are not only the witness, we are the cop, the judge, and the jailer. The one thing we are not is the legislator that makes the rules. While we can certainly interpret what is written and make efforts to enforce the rules with safety in mind when latitude is given, we should do so while not forgetting the fact that football is inherently dangerous and that regardless of our "radical" view on safety we simply cannot keep every participant safe.
-
Some people insist on resisting change. It's clear to me a rather radical move in how we go about calling these safety related situations is now in process. You can get on board with that move or join the guys who thought denying players water to toughen them up was a good idea over there in the obsolete section.
You are right on the mark pointing out the "radical move" that is afoot. We see it in several different areas of the game. The changes, accompanied with all the hoopla and emphasis on them, has caused some guys (IMHO) to start flagging things when they even appear to be a bit too rough. It has players like a college QB screaming at me for not "protecting him like a QB is supposed to be protected" when he got slobberknocked right after letting go of the pitch on an option play. This is a violent game, made more so by the increasing weight and speed (and skills) of the participants. If folks smarter than me decide they want to cut certain things out of the game, I am not going to ignore that but they need to make it clear by their writing and teaching what it is they want out. When you publish written materials and make comments over the top of video plays that seem to clearly indicate there are times when an act is legal, it is a bit unfair to expect us to then arbitrairily decide it really is not legal, even at those times.
-
Banker 7 TXMike,
all I'm telling you is exactly what I'm hearing while watching supervisor review videos from a major college conference and from the guys actually working that conference regarding calls that are not being made that they are insisting must be made. You can argue all you want about 'activist judges' or 'slippery slopes' or whatever, but the bottom line is you can insist on calling it the way you feel the book reads or you can call it the way the guys in charge want it called. I suggest telling your boss he's wrong and you are not going to call it that way is not the best way to continue getting the opportunity to make any calls. It is clear to me the powers that be are insisting these unsafe hits are going to be removed from the game and we are responsible for helping that happen. Buy into it or not, it's up to you.
-
FYI - our supervisor has instructed us to throw for HCT if the "last" act is jerking down immediately to the ground by the horse collar regardless of how long the tackler might have been riding the runner. He believes it's the quick jerk down buckling the knees which is the safety aspect of the rule. He says it doesn't make any sense to absolve the exact same potentially injurious act that the rule is designed to prevent just because the tackler was in contact for awhile then takes in down in that manner.
On the other hand if the action which brings the runner down is not a jerk but a "process" then no foul.
Makes sense to me.