Horse Collar Tackle or not?

[jason]

Thoughts on this play?
https://youtu.be/-lImmYBg3kg

Is this the same as the intent and the spirit of the horse collar rule introduced nearly 10 years ago?
https://www.nfhs.org/media/1015670/1982-2015-nfhs-risk-minimization-rules.pdf
http://www.cacpfo.org/files/2009_NFHS_Football_PowerPoint.pdf

[FLAHL]

Looks like a foul to me. He grabbed the inside back of the shirt and and subsequently pulled the opponent backward to the ground. The fact that he spun him around doesn’t change it for me.

[CalhounLJ]

Depends on the interpretation of backward. If backwards means toward his goal line, or even opposite from the direction he was traveling, then by rule this is not a horse collar foul.

[Stinterp]

100% horse collar foul

[CalhounLJ]

Take a look at 9.4.3 Situation M in the 2018 casebook. Particularly option (c) and (d). In C, the tackler rides A1 for several yards, before A1 falls backward. Foul for horsecollar because the runner fell backward. in (d), same scenario, but the runner fell forward. No foul for horsecollar. Like I mentioned earlier, whether you call this a foul or not depends on your interpretation of forward and/or backward. If backward means the direction from whence he came, then this is a not a foul, because, even though the runner fell onto his back, he fell forward. In fact, we would mark him down at the point where his FORWARD progress ended...

[ncwingman]

That's a horse collar foul all day long.

"Backwards" is relative to the player, not the field. The injury potential is from the angle of the tackle/takedown, not which goal post he's facing.

[CalhounLJ]

That's a horse collar foul all day long.

"Backwards" is relative to the player, not the field. The injury potential is from the angle of the tackle/takedown, not which goal post he's facing.

Actually, except for the disagreement on the foul, we are saying the same thing. I agree "backwards" is relative to the player, not the field. It refers to being pulled in a direction opposite from the direction he is traveling... That's what makes the horsecollar so dangerous. The major risk of injury in a horsecollar tackle is the knee and/or bones of the leg, particularly the femur. As you can see in this play, there is no risk to either here because the player was ultimately pulled in the direction he was traveling. Had he been pulled "backward" there would have been tremendous pressure on all the aforementioned body parts..

[PABJNR]

No risk of injury unless his cleat sticks in the field and the his ACL goes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Exactly. Same as any tackle. We had an extensive discussion on this topic when it first came out around 2008 or so. The penalty was first developed because of a defender named Roy Williams in the NFL who was notorious from grabbing the inside of the pads and dragging runners down backwards, causing them to fall back and pin their legs beneath them. After he broke several legs in one season, the NFL bannned the tackle and the horsecollar eventually filtered down to the HS level. Les Triplet actually came to our association the year after it was implemented and gave a clinic, and this was part of the instruction. He stressed that direction was very important in determining the foul because of the intent of the rule.

The Redding Book also addresses direction. On page 119, Additional example 17 in the 2017 book describes a play in which the runner is grabbed by the inside back collar of the shoulder pads or jersey by a defender, who tackles him by "swinging him around and throwing him to the ground." Ruling: There is no foul in a or b. A42 was not tackled by being pulled."

My opinion is that in this video, the player was swung around and thrown down rather than pulled down backwards. Sure enough, he landed on his back, but that alone is not sufficient to determine he was pulled down backwards. He was propelled forward in the direction of his momentum. I've seen runners dive forward into the endzone and land on their backs. That didn't mean they dived backward..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brettjr2005]

I agree with Calhoun and I think he covered the rule and gave some good case references.  I think the key thing to consider with "debatable" wording is the intent of the rule.  The rule doesn't flat out ban grabbing the collar, it bans the dangerous tackles where the runner is pulled in an opposite direction of his momentum putting him at risk for serious knee injuries.  Spinning the player around like this is not violating the intent of the horse collar rule. 

An important thing here, as well as on any "50/50" call, is to know exactly why you did or didn't make that call so that you can give an exact and confident answer to the irrate coach who thinks that any time the collar is touched that it's a foul. 

[refjeff]

B57 very clearly releases his grip and does not pull the runner to the ground.  Not a foul