Horse Collar

[FLAHL]

“Grab the inside back or side collar of either the shoulder pads or the jersey of the runner and subsequently pull (backward or sideward) that opponent to the ground (Horse-collar), even if possession is lost. The horse-collar foul is enforced as a live-ball foul.”

2018 rule cited above. I know the name plate area has been added for 2019.  We have interpreted that rule very literally - not only does the player have to pull the collar (or pads or name plate) backward or sideways, he must also pull the runner TO THE GROUND in that direction.  On Friday night, I had a play with a defender grabbing the inside of the jersey in the back, pulling the runner backwards, and then completing the tackle by spinning the runner so that he was not moving backward or sideways when he hit the ground.

I know you’d have to see it, but based on that description do you have a foul?  I threw the flag. Thanks.

[riffraft]

I am sure you will get both answers, but if the runner is not taken to the ground backwards or to the side by the back of the Collar (nameplate,etc.) I am not throwing my flag.

I know there are some that will throw the flag whether on not the runner goes directly to the ground if they see the knees buckle. I understand why they would (the reason for the rule safety).

[Magician]

The HS rule does require you to bring them to the ground backward or to the side eventually. You could have situations where a defender grabs from behind and slows the runner down to a point where there is little or no danger to runner's knees but it's a foul because it met the definition of the rule. Then you could have the situation where the pull is immediate and causes great risk to the runner, but he doesn't doesn't go the ground. This isn't a foul but probably should be.

Definitely do what your local interpreter says but I could definitely see some interpretation variations here. It's not unlike a face mask foul. There are some instances where the player grabs and twists the face mask and it's a foul but nothing really dangerous happened. But the penalty still exists to discourage players from grabbing the face mask in general. The same could be said for horse collar.

[AlUpstateNY]

The rule as written (without including the 2019 addition regarding the name plate) seems expressly clear and complete.  Unless and until the US Supreme Court agrees to govern the application of NFHS rules, we're likely going to rely on the understanding of the intent and purpose of the rule, the COMMON SENSE of the calling official to assess the point of contact being in a restricted area (including the 2019 revision) resulting in the player being pulled to the ground, sideways or backwards, whether or not possession was maintained.

Given a clear, unquestionable conclusion that those elements were achieved, as observed by the calling official, should eliminate ANY reasonable questions regarding the call.

[TampaSteve]

“Grab the inside back or side collar of either the shoulder pads or the jersey of the runner and subsequently pull (backward or sideward) that opponent to the ground (Horse-collar), even if possession is lost. The horse-collar foul is enforced as a live-ball foul.”

2018 rule cited above. I know the name plate area has been added for 2019.  We have interpreted that rule very literally - not only does the player have to pull the collar (or pads or name plate) backward or sideways, he must also pull the runner TO THE GROUND in that direction.  On Friday night, I had a play with a defender grabbing the inside of the jersey in the back, pulling the runner backwards, and then completing the tackle by spinning the runner so that he was not moving backward or sideways when he hit the ground.

I know you’d have to see it, but based on that description do you have a foul?  I threw the flag. Thanks.

Id have to lean towards an axiom of: if was potentially a horse collar then I'd lean more towards flagging it vs not flagging it. - or maybe for just about any PF.

[FLAHL]

The rule as written (without including the 2019 addition regarding the name plate) seems expressly clear and complete.

Agreed. IMHO, it might be “too complete”, if that’s possible. It sounds like we’re all enforcing the letter of the rule - the runner must be brought down backwards. I’d be in favor of eliminating “to the ground” from the wording of the rule.  That way, when a runner is yanked backwards by the horse collar and his knees buckle, we don’t have to wait to see if he goes to the ground backwards, sideways, or at all.

[VALJ]

The foul is for a horse collar TACKLE, not for grabbing the collar.  If he's not taken to the ground by the collar, no flag.  If a defender has the collar but he falls forward, no flag.  If one defender is holding by the collar, and a second defender comes in and makes the tackle, no flag. 

[AlUpstateNY]

The foul is for a horse collar TACKLE, not for grabbing the collar.  If he's not taken to the ground by the collar, no flag.  If a defender has the collar but he falls forward, no flag.  If one defender is holding by the collar, and a second defender comes in and makes the tackle, no flag.

I would agree with points 1 and 2, however, regarding point 3, if one defender is HOLDING the collar or prohibited area WHEN points 1 and 2 are  abused and satisfied, I would consider the violation occurring, regardless of who, or how many, assist in the tackle.

The only acceptable reason, for splitting hairs, should be CAUTION (to the players).

[VALJ]

I would agree with points 1 and 2, however, regarding point 3, if one defender is HOLDING the collar or prohibited area WHEN points 1 and 2 are  abused and satisfied, I would consider the violation occurring, regardless of who, or how many, assist in the tackle.

The only acceptable reason, for splitting hairs, should be CAUTION (to the players).

Per the casebook, if one player grabs the collar and another player actually makes the tackle, no foul.

9.4.3 SITUATION N:

A1 is running in the open field and B1 grabs A1's shoulder pad opening from behind and pulls and:

(a) A1 does not go down from the contact;
(b) B2 comes in and tackles A1 while still in B1's grasp; or
(c) A1 runs four more yards before being pulled down.

RULING: Legal in (a) and (b); illegal horse-collar foul in (c) because runner subsequently went down because of the horse-collar foul.

[Magician]

Per the casebook, if one player grabs the collar and another player actually makes the tackle, no foul.

9.4.3 SITUATION N:

A1 is running in the open field and B1 grabs A1's shoulder pad opening from behind and pulls and:

(a) A1 does not go down from the contact;
(b) B2 comes in and tackles A1 while still in B1's grasp; or
(c) A1 runs four more yards before being pulled down.

RULING: Legal in (a) and (b); illegal horse-collar foul in (c) because runner subsequently went down because of the horse-collar foul.

Correct. Think of the intent of the rule. It's to prevent a defender from grabbing a runner from behind when the runner is at full speed and suddenly pulling him backwards creating serious injury potential to his knees. The rule is broader than that, but that's the gist of what it's addressing. If a defender grabs the horse collar and someone else tackles him, the backward buckling action doesn't occur. It's just a normal tackle. The act of grabbing the horse collar isn't what's dangerous by itself.

[AlUpstateNY]

Per the casebook, if one player grabs the collar and another player actually makes the tackle, no foul.

9.4.3 SITUATION N:

A1 is running in the open field and B1 grabs A1's shoulder pad opening from behind and pulls and:

(a) A1 does not go down from the contact;
(b) B2 comes in and tackles A1 while still in B1's grasp; or
(c) A1 runs four more yards before being pulled down.

RULING: Legal in (a) and (b); illegal horse-collar foul in (c) because runner subsequently went down because of the horse-collar foul.

Considering that ADDED detail, the 2019 Case Book provides in, (b) "B2 comes in and tackles A1....." and  "(c) A1 runs four more yards before being pulled down.", I'd fully agree with the Case Book explanation.

As suggested above, "Think of the intent of the rule. It's to prevent a defender from grabbing a runner from behind when the runner is at full speed and suddenly pulling him backwards creating serious injury potential to his knees."