Horse Collar?

[TXMike]

Sometimes the announcers DO have half a clue..

[yt=425,350]72qgRf1J1pU[/yt]

[Atlanta Blue]

That's not even CLOSE to a horse collar.  Someone may have just lost their bowl assignment on that call.

[TXMike]

I would hope that is NOT the result of the call.  Guys are being beaten up about erring on the side of safety and HC is clearly a safety foul.   Allegedly the refs are going to be supported if they make a safety call that turns out to be incorrect.  Taking away a bowl assignmnet would not be showing support.

[Atlanta Blue]

I would hope that is NOT the result of the call.  Guys are being beaten up about erring on the side of safety and HC is clearly a safety foul.   Allegedly the refs are going to be supported if they make a safety call that turns out to be incorrect.  Taking away a bowl assignmnet would not be showing support.

I don't know anything about the Big East officials, so I can't say what the outcome might be.  And yes, I understand erring on the side of safety.  But the R, who threw the flag, was trailing the play and had a CLEAR view of what was grabbed.  The defender missed the runner's collar by at least 6", he grabbed the number.  So either R made a huge mistake in judging what he saw, OR he didn't see it clearly and ASSUMED the grab was at the collar.

Huge mistakes in judgment, or calling what you ASSUMED and didn't see are major demerits on the post game report, and will drop your ranking considerably.  It's not that the call will automatically take away a bowl assignment, but it's the kind of demerit that gets you knocked down the list far enough so you don't get one.



But I do appreciate your grabbing all of these videos!

[NVFOA_Ump]

Real problem here is the phantom call.  Somebody saw the result of the tackle, made an assumption or two, and then based on the assumptions made a call.  We've been told multiple times by our commissioner that doing that is much worse than simply missing a call.

[110]

Real problem here is the phantom call.  Somebody saw the result of the tackle, made an assumption or two, and then based on the assumptions made a call.  We've been told multiple times by our commissioner that doing that is much worse than simply missing a call.

I've seen rookie officials take passes on plays just like this, and later explain the philosophy and application perfectly. This is a poor call. I wonder if someone was obscured?

[yteside]

FYI...Big East Officials are supervised by Terry McCauley (NFL White Hat).  I guarantee you he has this play and a conversation has taken place.  What was said, I haven't the faintest clue.  This White Hat, can't place his name, usually is top notch.

[Chester]

I don't know anything about the Big East officials, so I can't say what the outcome might be.  And yes, I understand erring on the side of safety.  But the R, who threw the flag, was trailing the play and had a CLEAR view of what was grabbed.  The defender missed the runner's collar by at least 6", he grabbed the number.  So either R made a huge mistake in judging what he saw, OR he didn't see it clearly and ASSUMED the grab was at the collar.

Huge mistakes in judgment, or calling what you ASSUMED and didn't see are major demerits on the post game report, and will drop your ranking considerably.  It's not that the call will automatically take away a bowl assignment, but it's the kind of demerit that gets you knocked down the list far enough so you don't get one.

You know this from experience?    If that's the case then none of us would ever work past the regular season because we've all had incorrect calls.   Come on man.  Give the guy a break. 

[ABoselli]

Jerry McGinn

[yteside]

That's right...why can't I remember his name.

[cperezprg]

Am I missing something?

All players are prohibited 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 ball carrier down. This does
not apply to a ball carrier, including a potential passer, who is inside the
tackle box (Rule 2-34).

I don't know why you say it's not a foul

[blindref757]

Is it safe to say that the defender didn't grab the inside back collar of the jersey?  He grabbed the outside back number of the jersey.  Might be semantics...this tackle looks just as unsafe as a run of the mill horsecollar even though it might not meet the exact definition.  In real time, I can give the benefit of the doubt to the ref.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Is it safe to say that the defender didn't grab the inside back collar of the jersey?  He grabbed the outside back number of the jersey.  Might be semantics...this tackle looks just as unsafe as a run of the mill horsecollar even though it might not meet the exact definition.  In real time, I can give the benefit of the doubt to the ref.

I thought that we have to officiate using the rules and the rules here require that to be a horse collar foul we have a tackle that starts with grabbing the "...... inside back collar of the shoulder pads or jersey."  Are we suggesting that we add a new "When in doubt ..." here and go with anything that looks like a horsecollar simply because the runner goes down backwards?

[golfingref]

Am I missing something?

All players are prohibited 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 ball carrier down. This does
not apply to a ball carrier, including a potential passer, who is inside the
tackle box (Rule 2-34).

I don't know why you say it's not a foul

"inside back collar of the shoulder pads or (inside back collar of the) jersey"  not just the back of the jersey.

[Fatman325]

I will be the guy taking the opposite side here. We have been instructed that if the knees buckle on a tackle from behind not to be too concerned where the hand actually grabs. The effect on the runner is the same and this is a safety foul.
I think that you could question whether this tackle is "immediate" or not because grabbing the jersey does not snap the runner down, but my guess would be that if this happens to us on saturday that it would be graded as a correct call for HCT.

[KB]

Tackling like that means that the tackler will often fall on the runner's legs, no matter where exactly the grab is.
To make the safety aspect consistent with the wording of the rule, the rule needs to be rewritten.

[Atlanta Blue]

You know this from experience?    If that's the case then none of us would ever work past the regular season because we've all had incorrect calls.   Come on man.  Give the guy a break. 

Not with the Big East, but with the SEC, yes.

Officials are graded each week.  There are minor errors and major ones.  Too many major ones, and your ranking will never support post season work.

[Chester]

Too many major ones gets you fired.  One questionable one just gets you a possible downgrade.  That's it. 

[mishatx]

I will be the guy taking the opposite side here. We have been instructed that if the knees buckle on a tackle from behind not to be too concerned where the hand actually grabs. The effect on the runner is the same and this is a safety foul.
I think that you could question whether this tackle is "immediate" or not because grabbing the jersey does not snap the runner down, but my guess would be that if this happens to us on saturday that it would be graded as a correct call for HCT.

I've heard that too, and it's baloney.  If the rule was meant to be based on how the knees buckle, they should have written it that way.  There's a completely different set of forces involved being pulled down by your pads vs your shirt.