Horse Collar?

[TXMike]

You make the call

[yt=425,350]Vey6f0gfavs[/yt]

[ballhog]

Looks like the hand is outside the jersey on the back and not in the pad or neck.

[TxBJ]

Spun him around rather than an immediate pull down so I say no foul.

[MJT]

Buckles the legs and I would say that it is an immediate pull down and turns him in the process. IMO, good call. The buckling of the legs is a big key, and we have been told to error on the side of safety on a HC call.

[110]

The Canadian keys for the HC call are to observe if grasping the shoulder pads/inside of the jersey changes the direction of the opponent - and in this case, it clearly does.

 

[BankerRef]

Defender is not chasing, initial contact is from the side with one hand in front and one in back.  I've got nothing but a good tackle.

[Kalle]

IMO, if you flag this, you are basically disallowing a defender from grasping the jersey in the process of making a tackle.

[Atlanta Blue]

IMO, if you flag this, you are basically disallowing a defender from grasping the jersey in the process of making a tackle.

If you are talking about the collar of the jersey, then yes, that is exactly what he is disallowed from doing.

Defender is not chasing,

Doesn't matter.

initial contact is from the side

Doesn't matter.

with one hand in front and one in back.

Doesn't matter.

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.

Did the defender grab the inside back collar of the jersey?  Video isn’t definitive, but close enough that the benefit of the doubt goes to the covering official.
Did the defender immediately pull the ball carrier down when doing so?  Sure did.

That’s a horse collar foul.

[MJT]

IMO, if you flag this, you are basically disallowing a defender from grasping the jersey in the process of making a tackle.

If he has the jersey and not inside the collar, then yes, but if he is inside the collar, then it is a horse collar tackle.

Edited after AB's post.  Didn't see your post AB, but that is exactly what I'm saying!!

[centexsports]

Based on our training and the definition we were given, this is not a HC foul.   The key in the training we were given is straight down backward and immediate.   The purpose of the rule is to prevent the collaspe of the knees backward to stop ACL and other knee injuries not to stop players from tackling with the collar.   

If the goal was to stop tackling with the collar then they should just make it a penalty to tackle with the collar completely.   Nobody tackles with the collar in the front anyway.

We had one Friday night and it was very similar to the one shown here,   We did not flag it and I agreed 100%.

[Kalle]

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.

I read this language that you have to pull down immediately from the start of the contact, not when you (first) grab the collar. If your reading is right, this would be a horse collar foul:

A33 is running close to the sideline. At A-40 B90 grabs the front of the jersey and slows A33 down. At A-50 B90 grabs the back collar of the A33's jersey and immediately pulls him down.

[MJT]

Based on our training and the definition we were given, this is not a HC foul.   The key in the training we were given is straight down backward and immediate.   The purpose of the rule is to prevent the collaspe of the knees backward to stop ACL and other knee injuries not to stop players from tackling with the collar.   

If the goal was to stop tackling with the collar then they should just make it a penalty to tackle with the collar completely.   Nobody tackles with the collar in the front anyway.

We had one Friday night and it was very similar to the one shown here,   We did not flag it and I agreed 100%.

Was your training for college or HS? I believe there was a collapse of the knees in the play provided. No where in the rule book does it say it must be "straight down backward."

Our HS and college both would want this one to be called a HC tackle, but do as you are instructed by your supervisor.

[Atlanta Blue]

I read this language that you have to pull down immediately from the start of the contact, not when you (first) grab the collar. If your reading is right, this would be a horse collar foul:

A33 is running close to the sideline. At A-40 B90 grabs the front of the jersey and slows A33 down. At A-50 B90 grabs the back collar of the A33's jersey and immediately pulls him down.

Yes, that would be a horse collar tackle.  There is nothing that says the "immediate" must come from the initial contact, but from the initial grabbing of the collar.

[Curious]

Yes, that would be a horse collar tackle.  There is nothing that says the "immediate" must come from the initial contact, but from the initial grabbing of the collar.

Remember, at least in HS, if there is other contact by the defense, there is no HCT.  Our guidance (Michigan) is that it matters not if the "other contact" is before or after the "grabbing of the collar".

What difference, if any, does this additional contact have in NCAA?

[BankerRef]

Blue, the criteria I have been given by those higher than me include several points to look for in assisting with a horse collar call.  Like many philosophies or interpretations these are not found verbatim in the rule book.  While not all inclusive of the horse collar philosophies the ones most related to this play include the position of the tackler (he should be chasing and not in front) and whether there is any other point of contact (if there is contact before the collar is grabbed we almost certainly don't have anything). 

As I was initially watching the video clip I thought he was flagging Blue #40 for a block in the back, which I also would let go on this play.

[Atlanta Blue]

Remember, at least in HS, if there is other contact by the defense, there is no HCT. 

That is not necessarily true.  The official must judge whether the tackle was the result of the additional contact or the pull at the collar.  Just because there is additional contact does NOT remove the possibility of the horse collar.  This is straight from the NFHS pre-season presentation.

[scottv]

As I was initially watching the video clip I thought he was flagging Blue #40 for a block in the back, which I also would let go on this play.

While I like to think I'd pass on both fouls -I think if I had to had to pick one to call it would be the BIB.

[Etref]

I definitely pass on this one. Not a horse collar at all.

[MJT]

I definitely pass on this one. Not a horse collar at all.

And your reasoning is?

[TXMike]

It appears the only ones saying this was a "good call" are MJT and AB.  I believe both of you are from states where NFHS rules are used and I wonder if those rules have any influence on your decision on this NCAA rules play?  I don't see how this can be a foul if the action in this clip is not a foul:

[yt=425,350]Df8hURR9pMY[/yt]

[Curious]

That is not necessarily true.  The official must judge whether the tackle was the result of the additional contact or the pull at the collar.  Just because there is additional contact does NOT remove the possibility of the horse collar.  This is straight from the NFHS pre-season presentation.

Respectfully, AB, and without the benefit of having seen the NFHS pre-season presentation, I have only Case Book 9.4.3 Sit M (b) to go on.

"A1 is running...B1 grabs A1's shoulder pad opening from behind and: (b) B2 comes in and tackles A1 while still in B1's grasp. Ruling: Legal".

AND, of course, how we have been told to interpret the rule.....

Is the NFHS pre-season presentation is available on-line or somewhere else?

[MJT]

It appears the only ones saying this was a "good call" are MJT and AB.  I believe both of you are from states where NFHS rules are used and I wonder if those rules have any influence on your decision on this NCAA rules play?  I don't see how this can be a foul if the action in this clip is not a foul:

Mike, I would call both a HC foul. I officiate HS Federation as well as college up to the D1 level. If you agree that the hand was inside the collar, I don't know how you could say they are not HC fouls? As AB said, the rule says "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." It does not say "they must be in chase mode," and I have not heard that at any clinic I have attended, or from our supervisors. I have also not heard "if there is any other point of contact, it is not a HC foul." What I have heard from my supervisors is that it is a "safety foul" and we want to error on the side of safety. This is why I can guarantee a flag on those 2 plays would be supported, if not given an upgrade.

[TXMike]

I say no foul on the orig one because the force was not exerted straight don from the back or side. Rather the player was turned around and essentially brought down like he would have been had the grasp been on front of collar anmd pulled straight down. That is not a foul so neither should this be.

[MJT]

Not a problem to disagree. I know I would be supported in calling both of those a horse collar foul.

[Chester]

I've got a horse collar tackle on both of these plays as well. There is a little gray area on the first one but, I believe, you'd get supported 100% if you call the second one.