From the NFHS...

 

In Rule 9-4-3k, the committee approved a clarification to the horse-collar rule. The wording in the definition of a horse-collar was changed to address situations when player possession was lost or the ball became dead by rule after the back or side of the jersey collar/shoulder pads were grasped.

 

“Under the previous rule, if the horse-collar occurred inbounds, but the tackle was completed out of bounds, in the end zone or after a loss of player possession, a horse-collar foul could not be called as the player was no longer a runner,” said Bob Colgate, NFHS assistant director and liaison to both the Football Rules Committee and the SMAC. “The wording was modified to ensure that a horse-collar foul could be called even if the runner no longer had possession of the ball or the ball became dead by rule.”

 

~~~

 

Under the original rule the problem was a conflict with definitions. When a runner lost possesison of the ball, went out of bounds, or crossed the goal line, he stopped being a runner. The horse collar rule only applied to tackling the runner. So if the tackle started before and finished after the runner stopped being a runner, then no foul. This has been resolved in the new rule.

If this rule is going to be enforced properly, it should be illegal to grab the top/back of the shoulder pads, the way it was written it was constantly enforced differently. Maybe you can expound on that. Last year if one player grabbed the "Horse Collar" and another player finished the tackle it was not seen as a violation, and if the tackle was completed out of bounds it was not a foul. But, many officials enforces it differently, I even seen it enforces on a person who was not a ball carrier - a fake hand off and one player tackled the non-ball carrier using the horse collar and was flagged for it. I also seen it enforced on the offense once, just crazy.

 

It needs to be clarified.

This rule is very hard to enforce in KY High School, from what I saw last year. Too many horse collar calls that weren't really horse collars.

This rule is very hard to enforce in KY High School, from what I saw last year. Too many horse collar calls that weren't really horse collars.

 

:thumb:Amen!

The rule makes it illegal to tackle a runner by grasping the back or side collar (jersey or shoulder pads) and pulling the runner down. If B1 grabbed the horse-collar, and B2 wrapped the player around his legs, no horse-collar would be called. There should not be a horse-collar foul when more than one defender is involved in the tackle.

 

There may also have been confusion about how this should be called since the NCAA and NFHS rules were slightly different. Many people, coaches, players, officials and fans were potentially confused about what was or was not a horse-collar foul. This new rule, and another year, should provide more consistent calls.

 

I agree there were incorrect calls and incorrect no-calls. As officials become more accustomed to this rule, they'll get better at making the right call/no-call. Practice does make for better officiating as well as for players.

Officials will always give the defense some room when reacting to fake runners. Afterall, the fake is designed for that very purpose, to make the defense think the wrong player has the ball. If a horse-collar tackle is made against a non-runner, it would not be a horse-collar foul, but still could be holding or unnecessary roughness.

The rule makes it illegal to tackle a runner by grasping the back or side collar (jersey or shoulder pads) and pulling the runner down.

 

Is pulling the player down by the jersey only really a horse collar? If the runner has a baggy jersey and the defender grasp at anything and he pulls all jersey near the middle to back of runner, is that still a horse collar?

Is pulling the player down by the jersey only really a horse collar? If the runner has a baggy jersey and the defender grasp at anything and he pulls all jersey near the middle to back of runner, is that still a horse collar?

 

If the defender grabs the back or side of the collar, jersey or shoulder pads, and pulls the runner down by that, then yes it is. If he grabs loose jersey other than at the collar, then no.

Officials will always give the defense some room when reacting to fake runners. Afterall, the fake is designed for that very purpose, to make the defense think the wrong player has the ball. If a horse-collar tackle is made against a non-runner, it would not be a horse-collar foul, but still could be holding or unnecessary roughness.

 

Rule 2-32, Article 13 . . . A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball. Therefore you can have a horse-collar tackle on a player carrying out a fake.

Rule 2-32, Article 13 . . . A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball. Therefore you can have a horse-collar tackle on a player carrying out a fake.

 

Technically yes. However, this would be a tough call to make. Here's why. A fake runner is typically discovered rather quickly. If a tackler has the fake runner in his grasp, it does not take long to learn he does not have the ball. Allowances must be made by officials for this delay in learning where the ball is and is not.

 

I have heard many coaches complain about the fake runner being tackled, and they want us to call a foul for tackling a player who does not have the ball. We must allow for the defense to learn who has the ball and who does not. However, if the contact against the fake runner is unnecessarily rough, we can have another foul, but that is not usually the case.