NCAA Horse Collar tackle rule

[uihawk82]

From the 2019 Rule Book:

Horse Collar Tackle ARTICLE 15. All players are prohibited from grabbing the inside back collar of the shoulder pads or jersey, the nameplate area, 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). Note that the tackle box disintegrates when the ball leaves it.

The Nebby player did do this penalty, did grab inside the back collar of the shoulder pads and immediately used that grab to pull Sargent down. I have no idea why the officials thought or interpreted this rule to mean that if the runner still goes forward there is no foul. That wording is not in the rule book. Poor officiating for not knowing the rule or lame excuse for picking up a flag.

I just wanted to clarify for all the fans and I did learn that if you grab the horse collar but not use it to tackle and probably quickly release that grab they could decide to not call it or pick up the flag.

 

[4thngoal]

Yup.

 

[uihawk82]

And even grabbing just the jersey in this area and using it to tackle is a penalty.

 

[iloveyoularrystation]

Which is why it was originally called by the side judge, but wiped away from the white hat who clearly had an agenda yesterday. Everyone of the calls that were suspect were originally called for the hawks, replays show they were pretty clearly legitimately called, and yet overturned. That horsecollar, the ragaini catch, the targeting.....all originally called as they should have been, replay supported those calls, and yet white hat...…..

 

[clownkilla]

Vegas.

 

[GesterHawk]

Vegas.

No, the Big Ten.

 

[judzeehawk]

The Big Ten wants the fuskers to be sooooooooo relevant they'll do just about anything to make it happen. Makes you wonder what kind of crap is going on over at fuskerville. Ol Frosty looks like he's super shady.

 

[tksirius]

The Big Ten wants the fuskers to be sooooooooo relevant they'll do just about anything to make it happen. Makes you wonder what kind of crap is going on over at fuskerville. Ol Frosty looks like he's super shady.

This is why I wouldn't be surprised if they get a bowl invite with 5 wins.

 

[okeefe4prez]

No, the Big Ten.

Agreed. I think the conference won't fill its allotment this year and Nebraska getting to 6 wins would have been another 7 figure payday for the conference.

 

[GesterHawk]

This is why I wouldn't be surprised if they get a bowl invite with 5 wins.

The Big Ten will push hard for them if they have to fill with 5-7 teams. They will be like "Look how close they were to beating top 15 Iowa (I am guessing we will be top.15 come Tuesday). They were one bad illegal blocking play away from winning."

 

[4thngoal]

The Big Ten will push hard for them if they have to fill with 5-7 teams. They will be like "Look how close they were to beating top 15 Iowa (I am guessing we will be top.15 come Tuesday). They were one bad illegal blocking play away from winning."

Right, but I think MSU would beat Nebraska and they are trying to get a bowl also.
I would think they would want the better of the two teams struggling to make a bowl to actually make a bowl.

 

[loesshillshawk]

The Big Ten will push hard for them if they have to fill with 5-7 teams. They will be like "Look how close they were to beating top 15 Iowa (I am guessing we will be top.15 come Tuesday). They were one bad illegal blocking play away from winning."

They are not going to a bowl there will be enough 6 win teams.

 

[GesterHawk]

Right, but I think MSU would beat Nebraska and they are trying to get a bowl also.
I would think they would want the better of the two teams struggling to make a bowl to actually make a bowl.

I really think they would want Nebby to go, they haven't been bowl eligible for 3 years. If you bring in a shitty academic "blue blood" against almost all the Presidents in the Big Ten saying no, you at least want them to become relevant at some point.

 

[GesterHawk]

They are not going to a bowl there will be enough 6 win teams.

I agree, only 3 5 win teams have to win today to make it so.
But the B10 really wanted one of those to be Nebby.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

From the 2019 Rule Book:

Horse Collar Tackle ARTICLE 15. All players are prohibited from grabbing the inside back collar of the shoulder pads or jersey, the nameplate area, 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). Note that the tackle box disintegrates when the ball leaves it.

The Nebby player did do this penalty, did grab inside the back collar of the shoulder pads and immediately used that grab to pull Sargent down. I have no idea why the officials thought or interpreted this rule to mean that if the runner still goes forward there is no foul. That wording is not in the rule book. Poor officiating for not knowing the rule or lame excuse for picking up a flag.

I just wanted to clarify for all the fans and I did learn that if you grab the horse collar but not use it to tackle and probably quickly release that grab they could decide to not call it or pick up the flag.

I agree that the officials were terrible yesterday, but, to be fair, I didn't have an issue with that overturn.

It was implemented as a safety issue. Grabbing by the back of the collar and pulling the player down usually results in the player folding back on himself. In this situation, the defender began to pull then let up. It's a borderline judgement call, but I was okay with the reversal when I saw the replay.

 

[GesterHawk]

I agree that the officials were terrible yesterday, but, to be fair, I didn't have an issue with that overturn.

It was implemented as a safety issue. Grabbing by the back of the collar and pulling the player down usually results in the player folding back on himself. In this situation, the defender began to pull then let up. It's a borderline judgement call, but I was okay with the reversal when I saw the replay.

But that is the thing, he was brought down by the defender grabbing the collar/name plate area. At that point, it should not be a judgement call.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

But that is the thing, he was brought down by the defender grabbing the collar/name plate area. At that point, it should not be a judgement call.

He was brought down, but not by bending him backwards. I think that's the spirit of the rule, which is why it was reversed. I'd have been okay if they hadn't reversed it too, but, I get why they did it.

 

[dagdaj]

It is unpossible to pull someone forward...from behind.

 

[uihawk82]

He was brought down, but not by bending him backwards. I think that's the spirit of the rule, which is why it was reversed. I'd have been okay if they hadn't reversed it too, but, I get why they did it.

First there is nothing stated in the rule book about bending the runner backwards.

It is just like the rule for grabbing a facemask or the ear hole or under the helmet to slow down or tackle a runner or another player. You cant grab the helmet.

And the tackle on Sargent could have just as easily torqued his knee or ankle by using the pad collar to whip him around like he was whipped around.

If a hawk did the same thing I would expect a penalty.

As someone said the head ref White Hat wanted to pick up that flag

 

[ssckelley]

I agree that the officials were terrible yesterday, but, to be fair, I didn't have an issue with that overturn.

It was implemented as a safety issue. Grabbing by the back of the collar and pulling the player down usually results in the player folding back on himself. In this situation, the defender began to pull then let up. It's a borderline judgement call, but I was okay with the reversal when I saw the replay.

To be fair? It was an ILLEGAL tackle. Period, there is no "being fair"!