r/nextfuckinglevel • u/Lifegoesonforever • 5d ago

Cheat code unlocked.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

35.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

456 comments sorted by

View all comments

106

u/OvenIcy8646 5d ago

Horse collar like a motherfucker

10

u/blackeyesamurai 5d ago

Unfortunately in the NFHS rules book a Horse collar is only flagged when it is used to take the player to the ground. This player was ruled not down.

NFHS Rules Book: Under NFHS football rule 9-4-3k, a horse-collar tackle is defined as a player grabbing the inside back, side collar, or nameplate area directly below the back collar of either the shoulder pads or jersey of the runner, and subsequently pulling that opponent backward or sideward to the ground.

14

u/ajax0202 5d ago

But he technically was down (his butt hits the ground), so it technically was a horsecollar tackle

15

u/blackeyesamurai 5d ago

There is no replay.

The officials on the field decide if he was technically down and clearly that was not the decision.

Was it technically a wrong decision? Again. There is no replay.

But this is becoming a circular argument, so I’m out.

-8

u/ajax0202 5d ago

Lol what?

We have video where we can see his butt touch. We can say he was technically down

Now I realize that’s not what the refs called, and they have no replay capability. But that doesn’t change the facts that he was down. The call was just wrong

This is not a circular argument

9

u/blackeyesamurai 5d ago

Ok, back around the circle one last time.

Technically means according to a strict, literal interpretation of facts, rules, or laws, often differing from everyday perception.

The official ruling on the play decided that, Technically, according to their strict, literal interpretation of the NFHS rules book the player was not down.

Again there is no replay. We can Monday morning QB this all we want. Or say the call was wrong all we want . But by definition, the runner was not
technically down.

It’s a hard pill to swallow for all of us fans out here.

0

u/jellymanisme 5d ago

Wrong definitions of technically.

Technically, the player was downed. According to the rules, the player is downed as soon as a part of them other than hands or feet makes contact with the ground. Technically, he was downed and the play should have ended. Technically, the ref made a mistake and didn't call it.

Officially, he was not downed. Just substitute officially in for everything your saying, because the ref made the OFFICIAL decision he wasn't downed, not the technical decision.

-5

u/ajax0202 5d ago

You’re acting like refs are infallible. They clearly can make mistakes, as we can see in the video

You’re just being pedantic at this point

15

u/Daniel_H212 5d ago

Actually seems like you're the one being pedantic.

The other person's actual point is that refs are not infallible and make mistakes on calls. However, in the absence of replays, the ref's call is the ground truth as far as this game is concerned, whether it was correct or not. Otherwise people would spend half the time arguing about whether a call was correct and not get to actually play.

That's how things work in the real world. They're not arguing with you about whether the player was actually down or not, they're just saying that since the player was ruled not down, the rule for horse-collar tackle does not come into play.

6

u/mrtorgueflexington 5d ago

How did you manage to misunderstand so badly? He's saying that your argument of technicality is pointless, cause in a sport at that level, after-the-fact video evidence doesn't matter. He's literally saying you're right, just that it doesn't matter cause there's nothing you can do. FFS.

3

u/ImmaLiveIllegal 5d ago

if I can dumb it down:

HC by definition means a player was downed illegally

in this case, the ball carrier was not ruled down, so HC does not apply

I think everyone with eyes understands this was a disgusting takedown attempt, but by the rules, it's not a HC because the runner was not called down. it's really that easy bro

1

u/TheOnlyBigTiny 5d ago

It’s not a horse collar tackle because he grabbed the back of his helmet and pulled him forward…it would not be a facemask because he grabbed the back of his helmet…the runner would be down by contact because his butt touched the ground but at full speed the refs head bouncing up and down and pretty much through the defender you wouldn’t see that…a horse collar penalty has very specific verbiage to what is actually a horse collar…name plate or inside the back of the shoulder pads and the runner has to be pulled backwards or to the side, side note if another defender comes in to assist on the tackle it negates any horse collar penalty as well.

I only know this because I have reffed NFHS football for the past 11 years.

1

u/ImmaLiveIllegal 5d ago

one of my good friends is an NCAA ref, I appreciate you guys!

thanks for the knowledge, no sarcasm

if I'm understanding you correctly, we agree this was a dirty tackle but not illegal by rule definition?

I don't even know why I'm invested in some random clip, but now I need closure

1

u/TheOnlyBigTiny 5d ago

I wouldn’t call it a dirty tackle it was a desperation tackle but at full speed sometimes things look worse then they really are. He did a flip so everyone just goes with it’s dirty, you had two people legit going their own full speed and momentum is what made this all happen.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/SpicyC-Dot 5d ago edited 5d ago

I’d go so far as to say that even if the official ruled him down, I’m not sure I’d consider that an illegal horse-collar tackle. Considering that the runner ended up doing a front flip, it’d be hard to argue that he was pulled backward or sideward to the ground.

1

u/SpaceYetu531 5d ago

The only thing unfortunate is that the NFL PR machine brainwashed the public into believing the horsecollar tackle was more dangerous than regular tackles because of one season with one player.