Horsecollar???

[Reliable Source]

Didn't need 8-10 times to see that it WASN'T. a good call. Just wanted to be sure before I advanced that argument. Not arguing about whether it was reviewable, just whether it was the right call. It's a penalty which is now in vogue so the refs are calling it a lot, this time the call was incorrect. Whoever saw a horsecollar, either didn't see the play well, doesn't know the rule or is imagining things. Sorry. But the digits don't lie.

[CPR]

I just went back and watched the replay in slow-mo. My eyes could've deceived me, but it looked like a jersey pull and a wrong call.

[Guest nybullsfan]

Yes, they were, I have seen this replay 8-10 times. It was still nowhere close to being a horse collar foul. The Television coverage at the time said that they could understand how it was called because it was very deceptive, but it was definitely "not" a horse collar. Rewind the tape.I watched the late replay of the game and they said the same thing, go figure. I'm not starting anything but I'm sure watching 10 times in High Def is a little more definitive than watching it once from the 2nd deck.

The rule is as follows:

RULE 9

9-1-2-p (FR-119)

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 runner down. This does not apply to a runner who is inside

the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket.

Didn't happen, here is the replay for anyone who cares to educate themselves.

http://espn.go.com/espn3/player?id=65707&league=NCAAF

Just watched the replay on ESPN3, and even on my "buffering" computer (LOL), it's an obvious horsecollar.

He clearly has ahold of the inside back collar of the jersey.

WTF?

[gobulls83]

That photo is definitive. He's clearly pulling him down by the collar right there.

[Guest Sunburned]

That photo is definitive. He's clearly pulling him down by the collar right there.

It was crystal clear when they showed the replay right after the play...Horse Collar!!!!

[gobulls83]

That photo is definitive. He's clearly pulling him down by the collar right there.

It was crystal clear when they showed the replay right after the play...Horse Collar!!!!

I agree, but there are some here somehow arguing it wasn't one.

[DELdaBull]

Facts don't matter on this board

[Triple B]

Yes, they were, I have seen this replay 8-10 times. It was still nowhere close to being a horse collar foul. The Television coverage at the time said that they could understand how it was called because it was very deceptive, but it was definitely "not" a horse collar. Rewind the tape.I watched the late replay of the game and they said the same thing, go figure. I'm not starting anything but I'm sure watching 10 times in High Def is a little more definitive than watching it once from the 2nd deck.

The rule is as follows:

RULE 9

9-1-2-p (FR-119)

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 runner down. This does not apply to a runner who is inside

the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket.

Didn't happen, here is the replay for anyone who cares to educate themselves.

http://espn.go.com/espn3/player?id=65707&league=NCAAF

Just watched the replay on ESPN3, and even on my "buffering" computer (LOL), it's an obvious horsecollar.

He clearly has ahold of the inside back collar of the jersey.

WTF?

And on my DVR recording, the announcers don't question the call ONE IOTA ... in fact, on the play with the mysterious UC call, Hampton made the play with what the announcers called "a legal tackle this time" ...

The fact that one can watch the replay numerous times and call it nowhere close to a horsecollar is mindboggling ...

[Guest nybullsfan]

Musta been watching a different play, or maybe a whole different game.

[Guest Sunburned]

Yes, they were, I have seen this replay 8-10 times. It was still nowhere close to being a horse collar foul. The Television coverage at the time said that they could understand how it was called because it was very deceptive, but it was definitely "not" a horse collar. Rewind the tape.I watched the late replay of the game and they said the same thing, go figure. I'm not starting anything but I'm sure watching 10 times in High Def is a little more definitive than watching it once from the 2nd deck.

The rule is as follows:

RULE 9

9-1-2-p (FR-119)

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 runner down. This does not apply to a runner who is inside

the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket.

Didn't happen, here is the replay for anyone who cares to educate themselves.

http://espn.go.com/espn3/player?id=65707&league=NCAAF

Just watched the replay on ESPN3, and even on my "buffering" computer (LOL), it's an obvious horsecollar.

He clearly has ahold of the inside back collar of the jersey.

WTF?

And on my DVR recording, the announcers don't question the call ONE IOTA ... in fact, on the play with the mysterious UC call, Hampton made the play with what the announcers called "a legal tackle this time" ...

The fact that one can watch the replay numerous times and call it nowhere close to a horsecollar is mindboggling ...