Defining a "tackle". Rule application

In the BC-HAM game, a Ti-Cat player was called for "horse collar tackle".

From my opinion, the tackle was made clean, after slowing up the runner by grabbing the jersey. The "tackle" was not made via the horse collar.

The rule says:

(k) Tackling an opponent by grabbing the inside collar of the side or back of the shoulder pads, or jersey.
It does NOT say, "Grabbing", but rather says "tackling"

Had the BC player escaped after the grab of the jersey, could you possibly say the runner was "tackled" by the horse collar?

I saw it too he started on the horse caller then corrected it make a high tackle but no longer a horse collar . Not sure if the rule was applied correctly .

I saw that as well, and wondered if it was a horse collar tackle.

I can only assume, that in the interests of player safety, that even slowing a player up by grabbing the horse collar area, necessitates the penalty call...

The coach didn't protest. When the players was running down the field the defender should have tried to wrap his arms around the receivers legs to tackle him but that was impossible it was likely that he would have run in for the TD.

" defender tackles another player by grabbing the back collar and/or the back-inside of an opponent's shoulder pads and pulling the ball carrier directly downward in order to pull his feet from underneath him"

That's like a guy who "started" with a facemask grab but then let go and made the tackle.

Except the facemask call does not require a tackle it is called no matter if the tackle is made or not . If he escapes and is face masked the call is still made . It doesn't matter if it was an accident while the horse collar tackle is an outlawed
tackle . You can't hurt someone by touching the equipment alone but you could if you drag him down with that tackle technique . I think the official was being cautious for the safety of the players but is not necessarily the spirit of the rule when it was written .

While were at it what about Maher's kick that goes out of bounds after a deflection from the opposition and is penalized . That is a strange CFL rule .

IMO as soon as that carrier's momentum is at all swung by the tug then the dangerous action has gone far enough and it is a penalty. You can tackle someone without bringing them down.....Tackling is an action, not a result. I agree with A51 even though it might not be a perfect comparison....it is close enough. You CAN hurt someone by grabbing equipment without bringing them down...that is why facemasking, illegal hands to the face and horsecollaring are often called w/o a completed tackle...though horsecollaring is not called as often

My feeling is when he initially touched the collar he was going to get called but the thread creator is asking if he escaped is it still a call . The tackle is missing ? That's where I think it is no longer a call . It looked like he escaped for a second when the player readjusted so to me it was a judgement call and the ref sided with safety first for the player. In this case the player let go but the tackle was still made so he sided that the initial contact was illegal to slow the player down and deserved a penalty .

That's where it is different than hands to the face or facemasking . In the rules it actual brings up tackling technique .
You could do the others without a tackle being made and still get penalized.

Yes, that is a strange one. The rule book defines a kick from scrimmage as any kicked ball that crosses the line of scrimmage, deflected or not. The penalty is for when a kick from scrimmage goes out of bounds in flight. But there is no exception for a deflected kick, which seems odd. If the returner touches the ball and it then goes out of bounds, there's no penalty. But a deflected kick goes out, a flag is thrown.

Basically, the action of the defender (the last player to touch the ball) directly results in a penalty to the kicking team. I'm thinking that's the only case where that's possible.

Thanks for replying I thought I was the only one seeing this .