Horse collar tackle

[Rovers]

You almost sound like you're gloating when you say 27 NFL owners agree with you. Congratulations, go buy yourself something special!

 

An excellent idea! Um, I was gloating. I still am. I probably would not have, but after having my opinion called idiotic, downright silly and lame, to mention but a few, sure, I'm gloating. put that in yer pipe!

[BS Miscreant]

Once you have two hands on his pads, he is absolutely defenseless, and to say otherwise is downright silly. The vote? 27 to 5. nuff said.  :violin:

 

822905[/snapback]

 

 

 

Oh, I get it. You're saying that as soon as a defender has two hands on someone's pads they should be declared "in the grasp" and subsequently declared down. It all makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification.

[max]

Personally, I dont like the rule either. It isnt like grabbing the face mask. As stated earlier if someone is in open field and going for 6 just do it and take the 15 yards.

[BS Miscreant]

Personally, I dont like the rule either.  It isnt like grabbing the face mask.  As stated earlier if someone is in open field and going for 6 just do it and take the 15 yards.

 

822944[/snapback]

 

 

 

Well put. The same thing happens with pass interference. You give up the yards but no TD. It has little or nothing to do with players being defenseless rather a penalty for hindering the scoring and marketing of the game.

[Fatman]

Even Roy Williams has acknowledged that there are other ways to make a tackle from behind.

 

822841[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

For the sake of argument, how else? It always appeared to me that, in the TO tackle, that was the only way Williams was going to be able to make the play - TO was turning up field and if Roy couldn't tackle him they way that he did, he would be past him. What else could he have done

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

A good receiver (or RB for that matter) can and will shake/juke someone off thats trying to grab and tackle them up high on the shoulders most of the time. The Diving for the leg/waist can be defended just as easily. None of these are as effective as grabbing the collar. It gives the tackler something to hold on to, and a better chance of making the tackle.

 

So it's tackle them any way they can or let them cruise on into the endzone. Any player that chooses the latter will soon find them selfs out of a job.

 

So in my (feeble) mind, the receiver should

 

a. Run Faster

b. Fall Down

 

In fact, why should the responsibility be on the tackler, why shouldn't it be on the tacklee. They should fall down and give up. If they don't they get the flag. Since Roy Wiliams is knee hunting, and I'm sure that TO was planned (I have heard that Parcells does post bounties on certain players). Then the receiver should be forced to fall down and give up before being tackled.

 

[cmoore]

Well put.  The same thing happens with pass interference.  You give up the yards but no TD.  It has little or nothing to do with players being defenseless rather a penalty for hindering the scoring and marketing of the game.

 

822948[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I would disagree, it has everything to do with TO going out for the season. Owners don't want their star players injured for the season...which does have to do with said marketing issues. But the rule has more to do with protecting players than concern over loss of TDs. The loss of TDs comes in to play when TO is on the bench. That's a loss of TDs.

 

I think most of the more recent rules that people like/dislike revolve around keeping star players on the field and not so much with the scoring "conspiracy" theories. The obvious exception is the DB 5-yard hands rule.

Edited May 26, 2005 by cmoore

[gspot]

Just another restriction on the defensive player...the NFL won't be happy until game scores are 99-100.

 

822580[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, they allow cut-blocking, which a much higher probabilty for injury, because it allows the offense an advantage. You can't touch a QB, hit with your head, or bump a receiver.

 

The NFL is walking down a very slipper slope which eventually leads to a boring 2-hand touch game.

 

FA, the cap, and expansion have reduced the quality of play, which is why sustained offensive drives are a rarity. The horrible offensive play and constant flags make me sick.

 

This rule is horrible. Its tackle football for heavens sake. You can grab a guy by his hair to take him down, but not his collar. What next?

[BS Miscreant]

I would disagree, it has everything to do with TO going out for the season. Owners don't want their star players injured for the season...which does have to do with said marketing issues. But the rule has more to do with protecting players than concern over loss of TDs. The loss of TDs comes in to play when TO is on the bench. That's a loss of TDs.

 

823173[/snapback]

 

 

 

No where did I say it didn't have anything to do with TO going out for the season. In fact, if TO doesn't go down then this rule discussion never takes place. TO was injured during the playoffs and less than 100% in the Superbowl which is bad for the game. In other words, scoring and marketing.

It has little or nothing to do with players being defenseless rather a penalty for hindering scoring and the marketing of the game.

 

822948[/snapback]

 

 

 

Also, I did not mention protecting players because I had mentioned it already in a previous post.(below)

the argument to protect players is one thing but to call a ball carrier defenseless is just downright silly.

 

822890[/snapback]

 

 

 

[cmoore]

You agreed with it NOT being like a facemask and that it had nothing to do with them being defenseless, right? I am saying I disagree and that it does have to do with a player being defenseless...that's how they are getting hurt. Now what defenseless means is debateable. I don't think they totally are, but that's what the NFL is calling it. Them being hurt ultimately leads to the scoring, marketing and other things that I think we agree that are bad overall.

Edited May 27, 2005 by cmoore

[Retrograde assault]

I'm all for the NFL being a kinder, gentler league.

[WhereAreMyRedShoes!]

I think it's funny all the Cowboy fans hate this rule. Just because their star defender is a habitual horse collar tackler. I don't think it would be that big of a deal if Roy didn't throw all his body weight on the back of peoples legs while he is preforming this kind of tackle.

[Retrograde assault]

We were grabbing collars on the play ground 40 years ago, don't have nothing to do with Roy, Dallas or the price of eggs. Its a stupid rule and its sure to be followed by more stupid rules imo.

[budlitebrad]

Blame people like TO for landing like a f'n 'tard.

Edited May 29, 2005 by budlitebrad

[max]

I still can't stand this new rule.

 

I can see a lot of WR's getting called for this after an INT. Most WR's arent going to do a text book tackle after an INT takes place. They just grab any part of the uniform thay can to bring them down. When the WR's do it people dont consider it a "dirty tackle".