PDA

View Full Version : NFL Bans "Horse-collar" tackle...(merged)



Predaphin
05-24-2005, 11:46 PM
Cowboys' Williams injured four with tackle in 2004


Williams was the perpetrator in four major incidents, the most notable of which sidelined Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens for the final two games of the regular season and the first two playoff contests.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2067728

:cool:

Martel
05-24-2005, 11:47 PM
Thank god. This should have been done years ago!!!

painnotpleasure
05-25-2005, 04:12 AM
That's going to make things a lot tougher for Defensive Backs, but in terms or preventing injuries, sounds like a good idea...

Slappy8800
05-25-2005, 04:29 AM
No Fun League strikes again...LAME...lets just ban tackling all together since someone can get hurt being tackled

Martel
05-25-2005, 04:44 AM
No Fun League strikes again...LAME...lets just ban tackling all together since someone can get hurt being tackled


It's less fun to see the best players in the league, i.e. T.O., getting injured and missing 6-8 weeks because some sorry db isn't strong enough to tackle him right.

Slappy8800
05-25-2005, 04:50 AM
injuries are part of the game...now if EVERY time someone was tackled liek that they ogt injured I can see outlawing it....

@@@
05-25-2005, 07:27 AM
Shocking rule, its a tough sport get over it just cos a league poster boy gets hurt gotta ban it :shakeno:

HybridPHIN 23
05-25-2005, 09:31 AM
Guess what Football players..... turns out you hafta change the way you play again, or be punished for doing what you've always done. Since the NFL's precious T.O. went down after being tackled from behind by the back(collar) of his shoulder pads....... it's been outlawed. Breaking away from the pack should be a little bit easier now that they hafta clip your racing legs. Look for defenders to be wearing mandatory handcuffs by 2008.

BTW: horse-collar tackles are now personal fouls..... 15 yards.

UltraDol-Fan
05-25-2005, 09:32 AM
good, they hurt a lot of players. You shouldn't be allowed to grab any part of a players equipment like that.

HybridPHIN 23
05-25-2005, 09:34 AM
I agree that it's an awkward tackle and this will prevent a few injuries.. but these guys are trying to change football forever..

phinfan77
05-25-2005, 09:34 AM
okay, how do you tackle someone from behind.

can' grab helmet or shoulder pads, can't hit the legs.

do you have to goose them and hope they drop the ball?

UltraDol-Fan
05-25-2005, 09:36 AM
Actually, you can hit the legs if they are the ball carrier

UltraDol-Fan
05-25-2005, 09:41 AM
As I posted in another thread, I think it's a good ban. If you can't tackle a player the right way, you shouldn't be allowed to grab part of their equipment.

HybridPHIN 23
05-25-2005, 09:43 AM
ok i thought the commisioner determined that Ricky's hair was " part of the uniform" and that it was acceptable to bring him down by his hair. What are the shoulder pads part of ?????

You can't do that without including hair..... it's the same exact concept.

thewicked1isher
05-25-2005, 09:56 AM
THis trend is rapidly leading us towards a new era in football....powder puff!:shakeno:

Noodle Arm
05-25-2005, 09:59 AM
I say they should allow defenders to set up trip wires all across the field.

Coral Reefer
05-25-2005, 10:06 AM
good, they hurt a lot of players. You shouldn't be allowed to grab any part of a players equipment like that.

:lol:

OK

Have you ever played the game?

This isn't like a facemask where it is clearly dangerous if grabbed.
The pads are a part of the body and it is completely rediculous for them to ban this type of tackle. I've tackled people this way and I've been tackled in this way. Myself and none of the people I tackled ever complained or got upset over it.

You can be hurt during ANY tackle and this "horsecollar" tackle is no dangerous than any others IMO.

They are ruining the game with these types of rule changes and it's a shame.

In the imortal words of Jack Lambert after the NFL instituted the "in the grasp" rule for QB's ...... "I think they ought to put dresses on them!"

Coral Reefer
05-25-2005, 10:08 AM
good, they hurt a lot of players. You shouldn't be allowed to grab any part of a players equipment like that.

On another note....

even in flag football you have to grab a players equipment to make a tackle...... rediculous. :shakeno:

inFINSible
05-25-2005, 10:11 AM
Absolutely senseless.

josephreese
05-25-2005, 10:11 AM
If a technique is shown to have an unusually high risk of injury, the technique should be illegal. Intentionally grabbing the facemask is also a 15-yard penalty. So is a leg whip. So is blocking in the back. So are chop blocks. Personally, I'd also like to see Paul Zimmerman's mantra enacted ("No cutting unless you're face up.").

I'm curious whether we have any hard data regarding whether the technique in question poses an unusually high risk of injury.

fishfan34
05-25-2005, 10:22 AM
You can go for the back of a playes legs if he is the ball carrier, I really don't see THAT many horsecollar tackles though to think this is going to affect too much of the game.... you see maybe one ever 2 or 3 games... or at least I do... most of the time I see good solid shoulders squared up tackles and hits.. I wouldn't worry too much about the "Game being changed" simply of this rule change..

finsnchips
05-25-2005, 10:24 AM
its a horrible tackle....

there was a picture of the Roy Williams tackle on one of the Ravens guys on the front of USA Today yesterday. Didn't look pretty.

Oboy
05-25-2005, 10:26 AM
You can go for the back of a playes legs if he is the ball carrier, I really don't see THAT many horsecollar tackles though to think this is going to affect too much of the game.... you see maybe one ever 2 or 3 games... or at least I do... most of the time I see good solid shoulders squared up tackles and hits.. I wouldn't worry too much about the "Game being changed" simply of this rule change..
I agree the game won't change that much.

Just like Pass Interference, if it is the only way to stop the guy it will still be done. Just add a few yards on to the end of the run...

inFINSible
05-25-2005, 10:27 AM
I want to know if it's 15 from the spot of the foul or if it's 15 from the LOS......either way, if it's a TD saving tackle, it's got to be made.

CrunchTime
05-25-2005, 10:27 AM
If they are going too outlaw a play they should outlaw the chop block which is a DT killer.

IMO any play that causes an inordinate number of injuries should be prohibited.Part of Denver's succesful OL an rushing game is due to DL being afraid of the chop and cut blocks.

Lungoystr
05-25-2005, 10:31 AM
:lol:

OK

Have you ever played the game?

This isn't like a facemask where it is clearly dangerous if grabbed.
The pads are a part of the body and it is completely rediculous for them to ban this type of tackle. I've tackled people this way and I've been tackled in this way. Myself and none of the people I tackled ever complained or got upset over it.

You can be hurt during ANY tackle and this "horsecollar" tackle is no dangerous than any others IMO.

They are ruining the game with these types of rule changes and it's a shame.

In the imortal words of Jack Lambert after the NFL instituted the "in the grasp" rule for QB's ...... "I think they ought to put dresses on them!"

Amen Trek! There is a reason they call it a tackle and not a love-tap.

At this rate, defenders will soon have to ask permission from the ball carrier before touching him. :shakeno:

Whatever happened to just knocking the ball carriers socks off? I miss those days. (BTW, I played OLB so you know that I love the big hit.) :wink:

Schleprock
05-25-2005, 10:33 AM
If a technique is shown to have an unusually high risk of injury, the technique should be illegal. Intentionally grabbing the facemask is also a 15-yard penalty. So is a leg whip. So is blocking in the back. So are chop blocks. Personally, I'd also like to see Paul Zimmerman's mantra enacted ("No cutting unless you're face up.").

I'm curious whether we have any hard data regarding whether the technique in question poses an unusually high risk of injury.
The league reviewed tape and 6 tackles of this nature caused serious injury, 4 alone by Roy Williams.

99% of the players in the NFL go their whole career either never hurting someone seriously by tackling them, or only doing it once. For Roy Williams to do it 4 TIMES IN A YEAR is ridiculous, let alone when they happened from a "behind the runner pulldown" and not viscious helmet/shoulder contact on a crossing receiver.

There is a reason why the clothesline was banned, there was a reason why the facemask was banned, there was a reason why the club was banned....those, like this, showed a higher number of injuries occuring from that specific type of action. I really dont' see why so many fans have to pull the "tough guy" or no fun league attitude on this. The game will still go on and won't change it's core entertainment because of this, and hopefully it will cut those 6 serious injuries to 1 or 2.

outlawd2u
05-25-2005, 10:33 AM
This is getting rediculous!!! Pretty soon they are going to ban hitting all together. ::In 2009 The NFL commisioner Employs a new rule that No defender is any longer allowed to use such force that it brings the ball carrier to the ground. Tagliabu promotes the tacticts of politely asking for the ball, and if all else fails the defender is allowed to swat at the ball with an open hand, but if he accidently slaps the ball carriers hand a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty will be strictly enforced::

Lungoystr
05-25-2005, 10:35 AM
If they are going too outlaw a play they should outlaw the chop block which is a DT killer.

IMO any play that causes an inordinate number of injuries should be prohibited.Part of Denver's succesful OL an rushing game is due to DL being afraid of the chop and cut blocks.

The problem is that they are interested in protecting linemen. The league is only interested in protecting their moneymakers.....you know......the stars. Linemen don't put people in the seats. I am certainly not saying that this is right, but it is the truth. It's actually pretty pathetic.

DrAstroZoom
05-25-2005, 10:36 AM
The NFL is once again protecting its poster boys. Had T.O. not been injured, this probably would have gone by the wayside.

Could you, in the same situation, bring someone down by grabbing their jersey?

CRAZYDOLFAN305
05-25-2005, 10:39 AM
Wasn't Bo Jackson hurt that way ??

Lungoystr
05-25-2005, 10:39 AM
The NFL is once again protecting its poster boys. Had T.O. not been injured, this probably would have gone by the wayside.

Could you, in the same situation, bring someone down by grabbing their jersey?

That will be the next to go. It seems only logical as in some cases the mechanics of the tackle would be the same as that just banned.

MoTown Finman
05-25-2005, 10:41 AM
Okay you ban this hit, now what do you do from the back? Jump on there legs? I would think more injuries. I agree by 2009 we will have to ask permission to bring the ball carrier to the hard ground.

DrAstroZoom
05-25-2005, 10:42 AM
That will be the next to go. It seems only logical as in some cases the mechanics of the tackle would be the same as that just banned.

If so, I would have to seriously think about not watching football anymore. That's practically banning tackles from behind altogether. They might as well impose a rule requiring tacklers to secure ball carriers' permission first.

Lungoystr
05-25-2005, 10:42 AM
Wasn't Bo Jackson hurt that way ??

Bo Jackson destroyed his hip I believe. The tackle on him was a good one but it was actually his own strength that caused the dislocation and other damage that ended his football career. It was a freak accident......but then again, Bo Jackson was a freak of nature. Man that guy was awsome.

DrAstroZoom
05-25-2005, 10:42 AM
:roflmao: You beat me to it, MoTown!

Lungoystr
05-25-2005, 10:44 AM
If so, I would have to seriously think about not watching football anymore. That's practically banning tackles from behind altogether. They might as well impose a rule requiring tacklers to secure ball carriers' permission first.

LMAO! See my earlier post:

"Amen Trek! There is a reason they call it a tackle and not a love-tap.

At this rate, defenders will soon have to ask permission from the ball carrier before touching him. :shakeno:

Whatever happened to just knocking the ball carriers socks off? I miss those days. (BTW, I played OLB so you know that I love the big hit.) :wink:"

CRAZYDOLFAN305
05-25-2005, 10:44 AM
Bo Jackson destroyed his hip I believe. The tackle on him was a good one but it was actually his own strength that caused the dislocation and other damage that ended his football career. It was a freak accident......but then again, Bo Jackson was a freak of nature. Man that guy was awsome.

I thought the defender grabed his collar from behind? Maybe I'm wrong. But I like the Idea of banning tackling from the collar..

Lungoystr
05-25-2005, 11:06 AM
I thought the defender grabed his collar from behind? Maybe I'm wrong. But I like the Idea of banning tackling from the collar..

I have looked for a clip from that hit and I can't find one. If I remember correctly (I am prone to Alzheimers moments :wink: ) Kevin Walker hit Jackson from the side. Jackson was still moving his legs and actually dislocated his own hip. This was only the beginning of his hip problems though. He ended up having surgery to repair it and later it was found that due to lack of blood flow to the area, some of the tissue, bone, etc had become necrotic. He ended up having an implant put in.

@@@
05-25-2005, 11:25 AM
The NFL is once again protecting its poster boys. Had T.O. not been injured, this probably would have gone by the wayside.
? Exactly if it was 6 street free agents who got injured no one says a word