No Fun League Strikes Again [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

jshipman2

05-25-2005, 07:11 AM

Passacaglia

05-25-2005, 07:19 AM

I really wasn't expecting this to be the topic when you called it the No Fun League. Are horse collar tackles 'fun'?

Raiders Army

05-25-2005, 07:43 AM

I thought the rule was meant to cut down on injuries (see Dallas' Roy Williams), not to cut down on fun.

stevew

05-25-2005, 07:49 AM

Good move by the NFL finally. Horse collar tackles had a serious injury potential, especially when other tackling methods were available, and ignored to go for maximum injury potential.

Joe

05-25-2005, 08:04 AM

yep. horse collar tackles have no place in the game.

gottimd

05-25-2005, 08:08 AM

Have they noted what the penalty yardage will be? Is it going to be something like 15 yards at the spot of the foul and an automatic first down?

Ksyrup

05-25-2005, 08:38 AM

I hate to say this, but I agree with Peter King:

"I think one other thing the NFL will discuss this week is that horse-collar tackle thing. And if I'm a defensive player, I'm really ticked off about it. Tell me something: When you're diving to make a tackle, and you grab onto a guy's shoulder pads or something in the neck region, and you jerk the guy down, what's wrong with that? A few injuries have happened, freaky injuries, because of these odd tackles, but you can't ban a tackle because a defender is grabbing onto equipment or a jersey and happens to jerk the guy down awkwardly. This is football. It's violent. It's risky. Dumb rule, if it passes."

rkmsuf

05-25-2005, 08:40 AM

I agree with King. As an offensive player part of your job is to protect yourself while making plays. Why don't they just make the defense play with 9 guys and be done with it.

weinstein7

05-25-2005, 08:52 AM

The NFL owners have voted to make horse collar tackles illegal. Why don't they just make all tackles illegal? I think they are handcuffing defensive players so much, that eventually it is going to start taking away from the game!

You wouldn't be be at all biased on this because you're a cowboy fan, would you? :)

Incidentally, I actually meant to start a thread a couple of weeks ago with this exact heading. Apparently Mike Nolan, the new 49ers head coach, wanted to wear a suit and tie on the sideline in the tradition of his father, a former coach. The league said he couldn't do it, because coaches MUST wear apparel by Reebok. Apparently Reebok is going to try to put together something respectable for him to wear next season, but he's SOL this year.

Huckleberry

05-25-2005, 08:56 AM

1. Dumb ruling.

2. Why doesn't Nolan just stitch a Reebok logo on his suit and on the shirt for when the jacket comes off?

stevew

05-25-2005, 09:02 AM

Is it a judgement call, or is it a blanket ruling, as in any tackle by the pads is illegal? What percentage of offensive plays end on horse collar tackles anyways, arent we really talking about 1-2 plays a game here at the most?

jshipman2

05-25-2005, 09:06 AM

stevew

05-25-2005, 09:13 AM

Amen to that brother!!! And yes I am a Cowboys fan but that doesn't affect how I feel about this rule. I would think it was a stupid rule whether I was a Cowboys fan or not.

I find that impossible to believe.

A-Husker-4-Life

05-25-2005, 09:13 AM

I heard next year the NFL is going to impliment the "2 hand touch Rule" ;)

weinstein7

05-25-2005, 09:17 AM

1. Dumb ruling.

2. Why doesn't Nolan just stitch a Reebok logo on his suit and on the shirt for when the jacket comes off?

He offered to wear a Reebok lapel pin, but was shot down.

gottimd

05-25-2005, 09:23 AM

I heard next year the NFL is going to impliment the "2 hand touch Rule" ;)

Yes, but after a rash of bruises, the NFL will then switch to flag football.

MacroGuru

05-25-2005, 09:35 AM

Yes, but after a rash of bruises, the NFL will then switch to flag football.
I was going to say....why don't they just give them flags....

When an offensive player is running away from you, and you know diving at their feet won't stop them, then you reach for whatever you can get.

I had a WR blow right by me in a game 2 weeks ago, As I caught up to him, he stiff armed my face mask, so I reached out and grabbed what I could. The back of his pads....This is common in football, you see it all the time, and because injuries happen to a few big name players they look into banning this as a tackle....Bah!

Blackadar

05-25-2005, 09:41 AM

I was going to say....why don't they just give them flags....

When an offensive player is running away from you, and you know diving at their feet won't stop them, then you reach for whatever you can get.

I had a WR blow right by me in a game 2 weeks ago, As I caught up to him, he stiff armed my face mask, so I reached out and grabbed what I could. The back of his pads....This is common in football, you see it all the time, and because injuries happen to a few big name players they look into banning this as a tackle....Bah!

I'm looking at the rule. It doesn't say you can't tackle someone by the pads. What it does say is you can't reach to the inside of the shoulder pads and yank someone down. There's a difference. I think if you see the video tape from last year, there were other ways to bring those guys down.

Cuckoo

05-25-2005, 09:42 AM

I also don't really like this rule, but I suppose since I'm a Dallas fan AND an OU fan, then I have no credibility. :)

MacroGuru

05-25-2005, 09:49 AM

I'm looking at the rule. It doesn't say you can't tackle someone by the pads. What it does say is you can't reach to the inside of the shoulder pads and yank someone down. There's a difference. I think if you see the video tape from last year, there were other ways to bring those guys down.
I latched onto the collar as the rule states, at that time, I had no other choice.

Some hits, probably could have been tackles from other positions, but the last chance effort of stopping the TD is the main reason that kind of tackle is used..

JeeberD

05-25-2005, 10:26 AM

Stupid, stupid rule...

judicial clerk

05-25-2005, 01:31 PM

I think they should get rid of chop blocks before they get rid of this. I hate chop blocks.

Desnudo

05-25-2005, 01:32 PM

I think they should start playing with robots

spleen1015

05-25-2005, 01:36 PM

I think the issue with this is Roy Williams injured 2-3 guys tackling them this way and in all of those situations, he could have tackled them differently.

MrBigglesworth

05-25-2005, 01:36 PM

"I think one other thing the NFL will discuss this week is that horse-collar tackle thing. And if I'm a defensive player, I'm really ticked off about it. Tell me something: When you're diving to make a tackle, and you grab onto a guy's shoulder pads or something in the neck region, and you jerk the guy down, what's wrong with that? A few injuries have happened, freaky injuries, because of these odd tackles, but you can't ban a tackle because a defender is grabbing onto equipment or a jersey and happens to jerk the guy down awkwardly. This is football. It's violent. It's risky. Dumb rule, if it passes."
When you're diving to make a tackle, and you grab onto a guy's face mask or something in the face region, and you jerk the guy down, what's wrong with that? A few injuries have happened, freaky injuries, because of these odd tackles, but you can't ban a tackle because a defender is grabbing onto equipment or a jersey and happens to jerk the guy down awkwardly. This is football. It's violent. It's risky. Dumb rule, it should be repealed.

:rolleyes:

Joe

05-25-2005, 01:52 PM

I think the issue with this is Roy Williams injured 2-3 guys tackling them this way and in all of those situations, he could have tackled them differently.

kicking him out would probably be easier than a new rule.

JeeberD

05-25-2005, 01:53 PM

I think the issue with this is Roy Williams injured 2-3 guys tackling them this way and in all of those situations, he could have tackled them differently.

What the fuck ever. There hasn't been a rule about this in the 70+ years of pro football, but as soon as one player injures two guys it's a major issue? Bullshit...

sabotai

05-25-2005, 02:06 PM

No one said anything until T.O. got inured.

Interesting how the chop block still goes unnoticed by the league...

Cuckoo

05-25-2005, 02:06 PM

kicking him out would probably be easier than a new rule.

Why would you kick him out? He played under the rules. He has said he doesn't like the change but will play under the new rules now that it has changed.

And as someone who saw all of those tackles that resulted in injury, I would dispute the fact that he could have tackled them differently. He could have made a leaping grab for their feet and possibly missed. That was the best way to bring them down.

RendeR

05-25-2005, 02:23 PM

People are missing the point. This rule isn't about the last ditch diving efforts to save a TD, its about the fact that this type of tackle is becoming the flashy way to sling a guy to the ground and get yourself on ESPN's top plays while putting the offensive player at risk.

its about players, like Roy Williams, CHOOSING to tackle this way instead of doing his job and tackling the guy properly.

Players are still going to use this to stop people, they're simply going to get penalized 15 yards instead of giving up a TD.

Stop the whining.

JeeberD

05-25-2005, 02:29 PM

its about players, like Roy Williams, CHOOSING to tackle this way instead of doing his job and tackling the guy properly.

Oh yes, that's how Roy makes ALL his tackles. Wait, he doesn't? Well, how about the majority? No? A lot, then. Oh, just a few tackles like that per year?

Yeah, it's a fucking epidemic... :rolleyes:

Cuckoo

05-25-2005, 02:52 PM

Oh yes, that's how Roy makes ALL his tackles. Wait, he doesn't? Well, how about the majority? No? A lot, then. Oh, just a few tackles like that per year?

Yeah, it's a fucking epidemic... :rolleyes:

100% agreement. Williams has used this technique because it's an effective way of bringing someone down from behind. That's it. He's not trying to hurt anyone, and he's not trying to be flashy. If he wants to be flashy, he can just flat-back them which he does about twice a game.

Williams and the Cowboys aside, though, I still think this is a dumb rule change. To be honest, it doesn't mean that much to me. But if I was voting, I would have voted against this.

Kodos

05-25-2005, 03:53 PM

Oh yes, that's how Roy makes ALL his tackles. Wait, he doesn't? Well, how about the majority? No? A lot, then. Oh, just a few tackles like that per year?

Yeah, it's a fucking epidemic... :rolleyes:

If he only uses it once or twice a year, then he probably won't miss being able to use it. I say, line your shoulder pads with razor blades, so when good ol' Roy goes to tackle you: Oops! There go his fingers! :D

bhlloy

05-25-2005, 03:55 PM

It is a dumb rule IMO... any obvious attempt to injure can still be penalised. You can't stop and get a handle on a WR who runs a 4.3 40, you grab whatever you can to get him down.

That's not really the issue though. What is an issue is that chop blocking which injures a much higher number of players and is much more dangerous does not even warrant consideration, because it is advantageous to a few influential members of the committee.

And I agree... TO doesn't go down and this never even sees the light of day. It's the "fashionable" rule change and I think it stinks.

timmyw3

05-25-2005, 03:59 PM

And as someone who saw all of those tackles that resulted in injury, I would dispute the fact that he could have tackled them differently. He could have made a leaping grab for their feet and possibly missed. That was the best way to bring them down.

The tackle on Musa Smith that snapped his leg in two and put his career in jeopardy could have certainly been made differently. The way Williams made that tackle was to grab Smith from behind them force his weight on top of him as he fell to the ground at an awkward angle. Certainly worse than a chop block, headslap, or face mask in my opinion.

stevew

05-25-2005, 04:00 PM

Hmmmm. It certainly seems that just about the only people who have problems with this rule are Cowboy's fans.

Cuckoo

05-25-2005, 04:04 PM

The tackle on Musa Smith that snapped his leg in two and put his career in jeopardy could have certainly been made differently. The way Williams made that tackle was to grab Smith from behind them force his weight on top of him as he fell to the ground at an awkward angle. Certainly worse than a chop block, headslap, or face mask in my opinion.

You do watch football right? Players get pulled down at awkward angles. Players fall on top of other players. It's kind of the point.

Cuckoo

05-25-2005, 04:22 PM

DOLA

And to me, the Musa Smith one looked like Roy Williams grabbed him by the shoulder pads then fell down. Smith's leg happened to get caught underneath. I looked for a video of it and couldn't find it, but that's the way I remember it.

A-Husker-4-Life

05-25-2005, 04:38 PM

Honolulu_Blue

05-25-2005, 04:42 PM

Man I can't believe this crap.... This is football not womens pro golf, you get hurt when you play... Plain and simple.... But it seems like the NFL is trying to prevent injuries but they are going about it the wrong way... More rules like this are going to ruin the sport not help it.... Oh well, had to rant.....
I dunno. They outlawed the chop-block and that didn't seem to ruin the sport. Nor did outlawing the face-mask or blows to the head, or spearing, or any other miriad of NFL rules that are in place that penalize certain types blocks, tackles, hits, etc. that are more likely to cause injuries than others. I am not a huge fan of this rule myself, but it's pretty much par for the course in the NFL and so far the sport hasn't been "ruined." At least not for me.

Blackadar

05-25-2005, 04:49 PM

Oh yes, that's how Roy makes ALL his tackles. Wait, he doesn't? Well, how about the majority? No? A lot, then. Oh, just a few tackles like that per year?

Yeah, it's a fucking epidemic... :rolleyes:

One guy alone injured 4 guys last year tackling them like this. How many people have to get hurt before it's a fucking epidemic?

It's obvious that the competition committee saw this as an unnecessary injury risk and banned it. It's no different than tackling by the face mask, the head slap, the crackback block or spearing your opponent. Those were all legal at one point too. I suppose those should be allowed again and be damned the long-term and life-threatening injuries that accompany those actions? :rolleyes:

The new rule is pretty limited. It only applies when the tackle immediately brings the ball carrier down, and only if he's in open field. Essentially, you can't grab the back of the shoulder pads around the neck area and yank a guy down violently. You can grab that area to slow a guy up.

Ksyrup

05-25-2005, 04:53 PM

Hmmmm. It certainly seems that just about the only people who have problems with this rule are Cowboy's fans.
I fucking hate the Cowboys, so quit pretending that anyone who takes a position opposite off yours has no legitimate reason. Someone mentioned it above - an obvious intent to injure can still be flagged, there's no reason to make a blanket prohibition against this type of hit. Hits to the head are not only an obvious danger, but can easily be stopped - the neck is a pretty good "line of demarcation." Plus, the head is not the principal part of the body that is being tackled. A hit to the shoulders isn't all that easy to control, since, like, the torso is the biggest part of the body and what everyone is aiming for.

I would have no problem making this a judgment call, rather than an outright prohibition. Umps have to decide whether a pitcher purposely throws at a batter - they don't just eject every pitcher who hits a batter.

Ksyrup

05-25-2005, 04:58 PM

The new rule is pretty limited. It only applies when the tackle immediately brings the ball carrier down, and only if he's in open field. Essentially, you can't grab the back of the shoulder pads around the neck area and yank a guy down violently. You can grab that area to slow a guy up.
Terrific. So if you "slow him up" at the goal line because you don't want to get flagged, and he scores, how fucking worthless is that? How can world-class athletes be expected to play at less than all-out? This is like The Incredibles, where the family is telling the kid to run fast, but not too fast, and to finish in 2nd place. What the hell kind of competition is that?

My problem with this is that there's no real line you know you are crossing. Unless it's an intent to do the act, most of the time it appears as though it just happens in the natural course of the game - one guy trying to gain yards, the other guy trying to stop him. You can't compare it to the head, because the head is always off-limits and not part of what is supposed to be tackled.

A-Husker-4-Life

05-25-2005, 04:59 PM

I dunno. They outlawed the chop-block and that didn't seem to ruin the sport. Nor did outlawing the face-mask or blows to the head, or spearing, or any other miriad of NFL rules that are in place that penalize certain types blocks, tackles, hits, etc. that are more likely to cause injuries than others. I am not a huge fan of this rule myself, but it's pretty much par for the course in the NFL and so far the sport hasn't been "ruined." At least not for me.

Yeah, I understand they have to protect the players but I'm saying that football is rough and I don't want them to take that aspect out, thats what I like about it....

stevew

05-25-2005, 05:05 PM

I fucking hate the Cowboys, so quit pretending that anyone who takes a position opposite off yours has no legitimate reason. Someone mentioned it above - an obvious intent to injure can still be flagged, there's no reason to make a blanket prohibition against this type of hit. Hits to the head are not only an obvious danger, but can easily be stopped - the neck is a pretty good "line of demarcation." Plus, the head is not the principal part of the body that is being tackled. A hit to the shoulders isn't all that easy to control, since, like, the torso is the biggest part of the body and what everyone is aiming for.

I would have no problem making this a judgment call, rather than an outright prohibition. Umps have to decide whether a pitcher purposely throws at a batter - they don't just eject every pitcher who hits a batter.

It is a judgement call now, no?

DeToxRox

05-25-2005, 05:29 PM

I'm a Lions fan and I think this is a stupid rule. I'd give exact reasons but they've been covered pretty well in the thread.

Joe

05-25-2005, 07:19 PM

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe most of you would have voted against this rule had you been an NFL owner. Nobody wants to see their players get hurt. Maybe as a fan its different. But the possibility of losing a player that puts asses in the seats and is a cash cow for you is too strong to be ignored. Not to mention all the cash you have tied up in the offensive players that are (possibly) at risk.

Logan

05-25-2005, 08:13 PM

Like someone said before, this rule change isn't going to make the play go away. They'll just accept the penalty and fine.

illinifan999

05-25-2005, 10:10 PM

One guy alone injured 4 guys last year tackling them like this. How many people have to get hurt before it's a fucking epidemic?

How many players get a concussion each year from tackles? I guess we should probably ban tackling outright because of this concussion epidemic. It's football, they knew what they were getting themselves into when they signed the dotted line. All the NFL wants to do is become a pure offensive game like Arena Football. Notice how the season they start going heavy into calling 5 yard contact, Manning breaks the unbreakable record?

clintl

05-25-2005, 10:42 PM

Incidentally, I actually meant to start a thread a couple of weeks ago with this exact heading. Apparently Mike Nolan, the new 49ers head coach, wanted to wear a suit and tie on the sideline in the tradition of his father, a former coach. The league said he couldn't do it, because coaches MUST wear apparel by Reebok. Apparently Reebok is going to try to put together something respectable for him to wear next season, but he's SOL this year.

As if anyone has ever bought a shirt because it was just like the one their favorite head coach wears.

ISiddiqui

05-25-2005, 11:50 PM

Good job by the NFL. This type of tackle should have been banned long ago.

MrBigglesworth

05-26-2005, 12:06 AM

How many players get a concussion each year from tackles? I guess we should probably ban tackling outright because of this concussion epidemic.
You are completely missing the point. I think most reasonable people agree that there need to be some safety rules. This obviously isn't Rollerball, where we want the participants to literally kill each other. We already have anti-spearing, anti-face mask, anti-chop block rules, helmet wearing rules, etc. So the question becomes where to draw the line. Therefore, unless you are against every safety rule, arguments like 'it's a dangerous game' are invalid. You have to argue on whether the play is dangerous enough to outlaw or not.

We've had several anti-rule people already say that the tackle is hardly ever used. Yet one player injured 4 players using it last year. That seems pretty dangerous to me.