NFL Owners Meetings: Day1 Horse-Collar Tackles Banned
 

story

Horse collar tackles A 15-yard penalty will be called only if the tackle immediately brings the ball carrier down, and only if he's in open field.

Among the list of happenings Tom Benson again confronted on the Saints possible move to LA, he stated he wants to move the team.
Other issues to be disclosed tomorrow the official sale of the Vikings to Zygmunt Wilf, and the selection of the 2009 Super Bowl, Atlanta, Houston, Miami, and Tampa are the top runners.

Re: NFL Owners Meetings: Day1 Horse-Collar Tackles Banned
 

What? I thought they were also going to review Malcolm Glazer's ownership of Man U. Apparently Man U has something going on with a casino and under NFL rules an owner can't have any stake in gambling facilities and such.

Re: NFL Owners Meetings: Day1 Horse-Collar Tackles Banned
 

Benson just said in an interview with new orleans media that he has no intention of moving the team.

Re: NFL Owners Meetings: Day1 Horse-Collar Tackles Banned
 

Hey heyyy...Roy Williams lost his ultimate weapon!

Re: NFL Owners Meetings: Day1 Horse-Collar Tackles Banned
 

More info on the horse collar rule:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=2063722

I object to the new rule for two reasons. First, as the ESPN story points out this rule was not proposed until MARCH. The league's usual policy is to conduct extensive studies before making rules changes, but in this case they have decided to forego the normal process in favor of a knee-jerk reaction.

Imo a case can be made for last year's rash of injuries being nothing more than a statistical aberration. The horse-collar tackle has been around since the game was invented, and no one ever said a word about it until last year. If it was as inherently dangerous as some people claim, I have to believe that somebody would have noticed that fact in the preceeding 100+ years that football has been played.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

My second objection to this is that the rules are already too slanted in favor of the offenses as it is. As it stands, defenders can scarcely look in the direction of a receiver without being called for interference or illegal use of hands. Now the league is basically saying that if a receiver is behind a defender, your only option is to attempt a diving tackle. Anybody who has played the game knows that's not a high % technique, which is why you normally only see it attempted as a last resort. Essentially, what the new rule does is to make "if he's even, he's leavin'" official league policy.

What's next, a halo rule for eligible receivers?

Re: NFL Owners Meetings: Day1 Horse-Collar Tackles Banned
 

This is stupid. The NFL gets more and more pansy every year. Soon it will will be a flag football league. Geez it's football, people get hurt. In war people die, at McDonalds, people get burned on the deep fryer. You know what you get when you sign up.

The NFL won't be happy til it's scores rival the Arena league.

Re: NFL Owners Meetings: Day1 Horse-Collar Tackles Banned
 

So now you can't hit a receiver if he's "defenseless", and you can't tackle him from behind by the shoulder pads. You can't touch him after five yards at all until he catches the ball.

Then there's the quarterback....

You can't hit a quarterback high, you can't hit him low, you can't lead with your helmet in any way, you can't drive him to the turf in any way, you can't hit him if he slides, and you can't hit him if it takes more than a step to get there.

The NFL should just outlaw pass defense altogether.

Re: NFL Owners Meetings: Day1 Horse-Collar Tackles Banned
 

I personally like the rule. It's purpose is to eliminate horse collar tackles when a conventional tackle could be made. I don't see what's wrong with making a rule to prevent unnecessary injuries. I'd prefer to see the best players in the NFL on the field rather than on the sidelines with crutches.