Now that the horsecollar rule passed. What is next.

[Wolverine]

Before I go into my question I would like to say thanks to Jerry Jones for a no vote. I made a mistake and thought he voted yes. My apologies on that. I also want to say a big thanks to the Lions the Saints Pats and 49ers for no votes to. I will always be a Cowboy fan 1st by a huge amount. But the other 4 teams that gave no votes got my respect for that and I now hope the best for them. Reason is at least these other teams tried to keep the NFL a good game.

So now for my question. I really believe that if the NFL owners passed a rule so dumb as the horsecollar rule I had ask what is next. Here is what I believe is next. I know some of you might think this is a big overreaction but seriously think about it first before you think that.


I really believe in the next 3 to 5 years the NFL will ban defenders from layin out big hits. There reason will be that to many players get injured each year from defenders tryin to make highlight reals with big hits. They will say that these players could have tackled the ball carrier in a much less aggressive way and still got the job done. They will put big hits under Unneccessary Roughness and make any big hit a 15 yard penalty. There will also be big fines for any player who gives a big hit.

Now I really believe that all it takes for this rule to pass after the 2005 season is over is for Roy Williams to injure 4 or more players with big hits. They will call it the Roy Williams big hit rule. Other players that could get this new rule named after them could be Ray Lewis.

More players are injured by big hits then horsecollar tackles. So if you think about that maybe now you realize that what I am postin here has a real good chance at bein a rule one day.

I expect most of you to disagree with me and say this is a big overreaction. But when it finally does pass those of you who think this is a big overreaction will say...how did that Wolverine know.

[Compacity]

Im going to tell you what's next.... They going to ban Roy Williams for tackling too hard...

[WoodysGirl]

Im going to tell you what's next.... They going to ban Roy Williams for tackling too hard...He won't be banned, but his pockets will be lighter ala Darren Woodson.

Being Roy, he will not only join Darren and Rodney Harrison in their quality of play, he will join them as one of the most heavily fined players,too...:cool:

[AdamJT13]

No tackling below the waist.

http://rsfc.rathkopf.net/mcgahee.jpg

[UppityCracker2]

No tackling below the waist.

http://rsfc.rathkopf.net/mcgahee.jpg

That still haunts me to this day!

[THUMPER]

"Cowboys owner Jerry Jones even spoke to the group about his opposition, calling the rule "too vague."

Jerry should know by now that the rule will only be enforced against the Cowboys so it doesn't matter how vague it is.

I cannot see how they could enforce this rule consistently. It leaves way too much up to the individual official and is too complex. The official has to determine several things in order to throw the flag or not:

1. Was it within 3 yards of the LOS and outside the tackle box?

2. Was the tackler able to use an different style of tackle?

3. Did the tackler "throw" or "yank" the player down, or did he merely grab and hang on? (To me this is a really stupid part of the rule because if he simply hangs on he will be pulled into the back of the runners legs and has a higher probability of injuring him, but what do I know?).

4. Did the tackler grab the shoulder pads or the jersey?

All of this while also watching the sidelines, the ball, the blocking, and trying not to get run over or tripping over someone while running down field.

It is too much to ask of these part-timers who officiate NFL games.

[Crown Royal]

Adam. That was unnecessary. No dinner for CR tonight thanks a lot.

But there will now be plenty of CR.

[Everlastingxxx]

Wolverine your comments can't even be taken seriously. Your negative thoughts about the NFL are so extreme and distorted. Sadly others seem to go along with this mentality. I think the things you have said in the last 3 or so days border on insane and flat out dumb. Not saying you're dumb but i have lost interest in these conversations. When you compare Area Football to the NFL, i wonder if you have even seen either. Obviously the NFL is something you have a lot of anger about despite this new rule. I suggest finding a new league or sport to view since this one is so wimpy. The rule is not the end of the world and players will have to adjust. Every season brings new rules to make the game better. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

The NFL is great, collar rule or not. Get over it already.

[Wolverine]

Wolverine your comments can't even be taken seriously. Your negative thoughts about the NFL are so extreme and distorted. Sadly others seem to go along with this mentality.

Sadly some others. Oh gee I guess some others are p*ssed off about how real football is becomin a thing of the past to. Geez even me and AJM1613 agree on this stupid rule.




I think

Really. Everything I have read of yours makes me believe this is something you have never done.


the things you have said in the last 3 or so days border on insane and flat out dumb. Not saying you're dumb but i have lost interest in these conversations.

You have lost interest in these posts. Yeah it sure looks that way.


When you compare Area Football to the NFL,


Can someone please tell me what AREA Football is. I havent ever heard of that before.


I suggest finding a new league or sport to view since this one is so wimpy. The rule is not the end of the world and players will have to adjust. Every season brings new rules to make the game better. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


I suggest you find a diferent team to be a fan of. You know anyone of the 27 teams that voted YES on this stupid rule. I cant see how you can be a Cowboy fan and love this new rule so much. Jones voted NO on it so time for you to find a diferent team.


The NFL is great, collar rule or not. Get over it already.


The NFL ...WAS....great.


All I asked was a question if anyone thought this new rule I thought of will be a new rule one day. I think it will. I gave my reasons why. Obviously you just came in here to start a flame and trash the thread instead of sayin somethin as simple as......I totally disagree with you.


You are obviously part of the problem. You like seein the NFL become Area...oopps I mean Arena Football.

It will be people like you who will support the no big hit rule when it comes time for that to be voted on cuz you are just not a real football fan.


You can call all of us whatever you want extreme or whatever but maybe it is just that there are alot of us out here that would like to see the game played they way it was meant to be played. We dont want to see it turn into touch football or flag football like you would like to see it become.

Like I said. If they pass something as dumb as this rule. Its only a matter of time before some other dumb rules come along to screw the D over.

I got a great idea. How about the NFL only allows the D to have 5 men on the field to the offenses 11. And the defenders are not allowed to tackle the ball carrier. They have to let the ball carrier go to the endzone. You should love that.

[Everlastingxxx]

Geez even me and AJM1613 agree on this stupid rule.

That's not saying much.


Can someone please tell me what AREA Football is. I havent ever heard of that before.

I'll tell you when you tell me what the word "diferent" is? It's different smarty pants.


I suggest you find a diferent team to be a fan of. You know anyone of the 27 teams that voted YES on this stupid rule. I cant see how you can be a Cowboy fan and love this new rule so much. Jones voted NO on it so time for you to find a diferent team.

Jerry voted No because of the language used not because he completely disagreed with it. I don't see what this rule has to do with being a Cowboy fan. Kindof shows you're clueless about what a fan is.


The NFL ...WAS....great.

Yea, yet you can't wait for the next season to start.


You are obviously part of the problem...you are just not a real football fan.

Nice to insult a fellow Cowboy fan this way. Happy i'm not a Redskins fan...who knows what insults you would throw at me.


I got a great idea. How about the NFL only allows the D to have 5 men on the field to the offenses 11. And the defenders are not allowed to tackle the ball carrier. They have to let the ball carrier go to the endzone. You should love that.

You need help, really.

[Sifillest]

sigh.......well anyway that horse collar rule passing was pretty damn gay.....

[blindzebra]

No tackling below the waist.

http://rsfc.rathkopf.net/mcgahee.jpg

Let's you know how far sports medicine has come, I thought for sure his playing days were over when I saw that replay.

[jay cee]

I will admit, that I have in the past said that I did not like to see Williams use that tackling technique.

But overall, I don't think this rule change will make that big of a deal.

I don't watch a lot of games other than the Cowboys, so Roy Williams is the only player that I saw that would look to use that technique.

IMO, Williams is a great tackler and will have no problem adjusting.

It does not look to be that big of a problem around the league. I think the league mandate on pass interference last year was a much bigger problem for the defensive players.

[Phoenix-Talon]

NFL won't horse around with this issue



Notice ...this has absolutely nothing to do with Roy Williams!



Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, a former member of the competition committee, said he was in favor of banning that tackle. "It's strictly a safety issue," Jones said. "It was shown that the combination of stopping a player's progress plus following on through with the tackle was more risky than we wanted it to be."



Not all NFL coaches voted "no!" The horse-collar tackle needed to go. It's a dangerous play in a game that places a premium on player safety. The NFL has discussed that tackle at length at its annual owners meeting this week. The league's competition committee showed the head coaches examples of such tackles and the injuries they have caused.

But actually authoring a rule was a tricky proposition.

"This needs to be addressed because it's for real," San Diego coach Marty Schottenheimer said. "But it's a very difficult thing to effectively define and, more importantly, to administer."

The problem is clear to see – a tackler grabs a ball carrier from behind by the neck collar of his shoulder pads and jerks him down, thus horse-collaring him. The backside of the offensive player's legs then crumble upon contact from the defender's body.

The coaches were shown a tape of four such horse-collar tackles that resulted in season-ending injuries in 2004 – and three of them involved the Cowboys safety.

How dangerous? Ask Terrell Owens. He was horse-collared by Williams in a December game and suffered a broken leg. Williams also horse-collared Ravens running back Musa Smith in November and Titans wide receiver Tyrone Calico in August. Calico sprained both knees, and Smith suffered a compound fracture to his tibia.

"We are not singling out Roy Williams," said Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher, the co-chairman of the NFL competition committee. "We're talking about a technique that's become dangerous."

"I don't think it's his intention to hurt anybody," Schottenheimer said. "It's just the technique that he's using."

Green Bay linebacker Hannibal Navies had the other tackle on the horse-collar highlight film, ending the season of Carolina wide receiver Steve Smith in the opener.

All four of those tackles came in the open field. And therein lies the problem. Quarterbacks in the pocket have been brought down with one-handed horse-collar tackles. The same with running backs at the line of scrimmage.

"There's a 325-pound defensive linemen in there, and a 225-pound back runs by," Schottenheimer said. "The defender reaches out and pulls him down. The defender makes a good play. Is that a personal foul?

"This is not an easy thing to define so that you have a chance to officiate the rule."

Some coaches wanted to limit the rule to open-field tackles. Others wanted the rule to require the contact of a defender's body on backside of the ball carrier's legs. Still others wanted to define it as a two-handed tackle.

"Any time you write a rule you may solve one problem," New England coach Bill Belichick said. "But there are other residuals to it. We need to look at those carefully."

The rule change was presented to the full ownership by the competition committee Tuesday, and it will be discussed today. If the wording isn't satisfactory, there's a chance the issue could be tabled until the May meeting.

It wouldn't be the first time the art of tackling has been altered.

In the 1950s, tackling by the face mask was legal. But the face mask tackles of Hall of Fame cornerback Dick "Night Train" Lane forced that practice to be outlawed. Then, in the 1960s, the clothesline tackle was in vogue by defensive backs such as Fred "The Hammer" Williamson." That, too, became outlawed.

And so ends the saga of the horse-collar tackle. Will we still see it? Probably, but it won't be legal. Is Roy Williams still a awesome defender -- you'd better believe it!

[Doomsday101]

NFL won't horse around with this issue



Notice ...this has absolutely nothing to do with Roy Williams!



Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, a former member of the competition committee, said he was in favor of banning that tackle. "It's strictly a safety issue," Jones said. "It was shown that the combination of stopping a player's progress plus following on through with the tackle was more risky than we wanted it to be."



Not all NFL coaches voted "no!" The horse-collar tackle needed to go. It's a dangerous play in a game that places a premium on player safety. The NFL has discussed that tackle at length at its annual owners meeting this week. The league's competition committee showed the head coaches examples of such tackles and the injuries they have caused.

But actually authoring a rule was a tricky proposition.

"This needs to be addressed because it's for real," San Diego coach Marty Schottenheimer said. "But it's a very difficult thing to effectively define and, more importantly, to administer."

The problem is clear to see – a tackler grabs a ball carrier from behind by the neck collar of his shoulder pads and jerks him down, thus horse-collaring him. The backside of the offensive player's legs then crumble upon contact from the defender's body.



"We are not singling out Roy Williams," said Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher, the co-chairman of the NFL competition committee. "We're talking about a technique that's become dangerous."

"I don't think it's his intention to hurt anybody," Schottenheimer said. "It's just the technique that he's using."

Green Bay linebacker Hannibal Navies had the other tackle on the horse-collar highlight film, ending the season of Carolina wide receiver Steve Smith in the opener.

All four of those tackles came in the open field. And therein lies the problem. Quarterbacks in the pocket have been brought down with one-handed horse-collar tackles. The same with running backs at the line of scrimmage.

"There's a 325-pound defensive linemen in there, and a 225-pound back runs by," Schottenheimer said. "The defender reaches out and pulls him down. The defender makes a good play. Is that a personal foul?

"This is not an easy thing to define so that you have a chance to officiate the rule."

Some coaches wanted to limit the rule to open-field tackles. Others wanted the rule to require the contact of a defender's body on backside of the ball carrier's legs. Still others wanted to define it as a two-handed tackle.

"Any time you write a rule you may solve one problem," New England coach Bill Belichick said. "But there are other residuals to it. We need to look at those carefully."

The rule change was presented to the full ownership by the competition committee Tuesday, and it will be discussed today. If the wording isn't satisfactory, there's a chance the issue could be tabled until the May meeting.

It wouldn't be the first time the art of tackling has been altered.

In the 1950s, tackling by the face mask was legal. But the face mask tackles of Hall of Fame cornerback Dick "Night Train" Lane forced that practice to be outlawed. Then, in the 1960s, the clothesline tackle was in vogue by defensive backs such as Fred "The Hammer" Williamson." That, too, became outlawed.

And so ends the saga of the horse-collar tackle. Will we still see it? Probably, but it won't be legal. Is Roy Williams still a awesome defender -- you'd better believe it!


Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was one of the five league owners to vote against the rule change, along with owners from San Francisco, New England, Detroit and New Orleans. For me as long as it is called fairly and consistantly then I have no problem but when I start seeing it call one way in one game and differently in another then yes I'll have a problem with it just as I do with the 5 yard bump rule.

[Phoenix-Talon]

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was one of the five league owners to vote against the rule change, along with owners from San Francisco, New England, Detroit and New Orleans.

I wonder what was the approval vote-ratio. I'd also be curious to find out other NFL owners/coaches' position and comments -- pro/con. ANyone have anything on that?

[Doomsday101]

I wonder what was the approval vote-ratio. I'd also be curious to find out other NFL owners/coaches' position and comments -- pro/con. ANyone have anything on that?

the NFL owners voted 27-5 to ban the so-called "horse-collar" tackle
the 5 were the Cowboys,Lions,Pats,Saints and 9ers

The tactic will be considered an unsportsmanlike penalty, costing the violating team 15 yards and subjecting the player to a possible fine by the league. To distinguish between a horse-collar tackle and a tackle that occurs during close, in-line play, the foul must occur at least three yards outside the "tackle box," essentially in the open field.

The last part likely clears up the biggest concern Cowboys head coach Bill Parcells had about the rule change. During the team's mini-camp last month, Parcells wondered out loud about other aspects of the tackling method, more than just in the open field.

"What about the running back running through the line," Parcells said, "or are the linemen not allowed to do that either? How are they going to get the guy? How is it going to be officiated? You can't just say 'no horse collars'. I know there are some defensive coaches that have some concern.

"I just want it to be solid. Just make sure you know it's going to be officiated. The more objectivity you give to the officials, the more problems you're going to have."

[Waffle]

This may be one of those deals where the 'horse collar" penalty is called so inconsistently between officiating crews that it will have to be revisited again next off season and refined. While I'm not a big fan of the rule itself, I don't really think it is a huge issue. Seriously, how many of these type tackles are made during a NFL weekend? 2? 3? I don't know the exact answer, but I watch enough NFL football to know that tackling style isn't all that prevalent. Like someone else said, this rule was passed to keep this tackling style from being copied and used by more players.

[Phoenix-Talon]

=Doomsday101]the NFL owners voted 27-5 to ban the so-called "horse-collar" tackle the 5 were the Cowboys,Lions,Pats,Saints and 9ers

The tactic will be considered an unsportsmanlike penalty, costing the violating team 15 yards and subjecting the player to a possible fine by the league. To distinguish between a horse-collar tackle and a tackle that occurs during close, in-line play, the foul must occur at least three yards outside the "tackle box," essentially in the open field.

Thanks DsD-101.

Good information. Probably will be some replay invovelment, and similar to the face mask penalty, a decision to determine if it was intentional/unintentional,

[lcharles]

I KNOW WHAT'S NEXT!!!!!



The Willie Blade rule. 5 yards for soiling your pants.


The first one to be penalized will be McNabb when he's see's our pass rush coming! :lmao2:

[Doomsday101]

This may be one of those deals where the 'horse collar" penalty is called so inconsistently between officiating crews that it will have to be revisited again next off season and refined. While I'm not a big fan of the rule itself, I don't really think it is a huge issue. Seriously, how many of these type tackles are made during a NFL weekend? 2? 3? I don't know the exact answer, but I watch enough NFL football to know that tackling style isn't all that prevalent. Like someone else said, this rule was passed to keep this tackling style from being copied and used by more players.

Thing is when they are made it is normally the difference of a tackle or a TD, as the DB is chasing the play from behind he has little to grab hold of so you grab on to what you can.

[Phoenix-Talon]

Thing is when they are made it is normally the difference of a tackle or a TD, as the DB is chasing the play from behind he has little to grab hold of so you grab on to what you can.

I don't know if I buy that One DsD-101. I mean I understand what you're saying, but I have a hard time latching onto the concept. The majority of DBs in the NFL are managing fine without the Horse-Collar. They won't Miss what they don't use. Otherwise, I have no problem with your perspective.

[Doomsday101]

I don't know if I buy that One DsD-101. I mean I understand what you're saying, but I have a hard time latching onto the concept. The majority of DBs in the NFL are managing fine without the Horse-Collar. They won't Miss what they don't use. Otherwise, I have no problem with your perspective.

I see others use the same horse collar tackle to bring down the ball carrier when chasing the play from behind. We will see how this effects the games this coming season and as I have said before, as long as the refs call it consistantly from week to week and game to game I have no problem with it

[zorg222]

Before I go into my question I would like to say thanks to Jerry Jones for a no vote. I made a mistake and thought he voted yes. My apologies on that. I also want to say a big thanks to the Lions the Saints Pats and 49ers for no votes to. I will always be a Cowboy fan 1st by a huge amount. But the other 4 teams that gave no votes got my respect for that and I now hope the best for them. Reason is at least these other teams tried to keep the NFL a good game.

So now for my question. I really believe that if the NFL owners passed a rule so dumb as the horsecollar rule I had ask what is next. Here is what I believe is next. I know some of you might think this is a big overreaction but seriously think about it first before you think that.


I really believe in the next 3 to 5 years the NFL will ban defenders from layin out big hits. There reason will be that to many players get injured each year from defenders tryin to make highlight reals with big hits. They will say that these players could have tackled the ball carrier in a much less aggressive way and still got the job done. They will put big hits under Unneccessary Roughness and make any big hit a 15 yard penalty. There will also be big fines for any player who gives a big hit.

Now I really believe that all it takes for this rule to pass after the 2005 season is over is for Roy Williams to injure 4 or more players with big hits. They will call it the Roy Williams big hit rule. Other players that could get this new rule named after them could be Ray Lewis.

More players are injured by big hits then horsecollar tackles. So if you think about that maybe now you realize that what I am postin here has a real good chance at bein a rule one day.

I expect most of you to disagree with me and say this is a big overreaction. But when it finally does pass those of you who think this is a big overreaction will say...how did that Wolverine know.

I wouldn't be too surprised if that happened after the horsecollar rule was passed.

The only prob with that is that determining a 'big hit' isn't really possible. What you consider a 'big hit' and what I consider a 'big hit may be two different things. So how do you expect officials to be able to handle that type of a rule? It just ain't logical.

Which brings me to my next point, keep in mind I'm not bashing you here because your my dawg, but you said this isn't an overreaction ( something you do sometimes BTW:D ) , well it is IMO.:D

I think you could expect a lot of 'out there' rules that are going to be passed in the future that will decrease the enjoyment and entertainment of football. These could include, IMO, hitting a WR in the ribs when he comes across the middle of the field (which takes away the limitations of going across the middle of the field to offenses, and takes away the entertainment of being able to watch a WR get nailed right in the ribs), taking away 'cut blocks' (diving down into a player's knees or legs to make them trip) this rule would decrease the abilities of a blocker. Coming from a former undersized OL/FB cut blocks are VERY good things.

Who knows what kind of outrageous rules the NFL will pass in the future. All we can do is hope for the best.

[AdamJT13]

Probably the dumbest part about this whole issue is that horse-collar tackles are STILL legal -- as long as you grab only the jersey and not inside the shoulder pads. Roy's tackle on Calico is still perfectly legal, and his other two would be debatable.

[Chocolate Lab]

Probably the dumbest part about this whole issue is that horse-collar tackles are STILL legal -- as long as you grab only the jersey and not inside the shoulder pads. Roy's tackle on Calico is still perfectly legal, and his other two would be debatable.
Let's just hope the refs see well enough to call them that accurately. ;)

I'm going to hold out hope that this will be like tripping... Something called only once every few games or so.

[bbgun]

The problem is that players wear their jerseys SKIN TIGHT these days, makig it difficult to grab hold of them.

[Wolverine]

I guess now when a WR is in front of a defender the Defender should just stop and let the WR go into the endzone. It is almost that bad now.

Zorg my guess is one of the next rules will be no tackling the ball carrier from behind. They will say that these kinds of tackles can catch the ball carrier by surprise and lead to injuries. New rule will be once the ball carrier is in from of a defender he cant be tackled from behind.


I know it would be askin to much of the AFL...I mean NFL but if new rules are to be passed then how about -

1. ban the stiff arm
2. ban cut and chop blocks

3. Offensive P.I. for any contact a WR makes with a defender after 5 yards from the LOS. If the Offenisive P.I. takes place 40 yards down the field then it will be a 40 yard penalty on the offense. just like it would be on the Defense if they did P.I. that far down the field.

4. Actually enforce any pick plays with a 20 yard penalty and loss of down.
5. Acutally call holding on the OL instead of lettin it go.


If new rules come along these should be it. These would at least make up for some of the moronic rules that have been put against the D.

[JDSmith]

Probably the dumbest part about this whole issue is that horse-collar tackles are STILL legal -- as long as you grab only the jersey and not inside the shoulder pads. Roy's tackle on Calico is still perfectly legal, and his other two would be debatable.

The Musa Smith tackle would have been legal, since Roy was coming in from the side and didn't grab the inside back of the shoulder pads and pull down. So Roy would have been penalized for it once last year, for the TO hit.

[AdamJT13]

The Musa Smith tackle would have been legal, since Roy was coming in from the side and didn't grab the inside back of the shoulder pads and pull down. So Roy would have been penalized for it once last year, for the TO hit.

Even on the Owens hit, it's not clear that he grabbed the shoulder pads. Watch it frame by frame, and you can see the jersey collar stretching into a V shape behind Owens. I don't think shoulder pads stretch.

[notherbob]

Even on the Owens hit, it's not clear that he grabbed the shoulder pads. Watch it frame by frame, and you can see the jersey collar stretching into a V shape behind Owens. I don't think shoulder pads stretch.
From the way the rule was phrased, I would say they are trying to send the message to use the horse collar tackle only as a last resort and if a db can make a tackle any other way, he better do that instead of the horse collar.

Just a thought.

[Phoenix-Talon]

Looks like some players will have learn the basics all over again ...

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/uploads/photos/perm/main/JLLMGJJJBHID/kalu077_400_NE_DH.jpg


Get some ...

[Hoov]

I guess now when a WR is in front of a defender the Defender should just stop and let the WR go into the endzone. It is almost that bad now.

Zorg my guess is one of the next rules will be no tackling the ball carrier from behind. They will say that these kinds of tackles can catch the ball carrier by surprise and lead to injuries. New rule will be once the ball carrier is in from of a defender he cant be tackled from behind.


I know it would be askin to much of the AFL...I mean NFL but if new rules are to be passed then how about -

1. ban the stiff arm
2. ban cut and chop blocks

3. Offensive P.I. for any contact a WR makes with a defender after 5 yards from the LOS. If the Offenisive P.I. takes place 40 yards down the field then it will be a 40 yard penalty on the offense. just like it would be on the Defense if they did P.I. that far down the field.

4. Actually enforce any pick plays with a 20 yard penalty and loss of down.
5. Acutally call holding on the OL instead of lettin it go.


If new rules come along these should be it. These would at least make up for some of the moronic rules that have been put against the D.

LOL, that was funny. :D

[nathanlt]

Before I go into my question I would like to say thanks to Jerry Jones for a no vote. I made a mistake and thought he voted yes. My apologies on that. I also want to say a big thanks to the Lions the Saints Pats and 49ers for no votes to. I will always be a Cowboy fan 1st by a huge amount. But the other 4 teams that gave no votes got my respect for that and I now hope the best for them. Reason is at least these other teams tried to keep the NFL a good game.

So now for my question. I really believe that if the NFL owners passed a rule so dumb as the horsecollar rule I had ask what is next. Here is what I believe is next. I know some of you might think this is a big overreaction but seriously think about it first before you think that.


I really believe in the next 3 to 5 years the NFL will ban defenders from layin out big hits. There reason will be that to many players get injured each year from defenders tryin to make highlight reals with big hits. They will say that these players could have tackled the ball carrier in a much less aggressive way and still got the job done. They will put big hits under Unneccessary Roughness and make any big hit a 15 yard penalty. There will also be big fines for any player who gives a big hit.

Now I really believe that all it takes for this rule to pass after the 2005 season is over is for Roy Williams to injure 4 or more players with big hits. They will call it the Roy Williams big hit rule. Other players that could get this new rule named after them could be Ray Lewis.

More players are injured by big hits then horsecollar tackles. So if you think about that maybe now you realize that what I am postin here has a real good chance at bein a rule one day.

I expect most of you to disagree with me and say this is a big overreaction. But when it finally does pass those of you who think this is a big overreaction will say...how did that Wolverine know.

We have a superior pass rush now. So off-balance passes, etc will be more frequent, and recievers will rarely be in a position where they are deeper than the safety. Roy can still slam running backs and wide recievers as they wait for a poorly thrown ball. Roy Williams game isn't a one-dimensional horse collar tackle. He'll be fine. And he can always take a fifteen yard penalty if he really has to.

I think this rule, which MAY have been had some bad intentions toward the Cowboys will hurt other teams more than it hurts the new Dallas D.