First Horse collar tackle penalty....

[Deacon Moss]

unbelievable how so many teams voted in favor of this crap!!!

 

[NorthDalal]

Correct call under the new rule. Everybody quit whining. Yes it will be hard to identify.

Madden was wrong in his analysis unless he's seen a memo I haven't--which while possible,it's also true that it take Big John a season and a half to quit misunderstanding new rule interpretations.I have not seen it written anywhere that the tacklers hand must be under the sholder pads as Madden threw in---just that the tiop of the pads be used to maintain a tackle.

Think of it like this you could complain about the tackiling with the crown of the helmet interpretation or the old clothesline tackle ban, or the in the grasp rule, but everyone adapted get over it.This is off season stuff. Concentrate on Rogers/Torrin Tucker, Beriault/Danzler, Romo/Henson the preseason is here.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Until they get rid of this dumb rule I will not change my sig. OK well I could change my sig if it is a clip of Drew Bledsoe throwing a game winning TD pass in the NFC Championship against the Eagles.

Wolverine, did I ever tell you that Clint Eastwood was one of my favorite Western actors -- right behind John Wayne.

Ok, I'm not here to compliment you on your avatar (which I really do like), but don't get the wrong idea -- I'm not here to blast you either. But in the world of the NFL Conferences/divisions (at least the way it's structured right now), the Philadelphia Eagles could never play the Dallas Cowboys in an NFC Championship game.

Save face option ...

...but if we did _______________.


BTW, who ould Drew Bledsoe throw this "game winning pass" to, and what would be the blowout score?

 

[dbair1967]

But in the world of the NFL Conferences/divisions (at least the way it's structured right now), the Philadelphia Eagles could never play the Dallas Cowboys in an NFC Championship game.

?

sure they could...one of us wins the division and winds up with home field adv, the other is a 5th seed...

5th seed plays 4th seed in rd one and wins...6th seed upsets 3rd seed...in 2nd rd the 6th seed plays the 1st (one of us) and the 5th seed plays the 2nd...if 5 and 1 win, you have an NFC Championship game between the two

thats just the first scenario that popped into my head, there's probably others

David

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Listen, don't all of you jump down my throat all at once ...but, I'm actually in favor of outlawing any form of tackle that has a history of injuring NFL players. If outlawing the horse collar tackle will reduce the possibilty of injury, then I'm all for it!

Flame throwers would be quick to jump at an opportunity to suggest that I'm only saying that because of the 2004 T.O. injury. And it's true, while there have been several incidents of the Horsecollar tackle other than from Roy Williams, the T.O. injury probably is the "poster child" case; with Roy Williams' being tagged with the "signature tackle."

But if the poster child case is inflicted on a significant Cowboy's playmaker (I truly hope it doesn't), many of you (perhaps not everyone) would change their tune.

One more thought ...instead of focusing your energies on re-instating the now notorious outlawed horsecollar tackle, why not advocate the design on the uniform collar that retards this type of tackle. For example, let's take the face mask penalty. I'd like to see a newly designed face mask that prevents anyone from gripping it. Something that serves the same purpose, yet unlike the "bars" that go across the width of the helmet. Hence, the face-mask penalty would be a non-factor.

Just something to think about, and as usual ...a different perspective.

...you're already in a world of ...Full, Metal, Jacket) ...see it soon!

RB Brian Westbrook

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

sure they could...one of us wins the division and winds up with home field adv, the other is a 5th seed...
5th seed plays 4th seed in rd one and wins...6th seed upsets 3rd seed...in 2nd rd the 6th seed plays the 1st (one of us) and the 5th seed plays the 2nd...if 5 and 1 win, you have an NFC Championship game between the two
thats just the first scenario that popped into my head, there's probably othersDavid

DB, where are you?

Whaoooo....slow down. Even if you are right, I need you to break this down to me slower -- and replace all these "seeds" with "teams," so I can get a better picture of what you're trying to express.

Here's my claim:

NFC Championship Logistics

NFC Team Two final Teams NFC Champion

NFC East
NFC North NFC East and NFC East (?????? huh?) NFC East
NFC South
NFC West

I'll concede your point once I get it ...or not! Now start again from the top ...

 

[Chuck 54]

I always thought one of the stranger rules was allowing RB's to stiff arm in the face. A guy slaps the side of a huge old lineman's head and he gets a penalty. Let your hand even touch or slide across the face mask when making a tackle and it's a 5 yard penalty.

But a RB can nail a DB as hard as possible right in the face and bend back his head, then run for another 10 yards with his hand pressing on the face mask as long as he doesn't actually grab it....no penalty.

I used to laugh at it with Emmitt all the time...he had one powerful stiff arm and would run up the sideline holding a guy off with his hand on the guy's face. Hell, he broke his hand in Minny with his hand up in a guy's facemask as he ran in for a TD...no penalty.

I'm not asking for the league to make that a penalty...I just think things are a tad illogical in the NFL....lol.

 

[calico]

"illegal tackle"

:ralph:

Football will never be the same again.

 

[Echo9]

DB, where are you?

Whaoooo....slow down. Even if you are right, I need you to break this down to me slower -- and replace all these "seeds" with "teams," so I can get a better picture of what you're trying to express.

Here's my claim:

NFC Championship Logistics

NFC Team Two final Teams NFC Champion

NFC East
NFC North NFC East and NFC East (?????? huh?) NFC East
NFC South
NFC West

I'll concede your point once I get it ...or not! Now start again from the top ...

Well, take away all the "seeds" or team names etc. Here's a simple explanantion.

Dallas and Philly both make the playoffs. Both win the earlier rounds and are the last two teams left.

they play each other.

We are talking the NFC Championship game right?

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Well, take away all the "seeds" or team names etc. Here's a simple explanantion.
Dallas and Philly both make the playoffs. Both win the earlier rounds and are the last two teams left.

they play each other.

We are talking the NFC Championship game right?

E_H,

At least I understand what you were saying -- thanks for the great attempt. And indeed we are talking NFC Championship game ...not the NFC-East Title game!

Here's the breakdown for all who still may be confused ...

NFC - East Title ...Eagles versus Cowboys possiblility

NFC Championship Game ...Eagles only (you'll probably think that's a little biased -- that's ok, I'll understand). But the Point is only one team from the NFC-East can prevail! DB, indicated that the Eagles could play the Cowboys In the NFC CHampionship game -- I'm saying NO WAY (NFL Conference restrictions).

 

[lurkercowboy]

Let's say the playoff teams are seeded as follows:

1. Eagles EAST champ
2. Falcons SOUTH champ
3. Lions NORTH champ
4. 49ers WEST champ
5. Cowboys Wild card
6. Rams Wild card

That sounds plausible, right? That means the Eagles and Falcons would sit out the first weekend and the 3 and 4 teams would host the 6 and 5 teams respectivly.

So on Wild Card weekend, the games would be Lions/Rams and 49ers/Cowboys.
Suppose the Rams and Cowboys win.

In the next round, the Eagles would play the lowest seed, the Rams.
The Falcons would play the next lowest seed, the Cowboys.
Suppose the Eagles and Cowboys win.
The Eagles would then play Dallas for the NFC championship.

It goes by seeding now. There used to be a restriction a long time ago that teams from the same division could not play each other in the second round but that went away when they added an extra playoff team in 1990.

 

[Avery]

Listen, don't all of you jump down my throat all at once ...but, I'm actually in favor of outlawing any form of tackle that has a history of injuring NFL players.

I'm fairly sure that would outlaw pretty much any tackle ever in the NFL.

There's no questioning that some guys got hurt getting horse-collared. What I would like to know is what the ratio of horse collars league-wide vs. number of players who got injured is. My gut tells me that it's no bigger than getting speared, chop-blocked, being slammed to the ground, etc.

And I can see why it was called last night since the context of the new rules state that that type of tackle is forbidden. But tell me this: how else was he supposed to tackle him? Reminded me greatly of the Musa Smith play last year where Roy was stiff-armed in the face and off the ground completely.

If he didn't want to get horse-collared, he shouldn't have stiff armed the guy. So if we take away stiff arms, we will likely take away the majority of horse-collars.

Imagine if that were proposed to the league office...

 

[AtlCB]

Listen, don't all of you jump down my throat all at once ...but, I'm actually in favor of outlawing any form of tackle that has a history of injuring NFL players. If outlawing the horse collar tackle will reduce the possibilty of injury, then I'm all for it!

Flame throwers would be quick to jump at an opportunity to suggest that I'm only saying that because of the 2004 T.O. injury. And it's true, while there have been several incidents of the Horsecollar tackle other than from Roy Williams, the T.O. injury probably is the "poster child" case; with Roy Williams' being tagged with the "signature tackle."

But if the poster child case is inflicted on a significant Cowboy's playmaker (I truly hope it doesn't), many of you (perhaps not everyone) would change their tune.

One more thought ...instead of focusing your energies on re-instating the now notorious outlawed horsecollar tackle, why not advocate the design on the uniform collar that retards this type of tackle. For example, let's take the face mask penalty. I'd like to see a newly designed face mask that prevents anyone from gripping it. Something that serves the same purpose, yet unlike the "bars" that go across the width of the helmet. Hence, the face-mask penalty would be a non-factor.

Just something to think about, and as usual ...a different perspective.

...you're already in a world of ...Full, Metal, Jacket) ...see it soon!

RB Brian Westbrook

My problem with this rule is that it is too hard to enforce and unfair to the defensive player. When they showed the play in slow motion, the tackler in last night's game clearly had the jersey only. He grabbed the jersey around the name and did not touch any part of the collar. I believe that most of the horse collar tackle penalties will be more of the phantom variety that we saw last night, because it is too difficult for the officials to tell if the tackler has the jersey around the name or if they have the collar. An official would have to have a really good angle to tell the difference. The second problem is that both types of tackles will cause the same injury - as explained by John Madden in yesterday's game. The same injury could also occur by any high tackle from behind (i.e. if the tackler grabbed both shoulders and dragged the player down). The only option would be for the player to dive at the ankles or knees (which can cause knee injuries). Football is a violent sport, but defenders need to have the ability to tackle offensive players. If they are so worried about these types of injuries, maybe they could blow the whistle as soon as the defender has a hold of an offensive player from any part of the back.

 

[Jarv]

Lets see what your response will be when the penalty is called against the Eagles when they play Dallas...okay.

 

[Waffle]

Let's say the playoff teams are seeded as follows:

1. Eagles EAST champ
2. Falcons SOUTH champ
3. Lions NORTH champ
4. 49ers WEST champ
5. Cowboys Wild card
6. Rams Wild card

That sounds plausible, right? That means the Eagles and Falcons would sit out the first weekend and the 3 and 4 teams would host the 6 and 5 teams respectivly.

So on Wild Card weekend, the games would be Lions/Rams and 49ers/Cowboys.
Suppose the Rams and Cowboys win.

In the next round, the Eagles would play the lowest seed, the Rams.
The Falcons would play the next lowest seed, the Cowboys.
Suppose the Eagles and Cowboys win.
The Eagles would then play Dallas for the NFC championship.

It goes by seeding now. There used to be a restriction a long time ago that teams from the same division could not play each other in the second round but that went away when they added an extra playoff team in 1990.

Phoenix-Talon...this is your answer right here.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

E_H,

At least I understand what you were saying -- thanks for the great attempt. And indeed we are talking NFC Championship game ...not the NFC-East Title game!

I think you misenterpreted what he said just like TO misenterpreted his contract (for 7 years). No one said anything about a NFC East title game. Everyone else here who has posted to the contrary has been correct. The Cowboys and Eagles COULD play in the NFC Championship game.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Let's say the playoff teams are seeded as follows:

1. Eagles EAST champ
2. Falcons SOUTH champ
3. Lions NORTH champ
4. 49ers WEST champ
5. Cowboys Wild card
6. Rams Wild card

That sounds plausible, right? That means the Eagles and Falcons would sit out the first weekend and the 3 and 4 teams would host the 6 and 5 teams respectivly.

So on Wild Card weekend, the games would be Lions/Rams and 49ers/Cowboys.
Suppose the Rams and Cowboys win.

In the next round, the Eagles would play the lowest seed, the Rams.
The Falcons would play the next lowest seed, the Cowboys.
Suppose the Eagles and Cowboys win.
The Eagles would then play Dallas for the NFC championship.

It goes by seeding now. There used to be a restriction a long time ago that teams from the same division could not play each other in the second round but that went away when they added an extra playoff team in 1990.

I was not aware of that LC. I appreciate you not tearing my head off with that information. I'll remember that -- hope I can reciprocate the gesture.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

There's no questioning that some guys got hurt getting horse-collared. What I would like to know is what the ratio of horse collars league-wide vs. number of players who got injured is. My gut tells me that it's no bigger than getting speared, chop-blocked, being slammed to the ground, etc.

My complements goes out again for the manner in which you disagree with me; without use of flammatory gestures that Block dialogue. Uncertain if stats differentiate between those injuries that are self-obtained versus those that are inflicted from opponents. Some injuries manifest/develop post game also. Perhaps a representative number can be obtained ...questionable.

And I can see why it was called last night since the context of the new rules state that that type of tackle is forbidden. But tell me this: how else was he supposed to tackle him? Reminded me greatly of the Musa Smith play last year where Roy was stiff-armed in the face and off the ground completely.

If he didn't want to get horse-collared, he shouldn't have stiff armed the guy. So if we take away stiff arms, we will likely take away the majority of horse-collars

.

You suggest giving the offensive player the option of "not using the stiff arm" to prevent the horse collar tackle? Or are you suggesting the use of the horsecollar tackle only when the player is being stiff-armed? Either way, the Stiff arm is the only defensive posture created to assist/thwart off a opponent. I see it as a means to slow down a charging opponent and minimize injury as well.

I don't know whether I fully agree with you here.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

I believe that most of the horse collar tackle penalties will be more of the phantom variety that we saw last night, because it is too difficult for the officials to tell if the tackler has the jersey around the name or if they have the collar. An official would have to have a really good angle to tell the difference. The second problem is that both types of tackles will cause the same injury - as explained by John Madden in yesterday's game.

Sounds like the officials are using the "err on the side of caution" rule to pursue the horsecollar call. But it also sends out a message to the rest of the NFL ...we will not tolerate the horsecollar tackle; or any variation of it!

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Lets see what your response will be when the penalty is called against the Eagles when they play Dallas...okay.

We don't have to wait! Should your scenario come to pass, my response will be ..."I sure hope no one is hurt." Thanks for the opportunity, that wasn't difficult!