Here's The Reason Roy's Tackle Of Tiki Wasn't A Penalty...

[CaptainAmerica]

....the wording of the rule is very simple...."Players are prohibited from grabbing the inside collar of the back or side of the shoulder pads and immediately pulling down the runner."

Roy obviously grabbed Tiki by the back of the shoulder pads but he clearly held him up and didn't bring him down until he could get a better hold on him. Very good non-call. Obviously the way he made the tackle Roy understands the language in the rule.

It's a stupid rule to begin with and it's obvious the officials aren't calling it, but in this case Roy was clearly within the rule as it's written.

 

[jem88]

....the wording of the rule is very simple...."Players are prohibited from grabbing the inside collar of the back or side of the shoulder pads and immediately pulling down the runner."

Roy obviously grabbed Tiki by the back of the shoulder pads but he clearly held him up and didn't bring him down until he could get a better hold on him. Very good non-call. Obviously the way he made the tackle Roy understands the language in the rule.

It's a stupid rule to begin with and it's obvious the officials aren't calling it, but in this case Roy was clearly within the rule as it's written.

Thanks, I'm getting sick of clowns like Peter King and Don Banks singling out Williams when I swear I've seen hundreds of horse-collar tackles this year. To me, it is a rule with good intentions but is almost impossible to call on a routine basis. It seems very few people (myself included) have a sound understanding of what constitutes a horse-collar.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Mort in the ESPN chat on Sunday said Roy had his jersey and NOT the pads. Said that the rule might be adjusted in the offseason to include the jersey, but that's why his tackle was legal.

However, he did say the tackle by Plax on Glenn on the INT was most definitely a horse collar.

 

[AbeBeta]

That's a pretty stupid determination for a ref to have to make. That rule is written for fines not for on the field stuff. There's just too much for the ref to be looking at there.

 

[WoodysGirl]

That's a pretty stupid determination for a ref to have to make. That rule is written for fines not for on the field stuff. There's just too much for the ref to be looking at there.

Mort also said alot of guys have been fined for them, but they haven't been made public.

 

[Paniolo22]

Roy also didn't yank him backwards and fall on the back of his legs. He was actually very conscious of NOT horsecolloring him if you watch it again. He let Tiki go a few yardsw laterally before taking him down legally.

 

[jimmy40]

Roy also didn't yank him backwards and fall on the back of his legs. He was actually very conscious of NOT horsecolloring him if you watch it again. He let Tiki go a few yardsw laterally before taking him down legally.

ROFLMAO. He didn't LET him do anything, he just didn't have a good enough hold to make the tackle.

 

[Yeagermeister]

It wasn't a penalty because he tackled him by the jersey not the pads.

 

[Nors]

Roy also didn't yank him backwards and fall on the back of his legs. He was actually very conscious of NOT horsecolloring him if you watch it again. He let Tiki go a few yardsw laterally before taking him down legally.

Roy had him by the jersey which slowed the runner down enough for Roy to adjust and tackle him.

Had he truly horse collared the guy - he would have had the leverage and could have hurt the player. Plays are going that fast - your just trying to get your hands on the player.

 

[Paniolo22]

Roy had him by the jersey which slowed the runner down enough for Roy to adjust and tackle him.

Exactly. Last year he wouldn't have adjusted and tackled, he would have just left his feet and yanked him from behind.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Exactly. Last year he wouldn't have adjusted and tackled, he would have just left his feet and yanked him from behind.

Sure, that's what I was saying. When you watched the play it was obvious that if Roy wanted to he could have slung his body around and brought him down immediately but he chose not to do that. But he clearly grabbed him by the back of the pads. (It was more than the jersey despite what some say).

 

[Verdict]

I remember at least one commentator stating that horse collar tackling a running back is legal. I don't know if this is true or not. I'm sure someone will know if this is accurate or not.

 

[royhitshard]

I remember at least one commentator stating that horse collar tackling a running back is legal. I don't know if this is true or not. I'm sure someone will know if this is accurate or not.

I believe it is legal to tackle the QB that way, but not sure if you can tackle the RB that way. I could be wrong though.

 

[Baileyneverfailey]

You can do it inside the tackle box and it's no penalty, QB, RB, whatever.

 

[TunaFan33]

....the wording of the rule is very simple...."Players are prohibited from grabbing the inside collar of the back or side of the shoulder pads and immediately pulling down the runner."

Roy obviously grabbed Tiki by the back of the shoulder pads but he clearly held him up and didn't bring him down until he could get a better hold on him. Very good non-call. Obviously the way he made the tackle Roy understands the language in the rule.

It's a stupid rule to begin with and it's obvious the officials aren't calling it, but in this case Roy was clearly within the rule as it's written.

Agreed-the only reason why they're making these "rule changes" is b/c of just that-with all the lucrative deals owners are shelling out, they CAN'T afford these injuries.

There's gonna be yet another "rule change" next season-where you CAN'T tackle the QBs knees-probably will be the "Chris Gamble rule". You heard it here first!