Video of Roy's horsecollar this last week??

[DasTex]

Has anyone noticed how he uses his other arm to pull McFat's legs out from under the tackle? It looks like he does this so that they don't get caught up, thus possibly hurting him.

I had noticed it Sunday, and was wondering if anyone else had?

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Here is a link to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9APM6mNVCVY

 

[Ceasaleo88]

Yea I did notice that too. As he's pullin him down with one hand, the other sweeps McNabb's leg to make sure it's not caught in the turf. I may be wrong but he might have a case in his appeal. Maybe he can tell Goodell, "Look I wasn't tryin to injure him, I even went out of my way to make sure he wasn't injured". The tape don't lie

 

[WarDaddy]

It also looks like before he grabbed his leg he tried to wrap him up around the waist but just missed. It does look like he tried hard not to hurt him though.

The way he used to do it was just brutal. He would use two hands and pull back using all of his weight. The yank was very sudden and that's what would cause the injuries.

But in all honesty, if he would just stretch out and wrap people up this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[MapleLeaf]

...to familiarize yourself with the arguments and the gruesome pictures.

You can argue this ten ways to Sunday, but if you take one look at Musa Smith then you know why they put the rule in place.


http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2005/horse_collar_tackle/horsetest.swf

 

[DasTex]

...to familiarize yourself with the arguments and the gruesome pictures.

You can argue this ten ways to Sunday, but if you take one look at Musa Smith then you know why they put the rule in place.


http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2005/horse_collar_tackle/horsetest.swf

Injuries happen....it doesn't mean he does this on purpose....it just means he's one of the few, that can grab another NFL player from behind with one arm and bring him down. There aren't too many that can make the tackle.

I've seen worse injuries on normal form tackles. Feet get caught in the turf, knees bend the wrong way, other players roll up on a leg, and freak injuries happen. It doesn't change my view that this rule is pretty dumb.

 

[Rack]

...to familiarize yourself with the arguments and the gruesome pictures.

You can argue this ten ways to Sunday, but if you take one look at Musa Smith then you know why they put the rule in place.


http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2005/horse_collar_tackle/horsetest.swf

Players get hurt with every LEGAL form of tackle there is today... I guess they should just remove tackling from the game and become a flag football league?

 

[MapleLeaf]

Players get hurt with every LEGAL form of tackle there is today... I guess they should just remove tackling from the game and become a flag football league?

...prior to the rule change was the only form of tackling that occurs when:

1. the tackler is exclusively coming from a position the ball carrier is unaware - specifically from behind.

2. the mode of device used to anchor and complete the tackle is a piece of protective equipment

3. the moment arm in the force equation is below the knee or the weakest part of the player's leg if the foot becomes planted.

There is no other form of tackling in flag, two hand touch or regular football that principly uses the protective equipment as the means of hauling a player down.

Protective equipment are designed by engineers not only to provide impact dispersal during the game, but they maintain their orientation on a player's body by specific anchor and "fit" points .

Utilizing protective equipment and their anchoring advantages as a way to bring the ball carrier down is dangerous just like grabbing the helmet face mask and twisting the guys head to pull him down is.

 

[jimmy40]

Has anyone noticed how he uses his other arm to pull McFat's legs out from under the tackle? It looks like he does this so that they don't get caught up, thus possibly hurting him.

I had noticed it Sunday, and was wondering if anyone else had?

:laugh2: :laugh1:

 

[Jimz31]

I personally like what Gosselin said....he said "There were 14,428 rushes in the NFL last season. There were 9,772 pass completions and 1,196 sacks. That's 25,396 potential tackle plays in 2005. Five times in those 25,396 downs was a player injured by a horse-collar tackle. This is a trend? One injury every 5000-plus plays? No, this is an over-reaction on the part of the league."

Common sense doesn't quite make sense to the NFL front office.

 

[AdamJT13]

1. the tackler is exclusively coming from a position the ball carrier is unaware - specifically from behind.

You can horse-collar someone from the side. And most horse-collar tackles are made by someone the runner has seen and is trying to avoid. For example, on Sunday, McNabb ran upfield, saw Roy and cut away from him.

2. the mode of device used to anchor and complete the tackle is a piece of protective equipment

A jersey is not "protective equipment." And it's still legal to tackle someone by grabbing any part of the jersey or shoulder pad other than the collar on the back or side. You can even grab the collar in the front.

Roy had one tackle in the past few weeks when he grabbed the jersey on the shoulder (over the bicep) and did the same thing he would have done on a horse-collar (yank him down with his weight). If the runner had been injured, would it become illegal to grab a sleeve, too?

3. the moment arm in the force equation is below the knee or the weakest part of the player's leg if the foot becomes planted.

It was that way with Roy's "horse-sleeve," too, but that's legal.

There is no other form of tackling in flag, two hand touch or regular football that principly uses the protective equipment as the means of hauling a player down.

Except when you legally grab any part of that protective equipment other than inside the back or side collar. Heck, you can even tackle someone by the helmet if you don't grab an opening or the facemask.

 

[Jimz31]

If a leg of a high-profile athlete was broken by a guy hitting his legs, like we see T-New do all the time, this stupid NFL would want that banned as well.

 

[Rack]

I personally like what Gosselin said....he said "There were 14,428 rushes in the NFL last season. There were 9,772 pass completions and 1,196 sacks. That's 25,396 potential tackle plays in 2005. Five times in those 25,396 downs was a player injured by a horse-collar tackle. This is a trend? One injury every 5000-plus plays? No, this is an over-reaction on the part of the league."

Common sense doesn't quite make sense to the NFL front office.

 

[DasTex]

:laugh2: :laugh1:

Why so funny?? Watch the video...it speaks for itself.

 

[MapleLeaf]

A jersey is not "protective equipment." And it's still legal to tackle someone by grabbing any part of the jersey or shoulder pad other than the collar on the back or side. You can even grab the collar in the front.

Roy had one tackle in the past few weeks when he grabbed the jersey on the shoulder (over the bicep) and did the same thing he would have done on a horse-collar (yank him down with his weight). If the runner had been injured, would it become illegal to grab a sleeve, too?

...against this, but using the jersey is a poor comparison to the way the shoulder pads are anchored to a player's body.

The comparison is simple. I would have an NFL player pull on a regulation jersey on your back with you fully padded and you would see all the variables associated from stretching of the fabric to difficulty of the handhold.

But I take the same NFL player and he grabs a hold of the centre of the back of your shoulder pads and down you go.

The transfer of force on a jersey is nowhere as instant as the transfer of force on a engineered piece of protective equipment. That's why runners are typically stopped dead in their tracks and why this is a dangerous mode of tackling.

As for the "horse sleeve" the force moment can be overcome by a runner dependant on whether he can overcome the leverage of the jersey tackle.

You see that often with runner stretching the tackler and sometimes breaking their grip.

On a horse collar with the shoulder pads I would argue that the advantage is far greater towards the defensive player once he collars your shoulder pad.

Once again for all who really think this is a valid debate try a simulation on yourself or a friend.

 

[MapleLeaf]

I personally like what Gosselin said....he said "There were 14,428 rushes in the NFL last season. There were 9,772 pass completions and 1,196 sacks. That's 25,396 potential tackle plays in 2005. Five times in those 25,396 downs was a player injured by a horse-collar tackle. This is a trend? One injury every 5000-plus plays? No, this is an over-reaction on the part of the league."

Common sense doesn't quite make sense to the NFL front office.

...plays resulted in a serious paralysis would you still turn a blind eye?

If the horse collar didn't result in a snapped ankle, but rather serious paralysis what would you expect the league to do?

Snapped ankle, paralysis is any of this good in your opinion?

Is this what you would call good football?

One can reminisce all they want about the good ole days, but have we all forgotten about the articles written in the past about NFL veterans fighting for their lives and health due to injury issues.

Many of these guys came before there was serious money in this league so one can't use the argument of salary compensation to soothe the wounds.

Is it so bad for a sport to attempt address potentially dangerous situations as a way of ensuring the health of it's workplace?

Don't you expect that from your employer?

Are you prepared to stick your hand in a piece of machinery at your job even though the risk of injury is one every 300,000 hours of use?

Geez, I don't get some of the opinions of posters here! I'm trying, but I don't understand.

 

[zeroburrito]

its amazing how roy acted after he got flagged. is he seriously ********?

 

[DallasInDC]

I personally like what Gosselin said....he said "There were 14,428 rushes in the NFL last season. There were 9,772 pass completions and 1,196 sacks. That's 25,396 potential tackle plays in 2005. Five times in those 25,396 downs was a player injured by a horse-collar tackle. This is a trend? One injury every 5000-plus plays? No, this is an over-reaction on the part of the league."

Common sense doesn't quite make sense to the NFL front office.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment of goose's statement but I think looking at the % of horsecaller plays that result in injury would be a better indicator/predicator on how dangerous the tackle actually is. You could have the stat's listed above, and if there were only ten horscollar tackles made all year and five resulted in an injury you could make the argument that 1 in every 2 horscollar tackles results in injury and thus have a legitimate argument for making the rule due to the risk of injury.

 

[peplaw06]

I personally like what Gosselin said....he said "There were 14,428 rushes in the NFL last season. There were 9,772 pass completions and 1,196 sacks. That's 25,396 potential tackle plays in 2005. Five times in those 25,396 downs was a player injured by a horse-collar tackle. This is a trend? One injury every 5000-plus plays? No, this is an over-reaction on the part of the league."

Common sense doesn't quite make sense to the NFL front office.

Unless Gosselin meant 9,772 pass attempts, then the ratio is even smaller. Not every pass play is accounted for with this math, it leaves out attempts where the pass was thrown and incomplete/intercepted without a sack. It also leaves out special teams plays.

...against this, but using the jersey is a poor comparison to the way the shoulder pads are anchored to a player's body.

The comparison is simple. I would have an NFL player pull on a regulation jersey on your back with you fully padded and you would see all the variables associated from stretching of the fabric to difficulty of the handhold.

But it's illegal to tackle a guy by the back collar of his jersey too. There is no differentiation in the NFL rulebook.

...plays resulted in a serious paralysis would you still turn a blind eye?

If the horse collar didn't result in a snapped ankle, but rather serious paralysis what would you expect the league to do?

Snapped ankle, paralysis is any of this good in your opinion?

Is this what you would call good football?

They outlawed helmet to helmet hits because of concussion/paralysis concerns. Guess what... those injuries still happen. You can't make football a completely safe sport without eradicating all forms of physical contact.

One can reminisce all they want about the good ole days, but have we all forgotten about the articles written in the past about NFL veterans fighting for their lives and health due to injury issues.

Many of these guys came before there was serious money in this league so one can't use the argument of salary compensation to soothe the wounds.

Is it so bad for a sport to attempt address potentially dangerous situations as a way of ensuring the health of it's workplace?

Don't you expect that from your employer?

Are you prepared to stick your hand in a piece of machinery at your job even though the risk of injury is one every 300,000 hours of use?

Geez, I don't get some of the opinions of posters here! I'm trying, but I don't understand.

There are plenty of dangerous jobs where the employer can't eliminate 100% of the danger involved. That's when they say, "It comes with the job." Football is a prime example. If you don't think the risk is worth it, you don't play.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Yea, but what if he misses?