Video of Roy's horsecollar this last week??

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
davidyee;1846854 said:
...against this, but using the jersey is a poor comparison to the way the shoulder pads are anchored to a player's body.

The rule prohibits grabbing inside the back or side collar of the jersey as well as the shoulder pads.

Roy grabbed McNabb's jersey collar, not his shoulder pads.

If you're going to argue the merits of the rule, at least know the rule.
 

smarta5150

Mr. Wright
Messages
7,163
Reaction score
0
Forget this horse collar... someone find the video of the Vikings game and the BLATANT horse collar that wasn't called.
 

MapleLeaf

Maple Leaf
Messages
5,209
Reaction score
1,598
AdamJT13;1846960 said:
The rule prohibits grabbing inside the back or side collar of the jersey as well as the shoulder pads.

Roy grabbed McNabb's jersey collar, not his shoulder pads.

If you're going to argue the merits of the rule, at least know the rule.

...this up as part of my argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9APM6mNVCVY

in the replay I see Donovan's shoulder pads drop which in my opinion an indication that Roy has a hold of his shoulder pads.

I find it hard to believe that a 225 lb man of Roy's strength holding onto just exclusively the jersey doesn't stretch the material more than what is shown in the replay.

In my opinion he doesn't just have only the jersey he has the pads also and the drop of the pads when Roy yanks Donovan down is the indicator.

Apologies in advance because my taped version here at home is much clearer than what this video shows.

If you have a clearer version on tape do check it out.
 

MapleLeaf

Maple Leaf
Messages
5,209
Reaction score
1,598
peplaw06;1846939 said:
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.

... that the employer does everything within his power to mitigate the risk to the employee. I believe the ruling agency is OSHA.

If the NFL determines that this action has a higher than average chance of resulting in an injury shouldn't it be incumbent on them to attempt to eliminate any further occurrences.

They may not be able to prevent all occurrences, but they are required to try.

In this case the percentages say that Roy has another option.
 

Jimz31

The Sarcastic One
Messages
14,388
Reaction score
231
This is FOOTBALL...what is it with a bunch of pansies here? How many decades was this tackle LEGAL?

What if it resulted in paralysis? How about the tackles that HAVE resulted in paralysis?

What about all of the horse-collars that resulted in no injury whatsoever? Some people act like it is a given that there will be an injury EVERY time this is done.

The players KNOW that they can be injured playing this game and are compensated pretty dang well for it.

Put a dress on the ball-carriers, for crying out loud.....
 

Jimz31

The Sarcastic One
Messages
14,388
Reaction score
231
davidyee;1847180 said:
... that the employer does everything within his power to mitigate the risk to the employee. I believe the ruling agency is OSHA.

If the NFL determines that this action has a higher than average chance of resulting in an injury shouldn't it be incumbent on them to attempt to eliminate any further occurrences.

They may not be able to prevent all occurrences, but they are required to try.

In this case the percentages say that Roy has another option.

News flash for you.....the NFL is NOT subject to all of the laws in the U.S. that other corporations are...just an FYI. Do some research.
 

Bleu Star

Bye Felicia!
Messages
33,925
Reaction score
19,920
Rack;1845038 said:
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?


I know right!!! So many rules.... so little fun...
 

peplaw06

That Guy
Messages
13,699
Reaction score
413
davidyee;1847180 said:
... that the employer does everything within his power to mitigate the risk to the employee. I believe the ruling agency is OSHA.

If the NFL determines that this action has a higher than average chance of resulting in an injury shouldn't it be incumbent on them to attempt to eliminate any further occurrences.

They may not be able to prevent all occurrences, but they are required to try.

In this case the percentages say that Roy has another option.
You know... When I first read this post, initially I was thinking "what a crock!" OSHA regulating in the NFL? And I was right. OSHA doesn't have anything to do with the NFL on the field, though they could. And they don't because the injury rates aren't that high.

http://www.slate.com/id/2135433/

And if you want to get into a more general sense... stating that "employers" in general have to deal with OSHA, then you are even more full of it. Not every industry is governed by OSHA. In fact, government employers are completely exempt from OSHA altogether.

So no, they're not "required to try" to prevent all injuries on the football field. You're talking directly out of your posterior orifice. So the real question is are you completely full of it, or just on this issue?
 

MapleLeaf

Maple Leaf
Messages
5,209
Reaction score
1,598
peplaw06;1847316 said:
You know... When I first read this post, initially I was thinking "what a crock!" OSHA regulating in the NFL? And I was right. OSHA doesn't have anything to do with the NFL on the field, though they could. And they don't because the injury rates aren't that high.

http://www.slate.com/id/2135433/

And if you want to get into a more general sense... stating that "employers" in general have to deal with OSHA, then you are even more full of it. Not every industry is governed by OSHA. In fact, government employers are completely exempt from OSHA altogether.

So no, they're not "required to try" to prevent all injuries on the football field. You're talking directly out of your posterior orifice. So the real question is are you completely full of it, or just on this issue?

...is my error. I really wanted to point their mandate out as a standard that all employers would want to pursue.

The corrected example is to state if a regulatory agency who governs much of U.S. employment expects a general standard for all workers why should the expectation be any less for football players?

Why can't the NFLPA expect the Rules Committee to rule in favour of the safety of it's players.

Is the spirit of the game to exhibit the potential for gruesome injury? Does it take away from the enjoyment of the game is there is no horse collar? Or is this just for Roy Williams' fans?

If the statistical argument is that there are so few horsecollars committed in a given season what's the harm in not having any?

Is your season of NFL irreparably destroyed? Hopefully not and when Roy decides that football is no longer for him maybe we will see the last vestiges of the horse collar issue ride in the sunset with him.

As for the U.S. government I believe the reason why their employees are exempt from OSHA standards is because certain government positions need to be excluded from OSHA regulations because of the very nature of their employment.

Soldiers for instance due to the high risk of their day to day activity. But despite that the U.S. gov't it still has regulations governing it's workforce to ensure health and safety is still part of its operations even though it not governed by OSHA.

Apologies for the error on the reference, I tried to reword it for a better understanding.
 

peplaw06

That Guy
Messages
13,699
Reaction score
413
davidyee;1848360 said:
...is my error. I really wanted to point their mandate out as a standard that all employers would want to pursue.

The corrected example is to state if a regulatory agency who governs much of U.S. employment expects a general standard for all workers why should the expectation be any less for football players?
Because it is a part of the game. Football, the way it is meant to be played, will never be a completely sterile game. If that's what you want, go watch golf.

Players know that going in. It's like being a police officer. You know the risks that come with the job, but you choose to do it anyway. You can't expect the police department to take the risk of injury out completely from the job description. Yes, you can take measures to protect yourself, but expecting to remove all risk completely is totally naive given the nature of the job.

Why can't the NFLPA expect the Rules Committee to rule in favour of the safety of it's players.

Is the spirit of the game to exhibit the potential for gruesome injury? Does it take away from the enjoyment of the game is there is no horse collar? Or is this just for Roy Williams' fans?
I don't know about you, but it has taken some of the enjoyment out of the game for me. They're trying to regulate in an area that doesn't need it... like they've been trying to do with a lot of other rules (i.e. uniform rules, celebration rules, etc.)

This week on this board has been brutal with all the Roy threads, and it's not because he had a bad game, it's because he's gotten suspended for a violation of this rule. He didn't play particularly worse against Philly than he has played all season. It rests squarely on this rule.

If the statistical argument is that there are so few horsecollars committed in a given season what's the harm in not having any?

Is your season of NFL irreparably destroyed? Hopefully not and when Roy decides that football is no longer for him maybe we will see the last vestiges of the horse collar issue ride in the sunset with him.
You're never... and I mean never... going to take the horse collar tackle completely out of the game. I don't care if you suspend everyone that does it one game for one violation. It's a part of the game, and it will happen from time to time no matter how rare it is now. Roy wasn't the first person to do it, and he won't be the last.

As for the U.S. government I believe the reason why their employees are exempt from OSHA standards is because certain government positions need to be excluded from OSHA regulations because of the very nature of their employment.

Soldiers for instance due to the high risk of their day to day activity. But despite that the U.S. gov't it still has regulations governing it's workforce to ensure health and safety is still part of its operations even though it not governed by OSHA.

Apologies for the error on the reference, I tried to reword it for a better understanding.
You might want to brush up on your OSH Act before continuing this line of debate. Aren't you Canadian? I'd think if you've never really dealt with OSHA, you should educate yourself before going there. The connection between the horse collar tackle and OSHA regulation is the stretch of all stretches.
 

theebs

Believe!!!!
Messages
27,462
Reaction score
9,207
I am not a roy hater and I am not trying to add more trouble.

But did anyone notice he basically horse collared brent celek in the first quarter too, but it looked as if his hand slipped off the jersey and celek went out of bounds?

or am I just crazy?
 

Howley54

New Member
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
davidyee;1846871 said:
...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.

You know, you're absolutely right. Maybe the NFL should scrap the whole "tackle" thing and make them wear flags. That would save a LOT of injuries.
 

Howley54

New Member
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
peplaw06;1846939 said:
But it's illegal to tackle a guy by the back collar of his jersey too. There is no differentiation in the NFL rulebook.

Actually, in certain circumstances it's perfectly legal to horsecollar the ball carrier, which makes the rule even more dubious IMO.
 

TVMan

Active Member
Messages
821
Reaction score
75
Steelers DBs unhappy with horse collar ban

By Joe Bendel
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, May 26, 2005

Steelers strong safety Troy Polamalu believes the NFL’s new horse-collar tackle rule is terribly offensive.

“Ridiculous,” Polamalu said Wednesday, after a voluntary workout on the South Side. “There are a lot more injuries due to cut blocks. But it’s an offensive league, and it’s an offensive business.”


Free safety Chris Hope also weighed in on the NFL’s decision to issue a 15-yard penalty and a possible fine for “horse-caller” tackling, in which a defender grabs hold of the back of a player’s shoulder pads and whips him to the ground.


“It’s another sign of the NFL wanting to see the offense make all the big plays and score all the touchdowns,” said Hope, who’s built a reputation as a big hitter. “It’s kind of hard to be thinking about how you’re going to tackle a guy, being that most safeties are aggressive. Roy Williams, myself, Troy Polamalu, John Lynch, Brian Dawkins - most of us are aggressive guys by nature and you already have to watch for the head-on-head collisions.”
story continues below

Hope paused, before jumping back in.

“If a receiver gets ahead of you, how are you supposed to tackle him?” Hope said. “Do you have to smack him down or hold him and tackle him from the front of his waist? Most strong receivers, like Terrell Owens, you can’t take down like that, so you have to put your weight on him and find ways to get him down.”


Owens was a victim last season of a horse-collar tackle delivered by Dallas safety Roy Williams, notorious for his horse-collar tackling. Not only did Williams end the regular season for Owens, but he also ended the seasons of Baltimore running back Musa Smith and Tennessee wide receiver Tyrone Calico with his horse-collar tackles. Williams was involved in four major incidents with his tackling technique.


In a 27-5 vote Tuesday, NFL owners voted to ban the tackling style at their two-day meeting in Washington, D.C. The Steelers were among the majority voters.


Known unofficially as the “Roy Williams Rule,” the league became increasingly concerned after the competition committee determined that horse-collar tackles had caused six serious injuries in ‘04.


The new rule will be enforced only if a horse-collar tackle occurs in the open field. It will not apply to tackles in the “tackle box” at the line of scrimmage or to bringing down quarterbacks in the pocket.


Steelers wideout Hines Ward, who said he’s been horse-collared on a number of occasions, agrees with the new rule. He also empathizes with defenders.


“I’m for it,” he said. “The defensive players probably aren’t, but any time you can protect someone like that, it’s always a plus. It’s just another form of helping to protect players. A lot of guys, if they can’t make the tackle, they’ll grab you by the shoulder pads. It’s like a facemask, I guess. A lot of guys have been injured like that.”


Ward said the Owens incident, which kept the All-Pro wideout off the field for two regular season games and two playoff games, was enough to prompt a rule change.


“That was kind of a freak accident, but it was caused by that tackle,” Ward said. “You can look at other dog-collar tackles and guys get seriously hurt.”


The pressing issue for defenders is determining exactly what constitutes a horse-collar tackle and how they’ll approach things in the future.
“I think (a horse-collar tackle) is just if you get a guy from the back but it’s going to be such a judgment call,” Steelers cornerback Deshea Townsend said.


Defensive backs coach Darren Perry immediately addressed the rule change with his group. He brought it up at a meeting yesterday and asked that his defensive backs be aware of it.


“The biggest thing you stress to your guys is, hey, play football the way you know how, and don’t let it take away your aggressiveness,” said Perry, who joked that the defensive backs should start a donation campaign among themselves in the event they’re fined for improper tackling. “Because the last thing you want to do is go out there and be timid and not play to your capabilities.” Hope will continue to play his trade in a physical manner, though he is conflicted by the new rule.


“I can’t take away from my natural-born tackling ability,” said Hope, who plans to watch video over the summer to get an idea of what is and isn’t considered horse-collar tackling. “It’s a tough call. You’re trying to get a guy down, and I don’t think anybody’s trying to intentionally hurt the other guy. But if I have to tackle (tight ends) like Todd Heap or Tony Gonzalez, they’re going to drag me unless I put my weight down on them and try to throw them down. There are going to be times when you’re chasing guys from behind, and the key is figuring out how to get them down without breaking the rule.”








Joe Bendel can be reached at joecbendel@aol.com or 412-320-7811.




:rolleyes:
 

Coakleys Dad

The Re-Birth has begun.
Messages
4,836
Reaction score
10
Ceasaleo88;1844207 said:
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
Stop smokin mistletoe
 
Top