Horse Collar tackle ban

[The_Philster]

Today at owner's meetings, the league voted to ban horse collar tackles...it's a technique of tackling that Roy Williams of the Cowboys used to injure 3 seperate players in 2004..Terrell Owens, and Tyrone Calico of the Titans included, It involves pulling down the runner by grabbing the shoulder pads behind the neck. They were discussing it on WGR this afternoon and even had a clip from Chris Spielman talking about it...about how these rules changes are destroying the game.
Personally, I think it's giving too much advantage to the offense...another rules change like this and they'll be playing flag football out there.
:feedback:

[Turf]

I think you need to reword the choices, it's biased saying this is a mans game.
Collar tackling is simply a part of the game. Not that anything I think or say will change the ruling.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Why not ban blocking and tackling all together? And, all forms of artificial turf.... That way no one would get hurt.


Call me an old fart, but one of my favorite players when I was growing up was Deacon Jones, who made the head-slap an art-form: the NFL didn't care what his opinion or mine was when they outlawed that and they don't care what I think about them outlawing the horse-collar tackle now, but there are a couple of drunks who got thrown out of a certain bar in NYC where I was working as a bouncer a couple of years ago who probably wish that the horse-collar tackle was outlawed on all levels of football and by the City Council a long time ago and undoubtedly with this decision by the NFL now. :roflmao:

[Yasgur's Farm]

Maybe if they line the field the other way as well (from endzone to endzone), they could play hop-scotch instead!:blowup:

[OpIv37]

unfortunately, injuries are part of the game. These guys need to suck it up and deal with it- I'm sick of all the advantages being given to the offense.

I can't wait until the first flag is thrown for this penalty.
Ref (puts hand to neck in "Help! I'm Choking!" fashion): "Horse collaring. Number 26 Defense. 15 yard penalty. First Down!"

[DaBillzAhDaShiznit]

My biggest problem with the ban is that it seems that it leaves too much room for error on the part of the refs. I just don't think we need it enforced on the field. They can fine a guy for it, but let's not let the refs interpret what is or isn't a particular style of tackle.

I also heard that the horse collar would be legal within 3 yards of the line of scrimmage. How odd is that?

Just another example of why the NFL is more and more deserving of the "No Fun League" moniker.

If the players don't want to risk being hurt, they should retire. This is football, not soccer or squaredancing. There are plenty of other guys who would take a million bucks a year to play football for a living.

[ryven]

Let the rule stand as it is there is nothing wrong with it. Man the NFL is starting to fill up with a bunch of big babies.

[OpIv37]

My biggest problem with the ban is that it seems that it leaves too much room for error on the part of the refs. I just don't think we need it enforced on the field. They can fine a guy for it, but let's not let the refs interpret what is or isn't a particular style of tackle.

I also heard that the horse collar would be legal within 3 yards of the line of scrimmage. How odd is that?


Agreed- anything that gives the refs too much discretion just causes controversy and rarely works out in Buffalo's favor.

The 3 yard thing is ridiculous- during the few brief seconds of a play, how is a defender expected to look down at the turf and know if they're 3 yards away or not? And why do I get the feeling that the Patriot's 3 yards will really be 4 1/2 yards while the Bills' 3 yards will really be 2 yards?

[djjimkelly]

my view they cant ban everything pretty soon u wont be allowed to tackle anyone . BTW if u guys have played ball to grab a guy by the collar with one hand and take him down lol u know what kind of strentgh that takes. rubbish if its banned

[K-Gun]

my only question, does this help or hurt the Bills?

I think it helps our O more than it hurts our D, assuming they actually enfore the rule (though I'll believe it when I see it.)

[Jan Reimers]

The players get bigger and faster every year, and there are always some headhunters who care nothing about their opponents' careers. I say if it can prevent a small number of goons from inflicting serious injury, it's a good thing.

[OpIv37]

my only question, does this help or hurt the Bills?

I think it helps our O more than it hurts our D, assuming they actually enfore the rule (though I'll believe it when I see it.)

any rule change that gives discretion to the refs hurts the Bills.

[K-Gun]

any rule change that gives discretion to the refs hurts the Bills.

lol, true that.

I was just thinking of our small, fast wr's. It's a lot safer to grab at Evans shoulder pads than trying to wrap him up. There's a better chance of missing. I'm assuming the same goes for Roscoe.

[Spielmanrules54]

Being a fan of strong defense, I hate this move... Next they will ban tackling in order to get basketball-like scores.... Bills over Miami 107 to 99... this along with the more stringent pass interference.... jesus! Let's just get both offenses out and and toss the ball around and see who ends up with the most points at the end of 60 minutes.... guys get hurt from regular tackling too... it's a high contact, high injury sport.

[imbondz]

when was the first time it was used? or come into the league? anyone know?

[camelcowboy]

The rule pisses me off. It's a good rule itself but i just makes me mad that rule changes like this happen only when a "star" get hurt. would this rule have come down if it was a average player who broke their breadstick. Since TO got hurt you see the rule in place.
Another problem with this is that it is going to promote longer runs by the offense, because it is going to be much harder to tackle people from behind. It's just the NFL overreacting again.

[Mahdi]

As much as I dont like rule changes that affect the way the game is played, I agree with banning this type of tackle. If you think about it, going at full speed it is almost impossible to avoid injury. If you try and keep yourself up when being tackled like that, you end up like TO since ultimately no matter how hard you try being pulled by the pads below the head is too much leverage to outmuscle it, and its the leg that suffers. On the other hand if you dont try and keep youself up and just let go of yourself you can end up hurting your tailbone or injuring your back when you get slammed to the ground. Now of course you can get hurt any other way while playing football but the point here is that the player being horse tackled cant do anything to avoid being injured. Dont get me wrong though, I also see the other side of the arguement

[DaBillzAhDaShiznit]

As much as I dont like rule changes that affect the way the game is played, I agree with banning this type of tackle. If you think about it, going at full speed it is almost impossible to avoid injury. If you try and keep yourself up when being tackled like that, you end up like TO since ultimately no matter how hard you try being pulled by the pads below the head is too much leverage to outmuscle it, and its the leg that suffers. On the other hand if you dont try and keep youself up and just let go of yourself you can end up hurting your tailbone or injuring your back when you get slammed to the ground. Now of course you can get hurt any other way while playing football but the point here is that the player being horse tackled cant do anything to avoid being injured. Dont get me wrong though, I also see the other side of the arguement

Dude, I don't know if you have ever played football competetively, but in case you didn't know, the fastest way to get yourself injured on a football field is by modifying your movements in an effort to avoid being injured. If you are out on that field thinking about getting injured, you don't belong on the field. You aren't putting 100% into the game if you are trying to avoid injury. Just as many, if not more, players get injured without significant contact (hamstrings, acl/mcl tears, groin pulls, etc) as do because of a hard hit. Are they going to outlaw runs over 10 yards to avoid hamstring pulls?
It is rediculous over-legislation and it sets a horrible precedent.

By the way, TO wasn't injured trying to hold himself up, he was injured when Roy Williams landed on his legs as he was pulling him back by the collar.
Not that it matters, but the "drop slide" portion of the tackle is the most dangerous to opposing players, not the grabbing of the collar.

[Mahdi]

Dude, I don't know if you have ever played football competetively, but in case you didn't know, the fastest way to get yourself injured on a football field is by modifying your movements in an effort to avoid being injured. If you are out on that field thinking about getting injured, you don't belong on the field. You aren't putting 100% into the game if you are trying to avoid injury. Just as many, if not more, players get injured without significant contact (hamstrings, acl/mcl tears, groin pulls, etc) as do because of a hard hit. Are they going to outlaw runs over 10 yards to avoid hamstring pulls?
It is rediculous over-legislation and it sets a horrible precedent.

By the way, TO wasn't injured trying to hold himself up, he was injured when Roy Williams landed on his legs as he was pulling him back by the collar.
Not that it matters, but the "drop slide" portion of the tackle is the most dangerous to opposing players, not the grabbing of the collar.
I am not saying that that players should be thinking of injury while on the field. But, there comes a point in a play where a player is wrapped up, and on the way down they position themselves in a certain way in order to avoid injury, its instinct, not cowardess, or a lack of effort. However, with a horse collar tackle the body goes where the head goes, and if you think about it grabbing the pads right behind the neck is the same as grabbing the head, and there is nothing the player being tackled can do to land in a manner which avoids injury. And as for the "drop slide", that is part of the horse collar tackle, no one attempting that tackle is going to stand upright while doing it, which is why they banned it. That, combined with the collar grab makes it too dangerous of a tackle to allow.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

when was the first time it was used? or come into the league? anyone know?
It has been around forever. If you get a chance to see some of the NFL games from the 1950s on ESPN Classic, there's a pretty good chance that you will see at least one attempted horse-collar tackle. I know it was around and considered perfectly acceptable--indeed, a good tackle--when I started playing football back in the late 1960s.


Dude, I don't know if you have ever played football competetively, but in case you didn't know, the fastest way to get yourself injured on a football field is by modifying your movements in an effort to avoid being injured. If you are out on that field thinking about getting injured, you don't belong on the field. You aren't putting 100% into the game if you are trying to avoid injury. Just as many, if not more, players get injured without significant contact (hamstrings, acl/mcl tears, groin pulls, etc) as do because of a hard hit. Are they going to outlaw runs over 10 yards to avoid hamstring pulls?
It is rediculous over-legislation and it sets a horrible precedent.

By the way, TO wasn't injured trying to hold himself up, he was injured when Roy Williams landed on his legs as he was pulling him back by the collar.
Not that it matters, but the "drop slide" portion of the tackle is the most dangerous to opposing players, not the grabbing of the collar.
I completely agree! I can't remember where I saw it, but there was an article about the injuries that resulted from horse-collar tackles last season on ESPN.com or some other major site when this legislation was proposed that stated that there were 6 injuries last season resulting from horse-collar tackles, only 5 of which would be banned by the legislation, 4 of which were on tackles made by R.Williams of Dallas.That should indicate that there is something in the technique that he is using as he is bringing the player down that is causing the injuries to occur--and I believe that you have put your finger on it. He's not just "decleating" the opponent, he is twisting them down as he slides across into their legs causing injuries to their knees in the process--that's different than just pulling the player back off of his feet from behind, which is the way that horse-collar tackles usually have been made.


I am not saying that that players should be thinking of injury while on the field. But, there comes a point in a play where a player is wrapped up, and on the way down they position themselves in a certain way in order to avoid injury, its instinct, not cowardess, or a lack of effort. However, with a horse collar tackle the body goes where the head goes, and if you think about it grabbing the pads right behind the neck is the same as grabbing the head, and there is nothing the player being tackled can do to land in a manner which avoids injury. And as for the "drop slide", that is part of the horse collar tackle, no one attempting that tackle is going to stand upright while doing it, which is why they banned it. That, combined with the collar grab makes it too dangerous of a tackle to allow.
I disagree. There's really no difference between being "decleated" from behind and being "decleated" by a perfect form tackle from the front--either way, the ball carrier ends up hitting the ground with his back first. Indeed, with the horse-collar tackle, the impact is not as hard because the force generated by a 240+ lb body moving into the hit and driving through the contact is significantly greater than that which can be generated by anyone's arm pulling back on the shoulder pads and the RB actually has a chance to use his free arm, if he wishes to, to cushion the blow from hitting the ground in a way that he can't when wrapped up from the front. A blind-side, "decleating" hit on a QB is even more surprising and dangerous, yet, like the form tackle on a RB, you wouldn't ban it from the game, even though it is likely that more serious injuries to star QBs have been caused by this type of hit over the years.

Also, you can't simply dismiss the slide aspect of what R.Williams is doing: when one player has caused 4 of the 6 serious injuries resulting from a particular tackle during the course of a season, you have to look at what that player is doing while making the tackle that is causing injuries where similar tackles being made by other players are not resulting in the same kinds of injuries. There is no reason to twist the upper body of the RB or to end up sliding onto his legs when making this kind of tackle with the regularity that R.Williams seems to be doing so. While it is true that the tackler may not always contact the runner straight from behind or while in a completely upright position, since the object of making this kind of tackle is to stop the forward progress of the runner, the most efficient way to do so, even when approaching him from an angle, is to pull him back on a line perpendicular to the line of his shoulders--twisting your own body, not his--to gain greater leverage to do so. If you do that, instead of ending up on his legs, you either end up on his chest, falling over his torso as your momentum carries you over his body as he falls backwards onto the ground, or on the ground above his shoulders as you drop to the ground, using your body's weight and your fall to give you the strength and leverage to pull the RB to the ground. There's no need to twist your opponent's body unless you are trying to show-off by flinging him to the ground rather than simply bringing him to the ground.

I understand that players are bigger and faster than they were in the "old days" and that, as a result, the momentum involved in the plays is much greater. And, I also understand that the NFL wants to protect its star players, etc. But, you have to admit that there is also a much greater tendency in the league for players to show-boat and, as a result, there has been a deterioration in the execution of many of the fundamentals of the game (for example: I was taught never to launch yourself at an opponent trying to hit him with the crown of your helmet because you would lose sight of him for a fraction of an instant and could miss the tackle, but players do it all of the time now and you see them miss tackles they should make even in the NFL). When one player is responsible for the injuries caused by a certain type of tackle than all of the rest of the players in the league combined, it would seem to me that it makes more sense to examine what that player is doing to cause those injuries and put the onus on him to "clean up his act" than it does to ban that type of tackle or make the refs responsible for making yet another "judgement call" during the course of the game.

[Meathead]

I am 100% behind banning this technique.

Although injuries are part of the game, if you know a particular action is likely to cause serious injury you consider options to reduce that risk. The bans against facemask tackling, chop blocks, and clipping are all examples.

If you can't get close enough to the ball carrier to tackle him with your arms and/or body then you shouldn't be able to simply latch onto the back of the shoulderpads alone - especially considering the risk of season/career ending injury.

[imbondz]

It has been around forever. If you get a chance to see some of the NFL games from the 1950s on ESPN Classic, there's a pretty good chance that you will see at least one attempted horse-collar tackle. I know it was around and considered perfectly acceptable--indeed, a good tackle--when I started playing football back in the late 1960s.


I completely agree! I can't remember where I saw it, but there was an article about the injuries that resulted from horse-collar tackles last season on ESPN.com or some other major site when this legislation was proposed that stated that there were 6 injuries last season resulting from horse-collar tackles, only 5 of which would be banned by the legislation, 4 of which were on tackles made by R.Williams of Dallas.That should indicate that there is something in the technique that he is using as he is bringing the player down that is causing the injuries to occur--and I believe that you have put your finger on it. He's not just "decleating" the opponent, he is twisting them down as he slides across into their legs causing injuries to their knees in the process--that's different than just pulling the player back off of his feet from behind, which is the way that horse-collar tackles usually have been made.


I disagree. There's really no difference between being "decleated" from behind and being "decleated" by a perfect form tackle from the front--either way, the ball carrier ends up hitting the ground with his back first. Indeed, with the horse-collar tackle, the impact is not as hard because the force generated by a 240+ lb body moving into the hit and driving through the contact is significantly greater than that which can be generated by anyone's arm pulling back on the shoulder pads and the RB actually has a chance to use his free arm, if he wishes to, to cushion the blow from hitting the ground in a way that he can't when wrapped up from the front. A blind-side, "decleating" hit on a QB is even more surprising and dangerous, yet, like the form tackle on a RB, you wouldn't ban it from the game, even though it is likely that more serious injuries to star QBs have been caused by this type of hit over the years.

Also, you can't simply dismiss the slide aspect of what R.Williams is doing: when one player has caused 4 of the 6 serious injuries resulting from a particular tackle during the course of a season, you have to look at what that player is doing while making the tackle that is causing injuries where similar tackles being made by other players are not resulting in the same kinds of injuries. There is no reason to twist the upper body of the RB or to end up sliding onto his legs when making this kind of tackle with the regularity that R.Williams seems to be doing so. While it is true that the tackler may not always contact the runner straight from behind or while in a completely upright position, since the object of making this kind of tackle is to stop the forward progress of the runner, the most efficient way to do so, even when approaching him from an angle, is to pull him back on a line perpendicular to the line of his shoulders--twisting your own body, not his--to gain greater leverage to do so. If you do that, instead of ending up on his legs, you either end up on his chest, falling over his torso as your momentum carries you over his body as he falls backwards onto the ground, or on the ground above his shoulders as you drop to the ground, using your body's weight and your fall to give you the strength and leverage to pull the RB to the ground. There's no need to twist your opponent's body unless you are trying to show-off by flinging him to the ground rather than simply bringing him to the ground.

I understand that players are bigger and faster than they were in the "old days" and that, as a result, the momentum involved in the plays is much greater. And, I also understand that the NFL wants to protect its star players, etc. But, you have to admit that there is also a much greater tendency in the league for players to show-boat and, as a result, there has been a deterioration in the execution of many of the fundamentals of the game (for example: I was taught never to launch yourself at an opponent trying to hit him with the crown of your helmet because you would lose sight of him for a fraction of an instant and could miss the tackle, but players do it all of the time now and you see them miss tackles they should make even in the NFL). When one player is responsible for the injuries caused by a certain type of tackle than all of the rest of the players in the league combined, it would seem to me that it makes more sense to examine what that player is doing to cause those injuries and put the onus on him to "clean up his act" than it does to ban that type of tackle or make the refs responsible for making yet another "judgement call" during the course of the game.
my opinion is solely based on if the tackle has been around in the league since the beginning. If so, like you say, then I don't think it needs to be changed.

[John Doe]

They should have banned this type of tackle long ago. I equate it to face-masking whereby a piece of equipment (shoulder pads) is used to gain leverage. It discourages good tackling technique. Out best tackler in recent years was Winfield and you never saw him use it.

[Michael82]

They should have banned this type of tackle long ago. I equate it to face-masking whereby a piece of equipment (shoulder pads) is used to gain leverage. It discourages good tackling technique. Out best tackler in recent years was Winfield and you never saw him use it.
I never saw hardly any of our players participate in this kind of tackling.