| Horse-collar Tackle |
Website Links For Tackle |
Information AboutHorse-collar Tackle |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT HORSE-COLLAR TACKLE | |
| american football plays | |
|
Following the 2004-2005 season, the NFL's Competition Committee reviewed video of the entire season and concluded that the horse-collar tackle resulted in six serious injuries, most notably to Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens , who suffered a severely sprained ankle and a broken fibula after a horse-collar tackle. On May 23, 2005, NFL owners voted 27-5 to ban the tackle. The dissenting votes were cast by Dallas, San Francisco, Detroit, New England and New Orleans. The ban states that a horse-collar tackle is an open-field tackle in which a defender uses the shoulder pads to immediately bring a ballcarrier down. The term "open field" means that horse-collar tackles committed near the line of scrimmage will be allowed; in addition, the stipulation of "immediately bringing the ballcarrier down" means that, if a defender begins to bring a player down by the shoulder pads but lets go before the tackle is completed, he will not be penalized. Any player committing the horse-collar tackle faces a possible league-imposed fine in addition to being penalized 15 yards on the play. REACTION TO THE BAN This ban has come under heavy scrutiny from fans and NFL management alike for a myriad of reasons. Fans object to it because, along with the league's decision not to alter the controversial safety Roy Williams , who was involved in four of the six serious injuries caused by the horse-collar tackle in 2005. "I really hate the fact that the rule is kind of being named for one player," said Atlanta Falcons team president Rich McKay , who co-chaired the competition committee. "Roy Williams is a good player and, according to the rules that existed 2004 , he didn't do anything that was illegal. We try not to punish one player, but rather to address the future of that kind of tackle. And, as a committee, we were nervous about it." Cowboys owner Jerry Jones voted against the new rule because he was concerned about ambiguities, adding, "I'd rather it had been a fine and it not gotten to the penalty phase." |
|
|