LeGOATski Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Exactly. The absence of commas in the rule indicates that grabbing either of the below is a foul. I don't see where the "and" plays a role in where the player grabs. inside collar of the back the side of the shoulder pads jersey pads jersey tacklers can't grab the jersey now? The rule is specifying the location with the first part of the sentence. "the inside collar of the back or the side of the....jersey." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 tacklers can't grab the jersey now? The rule is specifying the location with the first part of the sentence. "the inside collar of the back or the side of the....jersey." The rule is specifying all locations before the comma and separates each location with an "or" The absence of commas makes this another ambiguous rule subject to varied interpretations, where the refs have generally used any grabbing of the jersey above the numbers as a penalty. The way the rule is written, yes if you grab a jersey anywhere and it results in a player's knees buckling, that's a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Who was it that argued that it wasn't a true horse collar tackle? !@#$ing Tasker. He's dead to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 And then we re-signed him. At the vet minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 It is awful that Tyrod got hurt. But I am confident in EJ to play well enough to give the defense a chance to win the game. Hopefully Sammy and Karlos can come back and give EJ some tools to help out the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Exactly. The absence of commas in the rule indicates that grabbing either of the below is a foul. I don't see where the "and" plays a role in where the player grabs. inside collar of the back the side of the shoulder pads jersey pads jersey No one is being a tool (it's kind of a fun discussion), but I've gotta tell you guys: I'm right about this. The rule: "No player shall grab the inside collar of the back or the side of the shoulder pads or jersey pads or jersey, and pull the runner toward the ground." This should be read as follows: "No one shall act on A of B or B.1 or B.2 or B.3, and commit C." The meanings of B, B.1, B.2, and B.3 are fully dependent on A, meaning that they are subsidiary qualifying functions of A, which governs the contextual meanings of each. And the series of "ors" equalizes B, B.1, B.2, and B.3 relative to A, which controls. To simplify: if you delete B.1, B.2, and B.3, you end up with "No one shall act on A of B and commit C" -- i.e., "No one shall grab the inside collar of the back [elements], and pull the runner to the ground." "And pull the runner to the ground" is a dependent clause with a coordinating conjunction ("and"), so the sentence reduced to its most basic logic reads as follows: "No player shall grab the inside collar of the back or side [elements] ... and pull the runner to the ground." To assume that the second clause isn't dependent on the first one, you'd have to assume that the meaning is this: "No player shall shall grab the inside collar, and [separately] no player shall pull the runner to the ground." The bottom line: it's a badly written rule given the stated concern about knee buckling, but it is what it is. A lot of laws are badly written, so this is hardly unique. Alright. I'm done. Edited October 13, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 @PSchrags Taylor's knee was messed up Sunday. Can confirm that it's not only the ankle, but the knee, that's bothering him, now. Could be EJ MANUEL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent 91 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I know this....and I am firmly in TT's corner When I saw EJ strap it up to go out there.......I definately didnt have a "oh no" moment It was more like....when EJ goes out there and throws a strike to Woods to win the game......how bad was this board going to be this week with QB contiversy threads I did... how fast this board would pull out the stake and rope if he doesnt lick his fingers before the first snap. As bad as i hate to admit it... I dont think there is ANYTHING that kid can do to not get crucified Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 @john_wawrow Here's the latest link to #Bills Tyrod Taylor injury story. ... http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ab78fd7674ac483c942090d7d32c2884/starter-taylor-limping-bills-sign-qb-josh-johnson @john_wawrow Percy Harvin tells AP that, upon returning to huddle after missing snap, Tyrod asked linemen to protect him because he was limited running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big C Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 @john_wawrow Here's the latest link to #Bills Tyrod Taylor injury story. ... http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ab78fd7674ac483c942090d7d32c2884/starter-taylor-limping-bills-sign-qb-josh-johnson @john_wawrow Percy Harvin tells AP that, upon returning to huddle after missing snap, Tyrod asked linemen to protect him because he was limited running. And then he played wide receiver for a play! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Why does your assessment rely on preseason stats? Give me something else. EJ had issues with communication and still showed the same inconsistencies in his footwork, leading to accuracy problems. "EJ was playing with all the scrubs" is also not a good point to make because he's also playing against the "scrubs." EJ's preseason stats were top 5 in the league regardless of whether it was with or without scrubs. He was so far behind in the QB battle that it still didn't win him the job. Also, it was clear from the beginning that Rex had a man crush on TT. EJ never really had a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I'm still in the first stage of grief regarding this news: DENIAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 And then he played wide receiver for a play! To be fair, didn't he audible that play? Not sure if it was that time or a different time but I recall him audibling in the red zone. Might have just been a read check though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Lol. Was just thinking that. Not the smartest play call considering the circumstances. I'm thinking that TT didn't tell the coaches anything other than he was fine. He was going to stay in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jms62 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 EJ's preseason stats were top 5 in the league regardless of whether it was with or without scrubs. He was so far behind in the QB battle that it still didn't win him the job. Also, it was clear from the beginning that Rex had a man crush on TT. EJ never really had a chance. He wasn't even good enough to be activated for a couple games. What you are saying is preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 10-13 - Chris Trapasso on Sports Radio 1270: http://stationcaster.com/stations/whld/media/mp3/Chris_Trapasso_10_13-1444761440.mp3 (18:44) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan_34 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 All this stems from that horse collar tackle. The guy kept with the tackle instead of letting go once he had him down. Imagine of this tackle happened against one of the NFL's poster boys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Dave, i am not trying to be a tool, but this is from the rule book directly or the side of the shoulder pads or jersey pads or jersey, and pull the runner toward the ground This from the NFL rulebook Article 15: Horse-Collar Tackle. No player shall grab the inside collar of the back or the side of the shoulder pads or jersey pads or jersey, and pull the runner toward the ground. This does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket. Note: It is not necessary for a player to pull the runner completely to the ground in order for the act to be illegal. If his knees are buckled by the action, it is a foul, even if the runner is not pulled completely to the ground. Penalty: For a Horse-Collar Tackle: Loss of 15 yards and an automatic first down. A Okay, noew i am confused after reading this 100 times Also weird as the ref said something about being grabbed by the numbers and not the collar when they picked up the flag against the Bills Exactly. The absence of commas in the rule indicates that grabbing either of the below is a foul. I don't see where the "and" plays a role in where the player grabs. inside collar of the back the side of the shoulder pads jersey pads jersey The key phrase is "inside the collar". It obviously does not mean that you can't pull a QB to the ground by his jersey. Hand has to be inside the collar of the jersey and/or pads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 @john_wawrow By the way, had brief chat with new #Bills QB Josh Johnson, who is catching up on Roman's playbook after spending last year with him in SF. #Bills QB Johnson said: "I'll learn more about what we're doing for this week, but I feel pretty confident about picking things up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaccof Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 No one is being a tool (it's kind of a fun discussion), but I've gotta tell you guys: I'm right about this. The rule: "No player shall grab the inside collar of the back or the side of the shoulder pads or jersey pads or jersey, and pull the runner toward the ground." This should be read as follows: "No one shall act on A of B or B.1 or B.2 or B.3, and commit C." The meanings of B, B.1, B.2, and B.3 are fully dependent on A, meaning that they are subsidiary qualifying functions of A, which governs the contextual meanings of each. And the series of "ors" equalizes B, B.1, B.2, and B.3 relative to A, which controls. To simplify: if you delete B.1, B.2, and B.3, you end up with "No one shall act on A of B and commit C" -- i.e., "No one shall grab the inside collar of the back [elements], and pull the runner to the ground." "And pull the runner to the ground" is a dependent clause with a coordinating conjunction ("and"), so the sentence reduced to its most basic logic reads as follows: "No player shall grab the inside collar of the back or side [elements] ... and pull the runner to the ground." To assume that the second clause isn't dependent on the first one, you'd have to assume that the meaning is this: "No player shall shall grab the inside collar, and [separately] no player shall pull the runner to the ground." The bottom line: it's a badly written rule given the stated concern about knee buckling, but it is what it is. A lot of laws are badly written, so this is hardly unique. Alright. I'm done. Just had a terrible flash back to 11th grade math....and I still don't get it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts