YoloinOhio Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share Posted October 17, 2015 Yeah. Grabbing the jersey to make a tackle should be illegal. It's an easy call to make also.it will become illegal as soon as it happens to Brady. #tuckrule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Yeah. Grabbing the jersey to make a tackle should be illegal. It's an easy call to make also. Maybe grabbing the back of the jersey and pulling straight down. Which is how injury occurs. Since preventing injury is solely what the rule is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I am a little stunned at a small section of Titans fans who think this stole the game away from them. Tyrod already had the first, the rest was gravy. The call on Graham on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent 91 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) ...and pulled him backwards. Maybe all backwards pulls of any kind should be outlawed. If MAriota was the one who was injured instead of TT, no one here would be posting on it, let alone calling for a rule change. True. Its football. it happens But neither was Bradham , he wasn't even given a penalty for his tackle on Mariotta which was exactly the same tackle that happened to Taylor the Bills just got lucky on one only Tyrod got hurt & Mariotta didn't ... it wasnt the same tackle. Furthermore. BMariota kicked his legs out to avoid injury. Thats the same attempted tackle on Boom herrons first run that we saw tore his jersey. Tyrod was twisted up. Not illegal but could be ugly. Edited October 17, 2015 by Agent 91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Yeah. Grabbing the jersey to make a tackle should be illegal. It's an easy call to make also. This is the NFL though, so you cannot have a rule that makes sense and is easy to enforce. So the rule would have to be along the lines of you cannot grab the jersey within 7.1682738 inches of the collar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 It was actually really good that he pulled him down because that saved him getting creamed by an incoming defender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Dumb question. By current NFL rules, if you pulled the hair of a guynsaynwith long dreads, is that considered a horse caller, or any other type of penalty? I had a debate with my dad, and just wanted confirmation one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 It was clearly never a horse collar tackle--almost everyone saw this. No need to change the rule. Pulling a guy down by the back of the jersey can't be legislated out of the game because one player injured his leg. The rule wan't meant to mitigate that type of injury. They also aren't likely to change the rule to help those who didn't understand the rule to save face.... The rule has wording that reflects intent. The way he was yanked to to the ground, though already stopped, was intent to injure in an aggressive manner. Yanking backwards violently is part of the wording. I am past it, but it was clear the yanking was not needed to stop the play But neither was Bradham , he wasn't even given a penalty for his tackle on Mariotta which was exactly the same tackle that happened to Taylor the Bills just got lucky on one only Tyrod got hurt & Mariotta didn't ... mm not sure about that. It was the extra yanking, not the the hand placement that irked me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 And if what had happened to TT had happened to Brady, you wouldn't be going all out to discredit the call. Doc, you again dove into a waterless pool, despite all the warning signs. Invoking Brady won't help this time either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie's Dead Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Dumb question. By current NFL rules, if you pulled the hair of a guynsaynwith long dreads, is that considered a horse caller, or any other type of penalty? I had a debate with my dad, and just wanted confirmation one way or another. Tackling by the hair is perfectly legal. Seen it done many times, most spectacularly on Polamalu INT when he got absolutely ragdolled by an O-lineman, by the hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan_34 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Dumb question. By current NFL rules, if you pulled the hair of a guynsaynwith long dreads, is that considered a horse caller, or any other type of penalty? I had a debate with my dad, and just wanted confirmation one way or another. Nope you can grab the hair saw it done last year and remember the announcers going over the rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) theyre right, it wasnt horse collar, grabbed jersey Correct. I don't understand why this is so hard. Nope you can grab the hair saw it done last year and remember the announcers going over the rule Bradham dragging Chris Ivory down hard by the hair last year (completely legal) ... http://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/640283 Edited October 17, 2015 by BobChalmers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainwampus Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I don't see any problem here. The commentators were incorrect to compare Bradham's tackle to Tyrod's horse collar. The replay showed Tyrod being taken down by his nameplate, while Bradham had a grip on Mariotta's number, about 10" lower on the jersey. Is a horse collar tackle a finable offense? Seems like they happen all the time and I never hear about fines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share Posted October 17, 2015 I don't see any problem here. The commentators were incorrect to compare Bradham's tackle to Tyrod's horse collar. The replay showed Tyrod being taken down by his nameplate, while Bradham had a grip on Mariotta's number, about 10" lower on the jersey. Is a horse collar tackle a finable offense? Seems like they happen all the time and I never hear about fines.yes it is a 17k fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I don't see any problem here. The commentators were incorrect to compare Bradham's tackle to Tyrod's horse collar. The replay showed Tyrod being taken down by his nameplate, while Bradham had a grip on Mariotta's number, about 10" lower on the jersey. Is a horse collar tackle a finable offense? Seems like they happen all the time and I never hear about fines. Pretty much all those personal fouls that cause injury come with fines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dulles Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 On a somewhat related note. The best QB of all time Joe Montana said on the NFLN that back in his day the some players sprayed silicone on their jerseys So the defender couldn't hold on too the jersey when trying that stunt. One of my favorite memories back in the day was a game involving SF. They often were accused of spraying their OL and DL with silicone spray, but always claimed innocence. Back then, the 49ers were like NE today - you either lived in the Bay Area and loved them, were a bandwagon fan, or absolutely hated them. I was in the last category. Not only were they tough to beat, but the tv crews were always lauding them for their greatness, like Walsh and Montana had cured cancer or secured world peace. Anyway, one Sunday afternoon, I was watching a 4:00 game between SF and some sacrificial lamb destined for slaughter and what did I see...you bet. A sideline shot of Harris Barton getting his jersey sprayed down with silicone. What was really funny was their reaction after they realized they had been caught on TV. It was so unmistakable, the announcers even had to acknowledge what they had witnessed. I don't see any problem here. The commentators were incorrect to compare Bradham's tackle to Tyrod's horse collar. The replay showed Tyrod being taken down by his nameplate, while Bradham had a grip on Mariotta's number, about 10" lower on the jersey. Is a horse collar tackle a finable offense? Seems like they happen all the time and I never hear about fines. The other note about horsecollar tackles has to be the risk to the knee. Tyrod's knees were definitely at risk because of how the LB flung his own legs onto the side/back of Tyrod. Bradham's tackle did not result in any contact with Mariotta's legs - he simply was "de-cleated" by the force of Bradham's tackle. The horsecollar rule is not meant to eliminate tackling from behind, but to eliminate the specific set of circumstances which cause knee damage (just like Tyrod's injury). The only thing that was at risk of injury for Marriota was his kiester and his pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 One of my favorite memories back in the day was a game involving SF. They often were accused of spraying their OL and DL with silicone spray, but always claimed innocence. Back then, the 49ers were like NE today - you either lived in the Bay Area and loved them, were a bandwagon fan, or absolutely hated them. I was in the last category. Not only were they tough to beat, but the tv crews were always lauding them for their greatness, like Walsh and Montana had cured cancer or secured world peace. Anyway, one Sunday afternoon, I was watching a 4:00 game between SF and some sacrificial lamb destined for slaughter and what did I see...you bet. A sideline shot of Harris Barton getting his jersey sprayed down with silicone. What was really funny was their reaction after they realized they had been caught on TV. It was so unmistakable, the announcers even had to acknowledge what they had witnessed. The other note about horsecollar tackles has to be the risk to the knee. Tyrod's knees were definitely at risk because of how the LB flung his own legs onto the side/back of Tyrod. Bradham's tackle did not result in any contact with Mariotta's legs - he simply was "de-cleated" by the force of Bradham's tackle. The horsecollar rule is not meant to eliminate tackling from behind, but to eliminate the specific set of circumstances which cause knee damage (just like Tyrod's injury). The only thing that was at risk of injury for Marriota was his kiester and his pride. this i my interpretation also. of course players need to be tackled from behind, grab anything you can but inside the shoulder pads above the numbers or yank a defenseless player back wards before the whistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 this i my interpretation also. of course players need to be tackled from behind, grab anything you can but inside the shoulder pads above the numbers or yank a defenseless player back wards before the whistle. None of this is in that rule. It's amazing how many here are simply defining the rule in any way they want and are disappointed the refs aren't going along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 It was clearly never a horse collar tackle--almost everyone saw this. No need to change the rule. Pulling a guy down by the back of the jersey can't be legislated out of the game because one player injured his leg. The rule wan't meant to mitigate that type of injury. They also aren't likely to change the rule to help those who didn't understand the rule to save face.... When somebody hit Brady in the foot they made that illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) None of this is in that rule. It's amazing how many here are simply defining the rule in any way they want and are disappointed the refs aren't going along with it. okay. read it again. I did. my simple opinion has nothing to do with the refs how about you reference it again for us please? When somebody hit Brady in the foot they made that illegal. heck, look at the pissant wrong and a rule change is coming j/k It doesn't matter anymore. Everyone knows its a slanted field. just deal with it, The Players have to. so should we Edited October 18, 2015 by 3rdand12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts