New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com (http://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (http://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   "Roy Williams Rule" (http://blackandgold.com/saints/9062-roy-williams-rule.html)

TayTay 05-22-2005 06:52 PM

"Roy Williams Rule"
 
The NFL league meetings begin next week and one item expected to be on the agenda is the so called Horse Coller tackle that injured TO's leg. The NFL is expected to review whether or not this be made an illegal tackle. Do yall feel this tackle should be banned, or is the NFL wasting time when there are more pressing needs?

saintswhodi 05-22-2005 07:22 PM

IMO, it should be banned. Roy Williams has hurt 4 players with this tackling technique, and it's the same style of tackle that injured Vick. And these are season ending injuries(except for JAmal Lewis, who Roy did it to and he was only out two games). It needs to go. It seems to be an easy way out for defenders to bring guys down. With the injury rate, it's as bad as facemasking, which is now illegal thankfully. Even if they don't make it illegal, it definitely needed to be looked at.

ScottyRo 05-22-2005 10:18 PM

They can eliminate this right after they eliminate chop blocking by o-lineman.

TheDeuce 05-23-2005 02:10 AM

Sure you can go ahead and say that they should ban this kind of tackle, but honestly, when a guy is trying as hard as he can to catch a guy from behind, he's going to grab whatever he can get his hands on. A guy is going to make a tackle in whatever way he can. I would like to see this kind of tackle penalized, because it can do some serious injury to players, but I just don't know if a player will be thinking in his head while he's making a tackle, "I'm not supposed to tackle him here, i should probably slide my hands down here and try to make the tackle." I don't know, just a thought.....

WhoDat 05-23-2005 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDeuce
I would like to see this kind of tackle penalized, because it can do some serious injury to players, but I just don't know if a player will be thinking in his head while he's making a tackle, "I'm not supposed to tackle him here, i should probably slide my hands down here and try to make the tackle." I don't know, just a thought.....


The same could be said of the face mask now though, don't you think? It's rare to see a guy intentionally grab a face mask these days. I think that's the point - not to try to stop something from happening all together, but to try and minimize it as much as possible.

tiggerpolice 05-23-2005 08:30 AM

i don't think banning that type of tackling will solve the problem.....the injury that T. Owens got while being tackled would have happened no matter where he would have grabbed him from behind......if not the collar ..he would have grabbed his shoulders or his arms... still possiblly resulting in the same injury.....but if they're gonna ban that type of tackling...then they need to ban the type of tackling thats used to FB, TE & RB coming out of the backfield on short passes..where the defender squares up and tackles him below his knees as soon as he turns around .....possibly breaking his legs.....to me thats more dangerous...

lynwood 05-23-2005 08:55 AM

They should just ban all types of tackles. Just put flags on the players. Wait, someone might dislocate a finger when they go to get the flag. Okay 2 hand touch. I'm against the face mask and block from behind because they are just cheap, but look at all the no touch rules now. You can't even touch the quaterback anymore. It's football. Back in the day the guys were alot tougher. One day I can see them make a tackle zone rule where you can only tackle between the guys shoulders and waist. Guys get injured just cutting a pass route on their own. This is a tough game and that's the way it is. If you don't want to get tackled run out of bounds of fall down. Just don't want this to become pansey ball. No offense to anyone in advance.

saintswhodi 05-23-2005 09:10 AM

Exactly WhoDat. The face mask is illegal, and guys seem to be able to get along without making that tackle, or not as much as before just fine.

lynwood, I understand what you are saying, but guys are bigger, faster, stronger, and more athletic than the old days. ONE technique is REPEATEDLY injuring players. What if it was Deuce or Joe that got hurt for the season cause of this tackle? Defenders need to take better angles than relying on cop outs to bring players down. I totally agree with WhoDat's point that you don't see the facemask, and to a greater extent the clothesline tackle nearly as much in today's game. Look what happened to Ferguson when Darius clotheslines him. Think it's banned for a reason? I would rather see my stars on the field playing than injured by sloppy technique. If you can't catch a guy and tackle him, get off the field.

Also agree the chop or cut block should be banned. Another cheap shot. Anyone who advocates a technique that allows players to get injured either played in a different era, or never played and doesn't realize you are risking your health on basically every play, why increase that chances of injury by allowing players to perform a technique KNOWN to hurt players for a season, not just a couple of games.

Euphoria 05-23-2005 09:34 AM

sure injuries are apart of the game but I agree you can't have tackles that can cause career ending potential. You can't face mask, you can't chop block, you can't hit a defensless player... you shouldn't be allowed to do something to serious hurt a player causing him serious injury and thats what the league does and I am sure they will ban this tackle. I still dwell over the Warren Sapp incident hitting a player -blind siding a player- who clearly was not involved in the play at all!

saintswhodi 05-23-2005 09:53 AM

I think they are talking about banning that kind of play as well Euph. Something to the extent of if a player is clearly not involved in the play or well out of distance for the play, which 25 yards away for an offensive lineman would be, then it would be illegal to tee off on that player cause they are having no bearing on the play. I don't recall the exact verbiage, but I know that is being disucessed as well.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com