Horse Collar (1 Viewer)

[Boston]

Disclaimer...this is not meant to ride the ref bashing wave...it's a legit question and I'm looking to hear the rules experts on this one.

There was a play in which Alexander appeared to be blatantly collared. There was no flag and I don't remember the announcers saying anything as well. Since this is a new rule and isn't called too much is there a reason this wasn't called (i.e. what happened was infact legal) because it seemed like a textbook example of the infraction.

 

[thejag]

Porter tackled Alexander by the jersey, not the padding. I believe the rule states that the player must be tackled by grabbing the equipment beneath the jersey, not the jersey itself.

 

[Boston]

Porter tackled Alexander by the jersey, not the padding. I believe the rule states that the player must be tackled by grabbing the equipment beneath the jersey, not the jersey itself.

Thanks...that makes sense.

 

[GoL]

I saw the same thing.

I strongly believe it would have been called in week 4 but was not called in week 12. For whatever reason at some point around midseason the refs seemingly quit making that call.

Disclaimer: Not whining about the result or officiating - just something I noticed as the year went on.

 

[CrossEyed]

I also think that they only tend to call this if the ball carrier gets pulled backward. Not sure how the rule reads, but that seems to be the way they call it.

 

[Refbuz]

When was the last time that you saw one called this year. I haven't seen one called since the pre-season or the early weeks of the season.

It seemed to me like the NFL didn't want the officials to call it...

 

[PMENFAN]

I haven't seen one where it wasn't called. It's an open field tackle, where the defender runs the player down from behind, and tackles them by the shoulder pads, riding them to the ground.

Keep searching 'hawk fans. You'll find a reason they lost. Never admit that they played like crap. Blame anything but their poor play.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

They replayed the tackle. I mentioned this at the time, watched it closely, and he most definately did have alexander by the back of his shoulder pads.

 

[Boston]

Keep searching 'hawk fans. You'll find a reason they lost. Never admit that they played like crap. Blame anything but their poor play.

I hope you're not directing this at me. I'm not a Hawks fan. I saw this play and was curious why I didn't really see anyone mention it. I thought maybe I misunderstood the interpetation of this rule.

 

[PMENFAN]

Keep searching 'hawk fans. You'll find a reason they lost. Never admit that they played like crap. Blame anything but their poor play.

I hope you're not directing this at me. I'm not a Hawks fan. I saw this play and was curious why I didn't really see anyone mention it. I thought maybe I misunderstood the interpetation of this rule.

Not you in particular, but it's been bantied about in a few posts today. Even if he had him by the pads, it's not the horse collar they've outlawed.

 

[Boston]

Keep searching 'hawk fans.  You'll find a reason they lost.  Never admit that they played like crap.  Blame anything but their poor play.

I hope you're not directing this at me. I'm not a Hawks fan. I saw this play and was curious why I didn't really see anyone mention it. I thought maybe I misunderstood the interpetation of this rule.

Not you in particular, but it's been bantied about in a few posts today. Even if he had him by the pads, it's not the horse collar they've outlawed.

...and that's why I was asking. When I saw the play I thought it was a textbook example. Obviously it appears that may not be the case although some think it was.

 

[Aabye]

Here's the best I can do:

Wikipedia reference

My understanding was that most things that look like horse-collars aren't since most players let go before the ball-carrier is down. I think Madden said something to that effect during a Monday night game earlier this year.

Don't know about the Porter play though. My reaction at the time was that it was a clean tackle.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

I've seen some horse collars not called before. The definition that I've heard is that a player must be grabbed and brought immediately down. In the Porter/Alexander play Shaun went a couple of more steps before going down.

 

[Mike]

My understanding was for a true horse-collar tackle the tackling player must shift his body weight under the player being tackled while bringing him down. This is what greatly increases the risk of injury.

I somewhat remember this explanation from a Giants game earlier in the season on a Tiki Barber tackle. Obviously we need some Roy Williams circa '04 tape to review the different techniques.

 

[The Jerk]

I've seen some horse collars not called before.  The definition that I've heard is that a player must be grabbed and brought immediately down.  In the Porter/Alexander play Shaun went a couple of more steps before going down.

The "immediate" pull down is the point I've heard mentioned that distinguishes legal from illegal. And in the play from SB XL, it was not immediate.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I also think that they only tend to call this if the ball carrier gets pulled backward. Not sure how the rule reads, but that seems to be the way they call it.

This is what I've heard most frequently. That particular tackle looked more sideways.

 

[crowe1130]

I've seen a bunch of horsecollar-type tackles this year, but never saw a flag dropped. I seem to remember hearing that it's only a penalty if the tackler throws his own weight into the ballcarrier while bringing him down. In other words jamming his own legs into the backs of the ballcarriers while yanking him down. That's the classic Roy Williams technique that caused the rule change, I believe.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I've seen some horse collars not called before.  The definition that I've heard is that a player must be grabbed and brought immediately down.  In the Porter/Alexander play Shaun went a couple of more steps before going down.

The "immediate" pull down is the point I've heard mentioned that distinguishes legal from illegal. And in the play from SB XL, it was not immediate.

From my understanding the rule is only enforced if it was a Seattle defender doing it to a Pittsburgh player. Because it was a Pittsburgh player that was committing the action, it renders the play legal.

 

[Kleck]

Keep searching 'hawk fans. You'll find a reason they lost. Never admit that they played like crap. Blame anything but their poor play.

I don't think the original poster is a Seahawk fan (there are only about five of us). The ones I do know haven't been whining about the game. Disappointed in the outcome, but not laying blame. Your commentary doesn't really fit here or anywhere on this board.

 

[Sea Bass]

Thanks Shick!,

You beat me to it. I am fan number two and I believe that we need to add a disclosure to this board. Basically we Hawk fans are happy people who have no ill will towards anyone. If you continue to take cheapshots at us we will send Smoo after you.

 

[Kleck]

If you continue to take cheapshots at us we will send Smoo after you.

I won't go that far. I was just going to take him off my Christmas card list.

 

[Sea Bass]

Okay, but if that doesn't work can we please call Smoo.

 

[Kleck]

Okay, but if that doesn't work can we please call Smoo.

:shudder:

 

[Challenge Everything]

From what I can recall of the rule a player may not make initial contact by grabbing behind the neck. They may have their, for example, left hand on the body or somewhere else on the player and then the right hand may grab the back of the neck. The initial contact of the player may not be behind the neck and continue to force the player down.

I have seen some flags thrown on this however the players were pretty good to not do this type of tackle. I have also seen the initial contact take place and then horse collaring the player as well... no flag.

 

[Raider Nation]

That's the classic Roy Williams technique that caused the rule change, I believe.

Roy Williams, Roy Williams, blah blah blah...All of the young bucks in this forum have been brainwashed into believing that Williams invented the horse-collar tackle or something. Go watch some film of former Vikings FS Joey Browner. The guy tackled EVERYONE by the back of their collar, and nobody ever said crap about it.

 

[The Jerk]

I've seen some horse collars not called before.  The definition that I've heard is that a player must be grabbed and brought immediately down.  In the Porter/Alexander play Shaun went a couple of more steps before going down.

The "immediate" pull down is the point I've heard mentioned that distinguishes legal from illegal. And in the play from SB XL, it was not immediate.

From my understanding the rule is only enforced if it was a Seattle defender doing it to a Pittsburgh player. Because it was a Pittsburgh player that was committing the action, it renders the play legal.

Nice touch, Chaz!Oh, and I keep forgetting to tell you how much I love your av. "You killed my father! Prepare to die!"

 

[Chaos Commish]

That's the classic Roy Williams technique that caused the rule change, I believe.

Roy Williams, Roy Williams, blah blah blah...All of the young bucks in this forum have been brainwashed into believing that Williams invented the horse-collar tackle or something. Go watch some film of former Vikings FS Joey Browner. The guy tackled EVERYONE by the back of their collar, and nobody ever said crap about it.

Right. Pop Warner coaches have taught the tackle for decades. My HS coach taught the tackle. It's never been a dirty move or a deliberate attempt to hurt someone. It happens to be the best (sometimes only) way to bring a man down from behind who is just about to run away from you. It is now only illegal in the open field. It is legal to grab an RB or QB near the line of scrimmage or in the pocket and horse collar him down. Perfectly legal. Same for a wide receiver on a reverse. The same tackle that is illegal down the field is legal as the player running the reverse is in traffic behind the LOS.

The wording is also vague, but immediate is being misunderstood in this thread. The word should have been deliberate. It's to be viewed like a facemask. Inadvertant (non-immediate yanking) grasping of the pads is not a penalty even in the open field. This would look something like the five yard facemask, but there is no penalty (not even 5 yards for the accidental pad grabbing).

So, grasping the pads and immediately yanking in the open field is the illegal horse collar. What Porter did qualified. It was a bad non call. In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty. So Alexander fighting for an extra yard was insignificant. It was a text book horse collar.

 

[Kai's Hero]

Porter tackled Alexander by the jersey, not the padding. I believe the rule states that the player must be tackled by grabbing the equipment beneath the jersey, not the jersey itself.

Incorrect. Watch it again. I hace watched it at least 10 times. SA was brought down by the back of his shoulder pads. Another one of the 8 penalties that the referee's mysteriously missed against the Seahawks.

 

[Kai's Hero]

That's the classic Roy Williams technique that caused the rule change, I believe.

Roy Williams, Roy Williams, blah blah blah...All of the young bucks in this forum have been brainwashed into believing that Williams invented the horse-collar tackle or something. Go watch some film of former Vikings FS Joey Browner. The guy tackled EVERYONE by the back of their collar, and nobody ever said crap about it.

Right. Pop Warner coaches have taught the tackle for decades. My HS coach taught the tackle. It's never been a dirty move or a deliberate attempt to hurt someone. It happens to be the best (sometimes only) way to bring a man down from behind who is just about to run away from you. It is now only illegal in the open field. It is legal to grab an RB or QB near the line of scrimmage or in the pocket and horse collar him down. Perfectly legal. Same for a wide receiver on a reverse. The same tackle that is illegal down the field is legal as the player running the reverse is in traffic behind the LOS.

The wording is also vague, but immediate is being misunderstood in this thread. The word should have been deliberate. It's to be viewed like a facemask. Inadvertant (non-immediate yanking) grasping of the pads is not a penalty even in the open field. This would look something like the five yard facemask, but there is no penalty (not even 5 yards for the accidental pad grabbing).

So, grasping the pads and immediately yanking in the open field is the illegal horse collar. What Porter did qualified. It was a bad non call. In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty. So Alexander fighting for an extra yard was insignificant. It was a text book horse collar.

 

[AB in DC]

but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty.

 

[3C's]

That's the classic Roy Williams technique that caused the rule change, I believe.

Roy Williams, Roy Williams, blah blah blah...All of the young bucks in this forum have been brainwashed into believing that Williams invented the horse-collar tackle or something. Go watch some film of former Vikings FS Joey Browner. The guy tackled EVERYONE by the back of their collar, and nobody ever said crap about it.

Right. Pop Warner coaches have taught the tackle for decades. My HS coach taught the tackle. It's never been a dirty move or a deliberate attempt to hurt someone. It happens to be the best (sometimes only) way to bring a man down from behind who is just about to run away from you. It is now only illegal in the open field. It is legal to grab an RB or QB near the line of scrimmage or in the pocket and horse collar him down. Perfectly legal. Same for a wide receiver on a reverse. The same tackle that is illegal down the field is legal as the player running the reverse is in traffic behind the LOS.

The wording is also vague, but immediate is being misunderstood in this thread. The word should have been deliberate. It's to be viewed like a facemask. Inadvertant (non-immediate yanking) grasping of the pads is not a penalty even in the open field. This would look something like the five yard facemask, but there is no penalty (not even 5 yards for the accidental pad grabbing).

So, grasping the pads and immediately yanking in the open field is the illegal horse collar. What Porter did qualified. It was a bad non call. In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty. So Alexander fighting for an extra yard was insignificant. It was a text book horse collar.

Wrong.

In the Monday night opener, Green Bay Packers linebacker Hannibal Navies grabbed the back of Smith's shoulder pads and slowed his momentum. It would not have been a penalty because Navies let go and didn't immediately drop Smith.

link

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Okay, but if that doesn't work can we please call Smoo.

:shudder:

That would be like the Mormons releasing the Danites.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Porter tackled Alexander by the jersey, not the padding. I believe the rule states that the player must be tackled by grabbing the equipment beneath the jersey, not the jersey itself.

Right. I've probably seen this every week in one game or another.

 

[Chaos Commish]

That's the classic Roy Williams technique that caused the rule change, I believe.

Roy Williams, Roy Williams, blah blah blah...All of the young bucks in this forum have been brainwashed into believing that Williams invented the horse-collar tackle or something. Go watch some film of former Vikings FS Joey Browner. The guy tackled EVERYONE by the back of their collar, and nobody ever said crap about it.

Right. Pop Warner coaches have taught the tackle for decades. My HS coach taught the tackle. It's never been a dirty move or a deliberate attempt to hurt someone. It happens to be the best (sometimes only) way to bring a man down from behind who is just about to run away from you. It is now only illegal in the open field. It is legal to grab an RB or QB near the line of scrimmage or in the pocket and horse collar him down. Perfectly legal. Same for a wide receiver on a reverse. The same tackle that is illegal down the field is legal as the player running the reverse is in traffic behind the LOS.

The wording is also vague, but immediate is being misunderstood in this thread. The word should have been deliberate. It's to be viewed like a facemask. Inadvertant (non-immediate yanking) grasping of the pads is not a penalty even in the open field. This would look something like the five yard facemask, but there is no penalty (not even 5 yards for the accidental pad grabbing).

So, grasping the pads and immediately yanking in the open field is the illegal horse collar. What Porter did qualified. It was a bad non call. In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty. So Alexander fighting for an extra yard was insignificant. It was a text book horse collar.

Wrong.

In the Monday night opener, Green Bay Packers linebacker Hannibal Navies grabbed the back of Smith's shoulder pads and slowed his momentum. It would not have been a penalty because Navies let go and didn't immediately drop Smith.

link

Good link, I read it last night before posting. It validates what I wrote. Again, there is a vague wording. Yanking is correct (the term used in the rule). Dropping is wrong (the term used in your quote). It was up at NFL.com a few months back, but I can't find it. Heck, I emailed it to Joe B at one point during the season. It's a very poorly written rule.

Navies move was legal because he let go, no immediate yanking, not because he didn't drop him. If you think about it it makes sense. A facemask can be broken, but it is still a facemask. Same with a horse collar. That's my understanding anyway.

 

[3C's]

That's the classic Roy Williams technique that caused the rule change, I believe.

Roy Williams, Roy Williams, blah blah blah...All of the young bucks in this forum have been brainwashed into believing that Williams invented the horse-collar tackle or something. Go watch some film of former Vikings FS Joey Browner. The guy tackled EVERYONE by the back of their collar, and nobody ever said crap about it.

Right. Pop Warner coaches have taught the tackle for decades. My HS coach taught the tackle. It's never been a dirty move or a deliberate attempt to hurt someone. It happens to be the best (sometimes only) way to bring a man down from behind who is just about to run away from you. It is now only illegal in the open field. It is legal to grab an RB or QB near the line of scrimmage or in the pocket and horse collar him down. Perfectly legal. Same for a wide receiver on a reverse. The same tackle that is illegal down the field is legal as the player running the reverse is in traffic behind the LOS.

The wording is also vague, but immediate is being misunderstood in this thread. The word should have been deliberate. It's to be viewed like a facemask. Inadvertant (non-immediate yanking) grasping of the pads is not a penalty even in the open field. This would look something like the five yard facemask, but there is no penalty (not even 5 yards for the accidental pad grabbing).

So, grasping the pads and immediately yanking in the open field is the illegal horse collar. What Porter did qualified. It was a bad non call. In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty. So Alexander fighting for an extra yard was insignificant. It was a text book horse collar.

Wrong.

In the Monday night opener, Green Bay Packers linebacker Hannibal Navies grabbed the back of Smith's shoulder pads and slowed his momentum. It would not have been a penalty because Navies let go and didn't immediately drop Smith.

link

Good link, I read it last night before posting. It validates what I wrote. Again, there is a vague wording. Yanking is correct (the term used in the rule). Dropping is wrong (the term used in your quote). It was up at NFL.com a few months back, but I can't find it. Heck, I emailed it to Joe B at one point during the season. It's a very poorly written rule.

Navies move was legal because he let go, no immediate yanking, not because he didn't drop him. If you think about it it makes sense. A facemask can be broken, but it is still a facemask. Same with a horse collar. That's my understanding anyway.

I'm comparing this:In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty.

to this:

It would not have been a penalty because Navies let go and didn't immediately drop Smith.

I think in order for it to be an illegal horsecollar, you have to actually drop (tackle) the guy. But I could be wrong.

 

[Chaos Commish]

That's the classic Roy Williams technique that caused the rule change, I believe.

Roy Williams, Roy Williams, blah blah blah...All of the young bucks in this forum have been brainwashed into believing that Williams invented the horse-collar tackle or something. Go watch some film of former Vikings FS Joey Browner. The guy tackled EVERYONE by the back of their collar, and nobody ever said crap about it.

Right. Pop Warner coaches have taught the tackle for decades. My HS coach taught the tackle. It's never been a dirty move or a deliberate attempt to hurt someone. It happens to be the best (sometimes only) way to bring a man down from behind who is just about to run away from you. It is now only illegal in the open field. It is legal to grab an RB or QB near the line of scrimmage or in the pocket and horse collar him down. Perfectly legal. Same for a wide receiver on a reverse. The same tackle that is illegal down the field is legal as the player running the reverse is in traffic behind the LOS.

The wording is also vague, but immediate is being misunderstood in this thread. The word should have been deliberate. It's to be viewed like a facemask. Inadvertant (non-immediate yanking) grasping of the pads is not a penalty even in the open field. This would look something like the five yard facemask, but there is no penalty (not even 5 yards for the accidental pad grabbing).

So, grasping the pads and immediately yanking in the open field is the illegal horse collar. What Porter did qualified. It was a bad non call. In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty. So Alexander fighting for an extra yard was insignificant. It was a text book horse collar.

Wrong.

In the Monday night opener, Green Bay Packers linebacker Hannibal Navies grabbed the back of Smith's shoulder pads and slowed his momentum. It would not have been a penalty because Navies let go and didn't immediately drop Smith.

link

Good link, I read it last night before posting. It validates what I wrote. Again, there is a vague wording. Yanking is correct (the term used in the rule). Dropping is wrong (the term used in your quote). It was up at NFL.com a few months back, but I can't find it. Heck, I emailed it to Joe B at one point during the season. It's a very poorly written rule.

Navies move was legal because he let go, no immediate yanking, not because he didn't drop him. If you think about it it makes sense. A facemask can be broken, but it is still a facemask. Same with a horse collar. That's my understanding anyway.

I'm comparing this:In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty.

to this:

It would not have been a penalty because Navies let go and didn't immediately drop Smith.

I think in order for it to be an illegal horsecollar, you have to actually drop (tackle) the guy. But I could be wrong.

Okay, I get it. It's a vague rule, but my understanding is that Navies letting go makes it inadvertant, like a 5 yard facemask-- but with no penalty on the horse caller rule if it's inadvertant. My point is Navies could have held on. Smith could have broke free, and it still can be penalized-- if he holds on.

 

[Chaz]

When the play happened, I immediately thought that there would be a flag. Then, I assumed that I wasn't totally clear on the rule. What was surprising (though not in the context of this game) is that Madden didn't bother to explain it at all.

 

[Boston]

When the play happened, I immediately thought that there would be a flag. Then, I assumed that I wasn't totally clear on the rule. What was surprising (though not in the context of this game) is that Madden didn't bother to explain it at all.

This sums up why I made this post. When I saw the play I thought it was blatant. When there was no flag I assumed Madden would explain to me that they either missed a called or why it wasn't an infraction. When neither happened I came here looking for an answer...

 

[Pick]

You wanna knock the wind out of a guy and fill his facemask full of turf? Try a horse-collar tackle from the front. NTTAWWT.

 

[The Jerk]

That's the classic Roy Williams technique that caused the rule change, I believe.

Roy Williams, Roy Williams, blah blah blah...All of the young bucks in this forum have been brainwashed into believing that Williams invented the horse-collar tackle or something. Go watch some film of former Vikings FS Joey Browner. The guy tackled EVERYONE by the back of their collar, and nobody ever said crap about it.

Right. Pop Warner coaches have taught the tackle for decades. My HS coach taught the tackle. It's never been a dirty move or a deliberate attempt to hurt someone. It happens to be the best (sometimes only) way to bring a man down from behind who is just about to run away from you. It is now only illegal in the open field. It is legal to grab an RB or QB near the line of scrimmage or in the pocket and horse collar him down. Perfectly legal. Same for a wide receiver on a reverse. The same tackle that is illegal down the field is legal as the player running the reverse is in traffic behind the LOS.

The wording is also vague, but immediate is being misunderstood in this thread. The word should have been deliberate. It's to be viewed like a facemask. Inadvertant (non-immediate yanking) grasping of the pads is not a penalty even in the open field. This would look something like the five yard facemask, but there is no penalty (not even 5 yards for the accidental pad grabbing).

So, grasping the pads and immediately yanking in the open field is the illegal horse collar. What Porter did qualified. It was a bad non call. In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty. So Alexander fighting for an extra yard was insignificant. It was a text book horse collar.

Wrong.

In the Monday night opener, Green Bay Packers linebacker Hannibal Navies grabbed the back of Smith's shoulder pads and slowed his momentum. It would not have been a penalty because Navies let go and didn't immediately drop Smith.

link

Good link, I read it last night before posting. It validates what I wrote. Again, there is a vague wording. Yanking is correct (the term used in the rule). Dropping is wrong (the term used in your quote). It was up at NFL.com a few months back, but I can't find it. Heck, I emailed it to Joe B at one point during the season. It's a very poorly written rule.

Navies move was legal because he let go, no immediate yanking, not because he didn't drop him. If you think about it it makes sense. A facemask can be broken, but it is still a facemask. Same with a horse collar. That's my understanding anyway.

I'm comparing this:In regard to immediate, it is possible for a ball carrier to break an illegal horse collar and continue running, but the attempted horse collar (if it meets intentional grasping and immediate yanking in the open field) is still a penalty.

to this:

It would not have been a penalty because Navies let go and didn't immediately drop Smith.

I think in order for it to be an illegal horsecollar, you have to actually drop (tackle) the guy. But I could be wrong.

From Wikipedia for what it's worth: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.

This definition puts into question the previous post that stated "deliberate" should be preferred to "immediate". However, without seeing the official rulebook passage, it remains unsettled.

 

[cstu]

When the play happened, I immediately thought that there would be a flag. Then, I assumed that I wasn't totally clear on the rule. What was surprising (though not in the context of this game) is that Madden didn't bother to explain it at all.

This sums up why I made this post. When I saw the play I thought it was blatant. When there was no flag I assumed Madden would explain to me that they either missed a called or why it wasn't an infraction. When neither happened I came here looking for an answer...

I thought there should have been a flag, but I was mostly ticked that it didn't get called when the Seahawks were getting tons of questionable flags.

 

[Chaos Commish]

This is the closest I could find to how the rule is written.

It was inserted into Rule 12, Section 2, Article 1 as subpoint (d). Here’s how it reads:All players are prohibited from grabbing the inside collar of the back or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads and immediately pulling down the runner. This does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket.The key word in the paragraph is “immediately.” It is not illegal for a player to grab those spots and use the leverage to pull himself toward the runner. It is illegal to grab the pads inside the collar and immediately pull downward.

 

[toxicbees]

From what I understand, it's a horse collar if the player is pulled back. If he's pulled downwards then it's ok.

 

[The Jerk]

This is the closest I could find to how the rule is written.

It was inserted into Rule 12, Section 2, Article 1 as subpoint (d). Here’s how it reads:

All players are prohibited from grabbing the inside collar of the back or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads and immediately pulling down the runner. This does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket.

The key word in the paragraph is “immediately.” It is not illegal for a player to grab those spots and use the leverage to pull himself toward the runner.  It is illegal to grab the pads inside the collar and immediately pull downward. 

I can't find anything more definitive, either. I'm confused by why you wrote earlier that "deliberately" should be used instead of "immediately", especially now that you are showing the above quote.

 

[Munkey]

In the Bears vs Panthers game, when Drew Carter get's the quick pass and takes off up the sideline he eventually steps out of bounds and THEN get's horse collared blatantly out of bounds.

Now, the ref didn't call anything, and some idiot on NFLnetwork was saying it wasn't called because he already stepped out of bounds. Ok, so if he got injured it was ok because you're allowed to tackle somebody illegaly when they're out of bounds.

I think too many new rules are messing with these refs judgement and live calls.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I can't find anything more definitive, either. I'm confused by why you wrote earlier that "deliberately" should be used instead of "immediately", especially now that you are showing the above quote.

I dunno. It was Jerry Jones explaining it as I did a year ago. He was one of five who voted against the rule. He was upset with the wording, not the spirit of protecting players. He gave the facemask analogy I have used here.

If it helps I will admit I'm wrong (even though I'm not sure of that).

 

[The Jerk]

I can't find anything more definitive, either. I'm confused by why you wrote earlier that "deliberately" should be used instead of "immediately", especially now that you are showing the above quote.

I dunno. It was Jerry Jones explaining it as I did a year ago. He was one of five who voted against the rule. He was upset with the wording, not the spirit of protecting players. He gave the facemask analogy I have used here.

If it helps I will admit I'm wrong (even though I'm not sure of that).

No need. I was not implying that you are wrong. How can I say anyone is wrong when I'm not sure of the rule myself? In fact, I appreciate what you found concerning the rule. It's better than I was able to do.I think there are two things that are required for the tackle to draw a flag. One is that the defender must grab the ball carrier by the back portion of the shoulder pads. The other is that he must quickly yank the ball carrier downward. If he lets go of the shoulder pad or has the jersey and not the pad, then it's considered legal. And if the ball carrier is able to run for another step or two (and thereby not an immediate tackle) then it's OK, too.

It's that last part that doesn't make sense to me. I see the word "immediately" but I don't understand how that makes injury any less likely, except for the possible reason that the ball carrier is not being caught by surprise. I clearly remember in Owens case he had no way to protect himself or go down in a more controlled fashion due to how quickly Roy Williams took him down. Of course, Williams also fell on Owens. That should probably be part of the rule, too.

You know, the fact that we really aren't much farther than when we started on grasping this rule correctly shows how ambiguous it is. This just sets up more people to complain about the officiating because there is not sufficient distinction between what is and is not legal.

Anyway, thanks for all who tried to help explain this.

 

[Captian America]

From what I heard about the rule if a player initially has a hold of the ball carrier with one hand he is allowed to grab on to the shoulder pads. Since Porter's right hand was in contact with Alexanders right side he was allowed to bring his left hand up and grab the pads. That is why it he was not called for a horse tackle.

 

[mbuehner]

And if the ball carrier is able to run for another step or two (and thereby not an immediate tackle) then it's OK, too.

But that doesnt make a lick of sense. The tackler has no idea whether the runner will manage another step. The simple reading is that 'immediate' is in regards to a tackle, as opposed to grabbing the pads and then letting go, or grabbing the pads and running him out of bounds. Porter clearly grabbed the back of Alexanders pads and pulled him down, which is the obvious point of the rule and the simplest reading. He meant to bring him down by his pads and he did. Flag. Its immaterial that Alexander muscled out an extra yard, Porter had nothing to do with that and the illegal move still executed the ultimate tackle. I think the rule sucks but its not that vague. The only point in the entire argument is that Seattle got flagged for every ticky-tack foul in the book and yet the most high profile penalty of the year was committed by the Steelers and nothing was called (nor much of anything else). Its the preponderence of the evidence that is relevant.

 

[AB in DC]

And if the ball carrier is able to run for another step or two (and thereby not an immediate tackle) then it's OK, too.

But that doesnt make a lick of sense. The tackler has no idea whether the runner will manage another step. The simple reading is that 'immediate' is in regards to a tackle, as opposed to grabbing the pads and then letting go, or grabbing the pads and running him out of bounds. Porter clearly grabbed the back of Alexanders pads and pulled him down, which is the obvious point of the rule and the simplest reading. He meant to bring him down by his pads and he did. Flag. Its immaterial that Alexander muscled out an extra yard, Porter had nothing to do with that and the illegal move still executed the ultimate tackle. I think the rule sucks but its not that vague. The only point in the entire argument is that Seattle got flagged for every ticky-tack foul in the book and yet the most high profile penalty of the year was committed by the Steelers and nothing was called (nor much of anything else). Its the preponderence of the evidence that is relevant.

Makes sense to me. The rule is there to protect the runner who would not be able to prepare himself to land properly if he were dragged down immediately. If the runner takes another step or two after the grasp, he is obviously aware of being grabbed, and can avoid his own injury on the forthcoming tackle just like he does on any other play.