Reply With Quote
But, they both can lead to broken limbs.
Actually, it's not. While some fans may be hoping for a slightly more organized form of MMA played with a ball, most would rather see their favorite athletes on the field as opposed to laid up on crutches.
Obviously, there's a certain amount of danger that is allowed on the field, but it's a risk/reward issue as to what is allowed.
The bottom line with the horse collar tackle is:
a) it's proven to cause injury
b) it's an easy tackle to avoid - only one player in the league continually struggles to do so
But, they both can lead to broken limbs.
So, your telling me that football isn't a violent sport and that players(athletes) don't know that going into it??
Yes, horse collar tackles can cause injury. But, so can pulling a guy down by his hair, jersey, arms. And, like it or not, gang tackles can lead to the same thing.
It's football. You should be allowed to bring a guy down in whatever fashion you want as long as your not punching or kicking a guy.
Football is a contact sport, if that makes it violent at times, so be it. But it's not necessarily violent by nature.
By your post, facemasks, clotheslines, tripping, spearing, etc, would all be perfectly okay.
You're right, a lot of things can lead to injury on the field. But there are some things that can be easily avoided and still allow a defender to do his job (tackle).
For [apparently] everybody other than Roy Williams, the horse collar would fall into that category.
It cannot be iterated enough, it's one guy that can't get with the program here. Obviously it's not hard to not tackle in that manner because nobody else has a problem with it.
So, all the football players (active and retired) who call it a violent sport are all wrong?
They use it as an analogy.
They call individual games a 'war' all the time, but that doesn't mean that they are out there shooting each other.
An analogy compares one thing to another.
The just flat out say that it's a violent game. I don't see how you don't see this.
actually, i'll even concede that point (not that i completely agree with it, but it's not crux to my argument).
but it still doesn't change that it's a game with rules, including rules on certain types of tackles to protect the safety of the players. Football will always be a contact sport - but all things being equal - fans would rather see guys not get injured.
The horse collar tackle has proven to cause injury at a higher rate than a normal tackle. It's obviously not hard to avoid, because if there are X players in the NFL, X-1 players have little problem avoiding it.
Let's make it a matter of percentages, so those with little brains can follow along...
There are hundreds of gang tackles every season. There are probably a dozen or so injuries. Roy Williams tackled 20 guys by the pads and five of them were injured. This prompted the league to change the rules.
The rule is in place, like it or not. about the rule, but don't wait until your stupid ass safety gets himself suspended for not following it to do so.
If Roy could just learn how to cover and take the correct angles he would never need to use that tackle. That should be the underlying issue that the cowboys try to fix.
He also looks bigger than he's ever been before, so he's probably slower.
Hard to tell how good the Cowboys coverage was without Roy since the opposing QB was the guy who couldn't make the Cowboys roster out of training camp, but the run defense was good. Davis made some plays in pass coverage and played well. Roy being out didn't hurt at all, while TO being out probably cost the Cowboys at least another 10 or 11 points.
Yea TO going down was huge, it really makes our offense a lot easier to defend. Roy going out was not a big thing at all, it might have made Jerry realize that we should try to trade him to a desperate team, like I don't the Dolphins?
The NFL should make that type of hit illegal next year because of the risk of breaking a limb.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions