ps. The rule was created to keep people from getting injured, right? Well, with all the other roughing-the-passer type of penalties, why in the hell would someone be allowed to use that type of tackle on a QB in the box?
My understanding:
The intent of the rule is to prevent injury, as you said. The reason this tackle causes injury is because the offensive player is running near-full speed forward, and then is violently jerked backwards unexpectedly.
The reason it doesn't apply "in-the-box" is because QBs and RBs usually aren't at near-full speed, they aren't open field running. So theoretically, it's not as dangerous.
Mark Shlereth - the best football player produced by the state of Alaska
I thought "crackback" was legal and "chop blocking" was illegal?
But, don't ask me to enunciated the difference between the two.
I think they're both illegal. As I remember the crackback, a WR would take a step, turn, and plow his shoulder through a defender, usually about knee high. Not quite a straight 90 degree angle hit, but more often a 45 degree angle. I think the old rules made that legal at the line of scrimmage, although it was a clip anywhere else.
If a team had a big WR it could be devastating. Imagine a WR who was 6-3 and 217 pounds, and had been rookie-of-the-year as a runner. I think such a WR, named Charlie Taylor, wrecked Paul Crane, a big DT for the Jets.
"Next time Roy Williams sees Santana Moss look over his shoulder as if to go for a long ball, Portis will be right behind him, following the paranoid sucker that bit on the fake. Point Blank."
"Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!"
JPFair- A fan's fan. RIP, brother
joebagadonuts wrote:wow. what a completely tasteless thread.
why? if he ends a players career, he should be shot dead
i see. i'll just say that if i ever end a player's career, i hope you're not on my jury. i dislike roy as much as anyone, but, in my opinion, no matter how much you hate him, to suggest that he should be killed, even in jest, is tasteless. it's frickin' football.
i guess that's just me though. and fios.
what is tasteless is a professional athlete consistently using an illegal technique that he knows can cause serious harm to another human being. that is NOT "football". people who don't care about illegally inflicting physical harm to other people don't deserve to be protected by the law. the law exists to protect INNOCENT people FROM people like that.
tell me, if he were not a football player and was going around attacking people when he knew it was wrong, why should he continue being allowed to be a member of the society? why should it be any different if you are on a football field and intentionally playing outside the rules of the game?
joebagadonuts wrote:wow. what a completely tasteless thread.
why? if he ends a players career, he should be shot dead
i see. i'll just say that if i ever end a player's career, i hope you're not on my jury. i dislike roy as much as anyone, but, in my opinion, no matter how much you hate him, to suggest that he should be killed, even in jest, is tasteless. it's frickin' football.
i guess that's just me though. and fios.
what is tasteless is a professional athlete consistently using an illegal technique that he knows can cause serious harm to another human being. that is NOT "football". people who don't care about illegally inflicting physical harm to other people don't deserve to be protected by the law. the law exists to protect INNOCENT people FROM people like that.
tell me, if he were not a football player and was going around attacking people when he knew it was wrong, why should he continue being allowed to be a member of the society? why should it be any different if you are on a football field and intentionally playing outside the rules of the game?
i think roy williams plays dirty. that said, i still think to imply that a guy should be shot dead for something he does on a football field is in poor taste.
you're comparing football players, who get paid very well to play a game, who have a full understanding that they may not walk off the field under their own power, with innocent people who have done nothing to warrant being attacked. biiiig difference. apples and oranges. when you start spouting about how innocent people need to be protected by the law, you have moved outside the football field. there are no innocent people on the field.
that's why they throws little yellow flags and call them 'personal fouls', rather than arresting the offender and charging them with 'aggrevated assault'. if the league doesn't like it, they'll fine or suspend him.
I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.
if he pulls out a gun and shoots somebody, is that ok, as long as it is on the football field? maybe he should get a 15 yard "illegal use of a fire-arm" penalty.
Too serious, no one should really be shot for a dirty tackle but shouldn't be apart of the game if possible, sportsmanship.
Simply put consciously dirty move should fined. Football is a dangerous sport but it is entertainment and should maintain a level of professionalism and integrity.
Go 06' Skins, Wildcard birth & please avg. more than 15 ppg.
I hate that little punk. How does he always get away with dirty hits (horsecollars and helmet helmet) The NFL is always protecting it's superstars, not to mention the Cowboys...
joebagadonuts on IsaneBoost's signature:
-- "I laughed. I cried. Better than Cats"
King Cali Skin wrote:The ignorant punk just wants to make a highlight clip. Thinks he is "superman" like they nicknamed him in college for a flying horsecollar he pulled off.
Agreed Air Hog, its' cause Jerry Jones and the Commish are in bed together. RW is a punk, someone should give him a dose of his own medicine, bet he will stop with the dirty stuff.
Go 06' Skins, Wildcard birth & please avg. more than 15 ppg.
i dislike roy as much as anyone, but, in my opinion, no matter how much you hate him, to suggest that he should be killed, even in jest, is tasteless. it's frickin' football.
ey-Aid of the Redskins.
