If horse-collar tackles aren’t supposed to happen, shouldn’t the clear incentive to use one in a very specific - but very important - circumstance be eliminated by the reality that, even if it works, it won’t matter? But it’s something that should be discussed and reviewed and considered, one way or the other. It’s an issue for those within the league’s power structure to resolve. As the safety rules have evolved over the past 20 years, the deliberate use of a textbook unsafe move perhaps should be regarded as “palpably unfair.” However the league ponders the Peters play, it’s at least worthy of a conversation among the Competition Committee and/or ownership. Although the term “palpably” appears in the rule book 17 times, it’s one of those things that, while not out of sight, is largely out of mind for the folks officiating the games. The fact that officials so rarely have the occasion to declare a “palpably unfair act” likely makes them less likely to do so, especially in the spur of the moment. If a player uses a horse-collar tackle to bring down a ball-carrier who otherwise would score, is it a “palpably unfair act” that permits the touchdown to be given to the offense? Here, the defender used a maneuver that the powers-that-be want out of the game, because it is proven to cause injury. Perhaps it should.Īnd it’s not the same as interfering with a wide-open receiver who would otherwise catch a touchdown pass. It’s likely an issue the league has never had to consider. “Palpably” is simply a melodramatic synonym for “noticeably or clearly.” What Peters did was noticeably and clearly a violation of the rules. If a defender blocks a field goal attempt as it otherwise is passing through the uprights (a maneuver that was once legal), three points are to be awarded.īeyond that, what is a palpably unfair act? Could it be argued that using a blatantly unsafe tackling technique to bring down a player who otherwise would score a touchdown should be regarded as “palpably unfair”? The rulebook already contains language that allows a touchdown to be awarded, in the event of a “palpably unfair act.” Although the rulebook does not define the term, it contains one specific example as it relates to a scoring play. If the technique, which has been prohibited for nearly two decades, is aimed at protecting players against lower-body injuries, an argument could be made in situations like this to grant the offense the touchdown. Even if it also was a blatant violation.Īnd while it rarely happens that the last man with a clear shot at the ball carrier uses a horse-collar tackle to prevent him from scoring, it’s a wrinkle that the league should consider when tweaking rules in the offseason. It was a smart manipulation of the rules by Peters, a desperation move that worked.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |