Phixius Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2539849 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
909997 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 i like it:applause:........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Yeah, its been coming for a couple years. It never made any sense(except they wanted people to NOT keep playing after the whistle... which sometimes happens anyway), considering its all a judgement call, ruled down or a fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 About freaking time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 ALBANY, N.Y. -- The annual show-and-tell session with NFL referees regarding new rules produced the predictable reactions from New York Giants players this week.Offensive linemen rolled their eyes at the league's new categorizations for holding that begin with the phrase, "materially restricting a player at the point of attack." I can see why Giant's o-line would roll THEIR eyes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins4481 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 I am so glad that the horse collar tackle has been redefined. If you watch game 2 against Dallas, CP almost got hurt by one of those damn Cowboys ***** horse collaring him. Santana Moss got a real bad one too. That whole team is cheap. I am so glad about this rule change. I dont necessarily agree with the new fumble rule. When the whistle blows, there WILL be players who stop playing. It just seems like it will cause a lot of weird plays. Not to mention the possible safety concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal_Cowboy Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 I am so glad that the horse collar tackle has been redefined. If you watch game 2 against Dallas, CP almost got hurt by one of those damn Cowboys ***** horse collaring him. Santana Moss got a real bad one too. That whole team is cheap. I am so glad about this rule change.I dont necessarily agree with the new fumble rule. When the whistle blows, there WILL be players who stop playing. It just seems like it will cause a lot of weird plays. Not to mention the possible safety concerns. Every team was horsecollering last year, and they always have. People just like to pin it on Dallas because Roy Williams hurt a few guys doing it (all of whom were quoted saying they didnt like the new rule). The NFL is becoming a pussified league. This was a better game back when you could lead with your helmet, hit guys anyway, anytime and as hard as you wanted, and didnt have to worry about getting a penalty for being "too rough". This is a contact sport, the NFL needs to STFU and let the guys play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins4481 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Every team was horsecollering last year, and they always have. People just like to pin it on Dallas because Roy Williams hurt a few guys doing it (all of whom were quoted saying they didnt like the new rule). The NFL is becoming a pussified league. This was a better game back when you could lead with your helmet, hit guys anyway, anytime and as hard as you wanted, and didnt have to worry about getting a penalty for being "too rough". This is a contact sport, the NFL needs to STFU and let the guys play. So in your opinion is it ok to trip people? How about pulling the ball carrier down with the face mask? Why not? It is a contact sport. And I have NEVER seen a team horsecollar intentionally and as much as Dallas did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 The NFL is becoming a pussified league. This was a better game back when you could lead with your helmet, hit guys anyway, anytime and as hard as you wanted, and didnt have to worry about getting a penalty for being "too rough". This is a contact sport, the NFL needs to STFU and let the guys play. Considering this is RW's forte, I can understand your violent reaction against it. Real men tackle bodies, not uniforms and shoulder pads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins4481 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Real men tackle bodies, not uniforms and shoulder pads... :applause: You Cowboys fans like to call Taylor a punk. At least Taylor tackles people like a man. He doesnt ***** tackle like your boy RW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal_Cowboy Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Considering this is RW's forte, I can understand your violent reaction against it.Real men tackle bodies, not uniforms and shoulder pads... Guys like Dick Butkus are rolling in their graves over today's NFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal_Cowboy Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 :applause:You Cowboys fans like to call Taylor a punk. At least Taylor tackles people like a man. He doesnt ***** tackle like your boy RW. In just 2 years, Taylor has 3 more personal foul penalties than RW has in 4. Not to mention Taylor pulled the biggest b*tch move imaginable by spitting in Pittman's face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Guys like Dick Butkus are rolling in their graves over today's NFL Let's see, Butkus' last year was 1972 or '73. How old were you? That's right, you weren't born yet. :doh: Did you enjoy his career? Hey, Chris Hanburger tackled like that...I wasn't a fan of it then either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskinswhoopass Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Yeah i think it is great since they are really just saying more plays are reviewable. Which incorpates a lot more plays, I think people are reacting too much and taking to the other extreme. All this rule means that it will look at any ball poping out not they will call more fumbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 In just 2 years, Taylor has 3 more personal foul penalties than RW has in 4. Not to mention Taylor pulled the biggest b*tch move imaginable by spitting in Pittman's face. When they pass a rule called the 'Sean Taylor' rule, come back and visit us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal_Cowboy Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Let's see, Butkus' last year was 1972 or '73. How old were you? That's right, you weren't born yet. :doh: Did you enjoy his career?Hey, Chris Hanburger tackled like that...I wasn't a fan of it then either. I didnt say I was born, and I didnt need to be to recognize how pitiful these new rules are. And the fact that you would have such a ***** attitude towards the game doesnt really shock me. You guys wouldnt last a quarter on the HS fields of East Texas, where they employ the "no blood, no foul" policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal_Cowboy Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 When they pass a rule called the 'Sean Taylor' rule, come back and visit us. Ignoring facts, per the usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins4481 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Ignoring facts, per the usual we're the ones that are ignoring facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSkins Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 In just 2 years, Taylor has 3 more personal foul penalties than RW has in 4. Not to mention Taylor pulled the biggest b*tch move imaginable by spitting in Pittman's face. Not really a b*tch move to me, since Pittman was standing right there and Taylor was susceptible to retaliation. For my money, Pittman's the b**** for obvious reasons. I guess Pittman would have hit him back if he was a chick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal_Cowboy Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Not really a b*tch move to me, since Pittman was standing right there and Taylor was susceptible to retaliation. For my money, Pittman's the b**** for obvious reasons. I guess Pittman would have hit him back if he was a chick. Spitting in another man's face is worse than kicking him in the nads. It's just something men don't do to each other. Back in WWII, German soldiers, instead of just finishing off wounded American/English/French soldiers, would spit on them then leave them to die slowly. It's just a b*tch move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Spitting in another man's face is worse than kicking him in the nads. It's just something men don't do to each other. Back in WWII, German soldiers, instead of just finishing off wounded American/English/French soldiers, would spit on them then leave them to die slowly. It's just a b*tch move. EC, the new ES historian. As I said before, in fewer words, it isn't Sean Taylor they named this rule for, it's Roy Williams. When they start naming the no-spitting rule after ST, then your arument might have some merit. Until then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 how many people has sean taylor injuired by his hits? that explains it all.. he tackled your "BOI" T.O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal_Cowboy Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 how many people has sean taylor injuired by his hits? that explains it all.. he tackled your "BOI" T.O So because Roy hits people so hard they get hurt, he should stop hitting hard? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmchairRedskin Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 If you watch the way Roy horsecollars people it's readily apparent why they get hurt. He uses their pads to pull them backwards and at the same time he slides or swings is body forward and both his weight and the other guy's weight comes down on their legs. Watch any tape of the guys he injured. It's all the same. Roy did get punked by Chris Brown that one time, though, as he was trying to horsecollar him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal_Cowboy Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 If you watch the way Roy horsecollars people it's readily apparent why they get hurt. He uses their pads to pull them backwards and at the same time he slides or swings is body forward and both his weight and the other guy's weight comes down on their legs.Watch any tape of the guys he injured. It's all the same. Roy did get punked by Chris Brown that one time, though, as he was trying to horsecollar him. Yeah, Roy intentionally injures them :doh: The players get injured because they keep running after Roy has them, and the their momentum goes one way while their body goes the other and their legs gets pulled under. It's no more Roys fault that it is the offensive player's for continuing to run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.