Quote:
Originally Posted by OverAndBack
The first one looked like a horse collar tackle, but the fact that it was blatant and as far out of bounds as it was (as you said) meant, to me, that UR was the correct terminology to use. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Had Peterson simply let go of the guy, that's it, it's over. But he yanked the guy down and threw him to the ground. As it's out of bounds, I would imagine that's the proper nomenclature. So even though it was a horse-collar tackle, it wasn't a Horse Collar Tackle. The penalty is the same, right? So it's a difference that makes no difference.
The other one I was out of the room for, so I didn't see it. But announcers not being clear on stuff, that's par for the course. Tirico has room for every incredibly long anecdote that means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things, but no time to actually study the game properly.
|
I assume the NFL definition of a horse collar is similar to the college. When I attended a college clinic last summer, they were showing video on what was and was not a horse collar. They emphasised a real horse collar foul by definition is a grab and immediate pull down. If the player grabs the shoulder pad and then gets his other arm in front of the runner to bring him down (especially forward), that is not a horse collar. If he pulls the runner down sideways or forward, that is not a horse collar. If the tackle is within the tackle box (don't remember the exact definition), that is not a horse collar. Based on those definitions, Peterson tackled the returner by the back of the should pads, but even if that had been in the middle of the field, it would not have qualified as a horse collar because he didn't immediately pull him backwards.