View Message Board Guidelines
 |
Author |
TOPIC: Tackling Rule |
| Jack Thomas
October 4, 2009
2:52:09 PM
Entry #: 3294419
| Re: N.E.F.L. tackling rule, and I quote:
"The ball carrier is tackled when any part of its base (including dial) comes into contact with any part of an opposing player’s base with the exception being the defender’s back part of his base which cannot make a tackle. However, the defender’s back corner’s of his base can make a tackle. The ball is downed at the most forward front part of carrier’s base."
I'm reading this rule about what constitutes a player being tackled and I'm looking at two rules within a rule i.e., that the back of a defender's base cannot make a tackle - yet,the next part of the same rule states, as noted above, the back corners of a defenders base can make a tackle.
Huh? Come again?
The premise of two diametrically opposed statements cannot logically reach the same conclusion. Either a defender hitting a ball carrier with the back side of his base, with either one of the corners of his base or with just the flat edge, constitutes a legal tackle or it doesn't. I don't think we can expect to have it both ways. The rule needs to be amended.
|
|
| Corey Johnsoon
October 23, 2009
4:21:49 PM
Entry #: 3314430
| If a ball carrier runs into the back of a defender... sort of like a race car drafting, or trains lined up in a row, that is not a tackle.
But as soon as the runner/ball carrier slides over to either corner he is down.
I hope that shines some light on your question Jack? I never remember anyone having a problem with the rule, but a fresh new perspective is always a plus. The new coaches to this league has helped us to properly word the rules.
Fire away with as many questions as you wish!
|
| Jack Thomas
November 24, 2009
12:20:22 AM
Entry #: 3347775
| Yes, thanks much for the clarification. If an RB
"slides" over and hits either back corner of a defender's base, it's a tackle, he's down. That's
all I was looking for but the way the rule is worded, understanding what defines a "tackle" from this perspective wasn't clear.
|
|
