Horse collars should be ejection

[johnkyblue]

Nm. J

[Jload]

Absolutely

[Blue Heaven]

Yes sir John. Roy Williams started this rule. No different than targeting.

[Spiritof96]

I don't like ANY auto-eject rule.

I wouldn't mind the official having the leeway to eject a player for any illegal play that was malicious and results in a catastrophic injury to the player.

[Lighthouse]

I don't like ANY auto-eject rule.

I wouldn't mind the official having the leeway to eject a player for any illegal play that was malicious and results in a catastrophic injury to the player.

As far as malicious, they have that option now. But to eject a player just because an opponent has a catastrophic injury would not be fair. Case in point, in the UK-UL game a few years back, when our LB'er tackled the UL player that went to Male and broke his leg. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way he was tackled, but the UL player had a catastrophic and season ending injury. To eject a player on a play like that would be ridiculous.

[Dwight Schrute]

As far as malicious, they have that option now. But to eject a player just because an opponent has a catastrophic injury would not be fair. Case in point, in the UK-UL game a few years back, when our LB'er tackled the UL player that went to Male and broke his leg. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way he was tackled, but the UL player had a catastrophic and season ending injury. To eject a player on a play like that would be ridiculous.

The difference is that play wasn’t a penalty-inducing tackle.

I don’t like rules that don’t give the referees any discretion, but the horse collar is absolutely a dirty play and it was banned and accompanied by a penalty for a reason.

[Lighthouse]

The difference is that play wasn’t a penalty-inducing tackle.

I don’t like rules that don’t give the referees any discretion, but the horse collar is absolutely a dirty play and it was banned and accompanied by a penalty for a reason.

Of course it was, and as I said on another thread, it was handled correctly.

[Spiritof96]

As far as malicious, they have that option now. But to eject a player just because an opponent has a catastrophic injury would not be fair. Case in point, in the UK-UL game a few years back, when our LB'er tackled the UL player that went to Male and broke his leg. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way he was tackled, but the UL player had a catastrophic and season ending injury. To eject a player on a play like that would be ridiculous.

I don't mean just because there is a catastrophic injury, but any personal foul that results in a player being carted off the field, it should be on the table.

[johnkyblue]

Of course it was, and as I said on another thread, it was handled correctly.

Handled correctly by the rules as they are, the OP is about SHOULD. No, the play was NOT handled fairly.

[Dwight Schrute]

Of course it was, and as I said on another thread, it was handled correctly.

Didn't say it wasn't. But we's talkin' about the world as it should be.

[johnkyblue]

Also, a personal foul horsecollar shouldn't be negated by a formation penalty, that's not fair either. March them both off and kick the tackler out of the game should be the rule.