Raiders cornerback Marcus Peters might have saved Monday night’s win with an illegal tackle.
With the game tied in the third quarter and the Packers starting a drive at their own 17, Green Bay quarterback Jordan Love rolled left and threw a rainbow to receiver Christian Watson. Alone in midfield, Watson made the catch, cut inside past Peters and headed for paydirt.
Watson was heading toward the end zone when Peters grabbed Watson by the back of his jersey collar and threw him to the ground. It was a textbook horse-collar tackle, but it saved the touchdown.
The game ended at the Las Vegas Six. Green Bay got three yards for the penalty. And the Packers failed to score a touchdown. The field goal gave them a 13-10 lead.
The Packers wouldn’t score again. The Raiders added a touchdown to make the score 17-13.
It was a clever manipulation of the rules by Peters, a desperate move that worked. Even if it was also a blatant violation.
And while it’s rare for the last man with a clear shot on the ball carrier to use a horse-collar tackle to prevent him from scoring, it’s a wrinkle the league should take into account as it adjusts the rules in the offseason . If the technique, banned for nearly two decades, is aimed at protecting players from lower-body injuries, an argument could be made for allowing the offense the touchdown in such situations.
The rules already contain wording that allows a touchdown to be awarded in the event of a “tangibly unfair act”. Although the rulebook does not define the term, it does provide a specific example of a scoring play. If a defender blocks a field goal attempt because it would otherwise go through the uprights (a maneuver that used to be legal), three points are awarded.
Furthermore, what is a manifestly unfair act? Could one argue that using a clearly unsafe tackling technique to bring down a player who would otherwise score a touchdown should be considered “palpably unfair”?
“Palpably” is simply a melodramatic synonym for “conspicuously or clearly.” What Peters did was palpably and clearly a violation of the rules. Does that make it “unfair”?
It’s probably an issue the league has never had to deal with. Maybe it should be like that.
And it’s not the same as interfering with a wide-open receiver who would otherwise catch a touchdown pass. Here the defender used a maneuver that those in power want to take out of the game because it has been proven to cause injuries.
So here is the question. If a player uses a horse-collar tackle to trip a ball carrier who would otherwise score, is that a “patently unfair act” that allows the offense to score the touchdown?
The fact that officials so rarely have an opportunity to explain a “manifestly unfair act” likely reduces the likelihood that they will do so, particularly in spontaneous situations. Despite appearing 17 times in the rulebook, the term “tangible” is one of those things that, while not lost on the people running the games, is largely ignored.
However the league thinks about Peters’ play, it’s at least worth discussing among the competition committee and/or the owners. As safety rules have evolved over the past 20 years, perhaps the deliberate use of a textbook unsafe measure should be viewed as “palpably unfair.”
It’s obviously a violation. At what point is it “palpably unfair”?
It’s a problem that those within the league’s power structure must solve. But it is something that should be discussed, examined and considered in one way or another. If horse collar tackles aren’t going to happen, shouldn’t the clear incentive to use one in a very specific – but very important – circumstance be offset by the fact that, even if it works, it doesn’t matter?
None of this will change the outcome of today’s game. If the league had considered these specific facts and proactively addressed them, it may have done so.