Raiders cornerback Marcus Peters might have saved Monday night’s win with an illegal tackle.
With the game tied at 10 in the third quarter and the Packers starting a drive on their own 17, Green Bay quarterback Jordan Love rolled left and lofted a rainbow to receiver Christian Watson. Alone at midfield, Watson made the catch, cut inside past Peters, and took off for paydirt.
Watson was on his way to the end zone when Peters grabbed the back of the collar on Watson’s jersey and flung him down. It was a textbook horse-collar tackle, but it saved the touchdown.
The play 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 would not score again. The Raiders added a touchdown, making the final tally 17-13.
It was a smart manipulation of the rules by Peters, a desperation move that worked. Even if it also was a blatant violation.
And while it rarely happens that the last man with a clear shot at the ball carrier uses a horse-collar tackle to prevent him from scoring, it’s a wrinkle that the league should consider when tweaking rules in the offseason. If the technique, which has been prohibited for nearly two decades, is aimed at protecting players against lower-body injuries, an argument could be made in situations like this to grant the offense the touchdown.
The rulebook already contains language that allows a touchdown to be awarded, in the event of a “palpably unfair act.” Although the rulebook does not define the term, it contains one specific example as it relates to a scoring play. If a defender blocks a field goal attempt as it otherwise is passing through the uprights (a maneuver that was once legal), three points are to be awarded.
Beyond that, what is a palpably unfair act? Could it be argued that using a blatantly unsafe tackling technique to bring down a player who otherwise would score a touchdown should be regarded as “palpably unfair”?
“Palpably” is simply a melodramatic synonym for “noticeably or clearly.” What Peters did was noticeably and clearly a violation of the rules. Does that make it “unfair”?
It’s likely an issue the league has never had to consider. Perhaps it should.
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 the powers-that-be want out of the game, because it is proven to cause injury.
So here’s the question. If a player uses a horse-collar tackle to bring down a ball-carrier who otherwise would score, is it a “palpably unfair act” that permits the touchdown to be given to the offense?
The fact that officials so rarely have the occasion to declare a “palpably unfair act” likely makes them less likely to do so, especially in the spur of the moment. Although the term “palpably” appears in the rule book 17 times, it’s one of those things that, while not out of sight, is largely out of mind for the folks officiating the games.
However the league ponders the Peters play, it’s at least worthy of a conversation among the Competition Committee and/or ownership. As the safety rules have evolved over the past 20 years, the deliberate use of a textbook unsafe move perhaps should be regarded as “palpably unfair.”
It’s palpably a violation. At what point is it “palpably unfair”?
It’s an issue for those within the league’s power structure to resolve. But it’s something that should be discussed and reviewed and considered, one way or the other. If horse-collar tackles aren’t supposed to happen, shouldn’t the clear incentive to use one in a very specific — but very important — circumstance be eliminated by the reality that, even if it works, it won’t matter?
None of that will change the outcome of tonight’s game. If the league had considered this specific set of facts and accounted for it in a proactive way, maybe it would have.
