|
|
Post by 19delta on Oct 21, 2010 20:39:34 GMT -6
The NFL just released a video that attempts to show the distinction between big hits that are legal and big hits that are illegal: www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81b80962/Player-safetyI'm not sure that I understand the difference...it seems to be that, generally speaking, if the defensive player "launches" himself at a "defenseless" offensive player and makes initial contact with the head, shoulders or forearm to the offensive player's head or shoulders, that constitutes an illegal hit. It appears that big, jarring hits are legal provided that the defensive player's initial contact is not with the head and targets the offensive player's chest area or lower body. Is that about right? Do you guys see the potential of any "trickle down" to college and high school? The biggest problem I see with high school is the lack of replay equipment for a game official to decide whether or not a big hit is legal or not. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 21, 2010 20:45:20 GMT -6
The NFL just released a video that attempts to show the distinction between big hits that are legal and big hits that are illegal: www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81b80962/Player-safetyI'm not sure that I understand the difference...it seems to be that, generally speaking, if the defensive player "launches" himself at a "defenseless" offensive player and makes initial contact with the head, shoulders or forearm to the offensive player's head or shoulders, that constitutes an illegal hit. It appears that big, jarring hits are legal provided that the defensive player's initial contact is not with the head and targets the offensive player's chest area or lower body. Is that about right? Do you guys see the potential of any "trickle down" to college and high school? The biggest problem I see with high school is the lack of replay equipment for a game official to decide whether or not a big hit is legal or not. Trickle down? No, I see this as a trickle up. The NFL has been tolerating-even selling-spearing. Now they're going to have to stop and learn to actually tackle. |
|
|
|
Post by airman on Oct 21, 2010 20:49:21 GMT -6
As joe paterno said " take off the facemasks and the players will stop leading with their head".
we you have defensive players saying it is their goal to take out offensive players you got problems.
I know this, there is a school who almost dropped football because a parent got all bent out of shape about helmets causing them to buy 120 new helmets at 179.99 a helmet. you do the math. soon football will be to expensive for schools to afford.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Oct 21, 2010 21:23:09 GMT -6
As joe paterno said " take off the facemasks and the players will stop leading with their head". If you don't have a facemask, won't you duck your head? I know I would. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 21, 2010 21:50:03 GMT -6
As joe paterno said " take off the facemasks and the players will stop leading with their head". If you don't have a facemask, won't you duck your head? I know I would. No, you would lead with your shoulder. Others have stated this for over 20 years. Nothing particularly new about it, just isn't extremely intuitive. Without a facemask, most would be delivering a blow with HALF the body...not the full body |
|
|
|
Post by teachcoach on Oct 21, 2010 21:56:07 GMT -6
I have read somewhere that the increase in accepted padding in rugby has led to more injuries. Perhaps with less padded shoulder pads, two bar face masks etc. tackling would be better and injuries could be reduced.
I think lighter helmets have led to them being used more as a weapon as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by flexoption91 on Oct 22, 2010 6:20:21 GMT -6
As joe paterno said " take off the facemasks and the players will stop leading with their head". we you have defensive players saying it is their goal to take out offensive players you got problems. I know this, there is a school who almost dropped football because a parent got all bent out of shape about helmets causing them to buy 120 new helmets at 179.99 a helmet. you do the math. soon football will be to expensive for schools to afford. If a school did that for one parent who got bent out of shape they got issues beyond football... |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Oct 22, 2010 7:05:01 GMT -6
As much as I disagree with the premise of this situation, I figure it was coming down the pipe.
When you watch an NFL game, the tackling is generally crap; there's a real lack of fundamentals there. I don't know how many missed tackles I have seen because defenders are launching themselves at people instead of tackling properly. It's been happening for so long; guys are now leading with their heads and face masks all the time.
But, they've gone overboard; part of proper tackling technique is driving your shoulder through the ball carrier. There are times when that shoulder is going to come through a little high.
I imagine that the NFL is going to kick themselves for this one because defenders are going to be looking too wrap up very low. Ball carriers are going to take shoulders, face masks and helmets through the knees and I think we'll see a rise in injuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Oct 22, 2010 7:27:11 GMT -6
If you don't have a facemask, won't you duck your head? I know I would. No, you would lead with your shoulder. Others have stated this for over 20 years. Nothing particularly new about it, just isn't extremely intuitive. Without a facemask, most would be delivering a blow with HALF the body...not the full body Good luck tackling an NFL running back with half your body. Also I think part of the reason people are claiming to see such "poor tackling" at the NFL level is that the game is played so much faster...often defenders are in less than ideal body positions to make a tackle when the ball carrier arrives because the athletes at that level are so fast, and often they are getting off blocks just a fraction of a second before they have to tackle....basically, I think they often need to improvise and make unorthadox tackles due to the speed and athleticism of their opponents. If you aren't a great tackler, you likely won't be playing defense in the NFL (possible exception for cover corners). As for the whole "get rid of the facemask" issue, this has been an ongoing debate in hockey. Many people beleive that if they got rid of helmets or at least facemasks, that would significantly reduce the amount of dirty hits and sticks to the head. I'm not totally sure if I buy that argument. I think the main reason why we are seeing more head injuries is that players are bigger, stronger and faster AND doctors are much more aware of these types of injuries so they are now identified sooner and tracked. If head injury data had been tracked in the 50s, 60s and 70s, I don't think the amount of concussions would vary much compared to today. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 22, 2010 7:56:39 GMT -6
No, you would lead with your shoulder. Others have stated this for over 20 years. Nothing particularly new about it, just isn't extremely intuitive. Without a facemask, most would be delivering a blow with HALF the body...not the full body Good luck tackling an NFL running back with half your body. Also I think part of the reason people are claiming to see such "poor tackling" at the NFL level is that the game is played so much faster...often defenders are in less than ideal body positions to make a tackle when the ball carrier arrives because the athletes at that level are so fast, and often they are getting off blocks just a fraction of a second before they have to tackle....basically, I think they often need to improvise and make unorthadox tackles due to the speed and athleticism of their opponents. If you aren't a great tackler, you likely won't be playing defense in the NFL (possible exception for cover corners). As for the whole "get rid of the facemask" issue, this has been an ongoing debate in hockey. Many people beleive that if they got rid of helmets or at least facemasks, that would significantly reduce the amount of dirty hits and sticks to the head. I'm not totally sure if I buy that argument. I think the main reason why we are seeing more head injuries is that players are bigger, stronger and faster AND doctors are much more aware of these types of injuries so they are now identified sooner and tracked. If head injury data had been tracked in the 50s, 60s and 70s, I don't think the amount of concussions would vary much compared to today. Well, as a guy who watched the Broad Street Bullies back in the '70s, people who think that eliminating helmets will eliminate dirty hockey are dreaming. It's also irrelevant in this discussion. Hockey players do not hit with their heads. The issue in football is that players's heads are wrapped in a Robo-Cop plastic shell that gives some of them the (erroneous) feeling that they're bulletproof and use the top of their heads as weapons. I'm not sure that I agree that eliminating helmets or facemasks will eliminate head-hunting but I see their point and I think it's a valid point for discussion. Tackles where players meet face-to-face are not the issue. Really, the issue is spearing. That's where the serious injuries happen either to the tackler or the tacklee. There are already rules against it. They get enforced in HS (at least they are here). The NFL is starting to enforce them. The guys who are saying that thyey'll need to "relearn"tackling are full of crap. |
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Oct 22, 2010 7:57:17 GMT -6
In the sample "correct" tackles/hits...the result could have been an illegal hit depending on the final position of the playter being hit.
Look at Ray Lewis's head on contact...he could have paralyzed himself. Face towards the ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 22, 2010 8:39:34 GMT -6
I don't see a 'trickle down' because these hits are rarely effective in HS (and I don't see a lot of them....you're lucky to get HS kids making tackles, let alone big vicious hits)
Before anyone goes too far with raising ther blood pressure, realize that this 'rule' enforcement isn't about defining the game or player safety inasmuch as it has to do with the NFL making a calculated action to protect its entity interests with regard to future litigation.
They have the ground to stand on (as evidence continues to mount about the impacts and correlatin effects of brain trauma) that they 'took precautions' to minimize the known safety risks and related damage.
This is the root of the issue. Its a business decision
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 22, 2010 8:42:44 GMT -6
I don't see a 'trickle down' because these hits are rarely effective in HS (and I don't see a lot of them....you're lucky to get HS kids making tackles, let alone big vicious hits) Before anyone goes too far with raising ther blood pressure, realize that this 'rule' enforcement isn't about defining the game or player safety inasmuch as it has to do with the NFL making a calculated action to protect its entity interests with regard to future litigation. They have the ground to stand on (as evidence continues to mount about the impacts and correlatin effects of brain trauma) that they 'took precautions' to minimize the known safety risks and related damage. This is the root of the issue. Its a business decision What he said. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 22, 2010 8:45:41 GMT -6
The 'safety' angle is as much of a red herring distraction as Brett Favre's elbow last week
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 22, 2010 8:46:05 GMT -6
.....
|
|
|
|
Post by playsmart on Oct 22, 2010 8:58:21 GMT -6
I believe that they only need to institute one rule for all defenders trying to make a tackle. When trying to tackle an offensive player, the defender must attempt to wrap up the offensive player with both arms. This rule would go for all tackles. Tackles on running backs, QB's and WR's. When looking at most of those hits (expect the punt return block because it was a block and not a tackle) I believe the hits would have been less violent if all the defenders were trying to wrap up instead of launching themselves like a torpedo.
All of the rules they are instating for player safety or judgment calls because they happen so quick and are useless and stupid. They need to start making rules and punishment that go along with the fundamentals of the game because those are easy to spot.
I am still going to tell my kids to punish WR's coming across the field but I am going to expect them to do it the way I have taught them not the way hey see it done on TV because that is cheap. They are going to tackle the WR with the arms wrapping, head-up and getting chest to chest or back depending on the position of the WR's, and driving through the guy.
|
|
Boltar
Sophomore Member
Posts: 208
|
Post by Boltar on Oct 22, 2010 9:22:06 GMT -6
I also agree that it's a business/ legal decision. It's also a PR one. The league want's bigger, faster, stronger but then wants to reign the result of that attitude in. They'll institute higher fines based on subjective decisions but won't change the rules. Politics at it's finest.
There's a lot of bang, bang hits that happen so quickly that the ref's can't really be sure what part of the body was leading. Seems the only real way to make on field decisions is through instant replay. That's basically what the league office is doing when they levy these penalties.
|
|
|
|
Post by leighty on Oct 22, 2010 9:37:45 GMT -6
Personally, I think the NFL is being very hypocritical. As someone else mentioned, the NFL has all but celebrated these kinds of hits in an attempt to grow their product. Secondly, the NFL and the owners are pushing for an 18-game regular season schedule that would increase income for everyone except the players.
|
|
|
|
Post by calkayne on Oct 22, 2010 9:50:36 GMT -6
Look at Ray Lewis's head on contact...he could have paralyzed himself. Face away from contact. Fixed  In all seriousness, look at Rugby League tackles, not Rugby Union as a comparison. Little to no headgear and shoulder to body contact. Spearing was banned around the same time as Cigarettes where banned from the Player box Now they are wanting to be seen as cracking down on unneccesary roughness to a players head. However, I didnt hear anything about knees and feet striking the head? A sign of things to come? I hope not. I also hear nothing about being forced to wrap up a BC. Football is too fast to be able to form tackle with consistency. This is just about safe contact at the Professional level. Also, I find it interesting that this is 100% dedicated to protecting Offensive players. What about the Defender that gets trucked by an Offending Run Blocker? |
|
|
|
Post by teachcoach on Oct 22, 2010 13:02:28 GMT -6
www.thefreelibrary.com/RUGBY+PADDING+'CAN+BE+BAD+FOR+YOUR+HEALTH'+Body+armour+makes+players...-a065712198 I know this goes back to rugby, but I think the psychology is interesting comparing the statistics to the players quotes. The newer helmets and shoulder pads in football may make the players feel invincible regardless of technique that is taught. I think that the argument for less padding would be hard to get past most, but I think worth studying.
|
|
dania
Junior Member
Posts: 365
|
Post by dania on Oct 22, 2010 14:34:30 GMT -6
we are getting close and close to taking the head out of football ala moving closer to either flag football or A11
|
|
|
|
Post by tefallstall on Oct 22, 2010 17:14:51 GMT -6
Personally, I think the NFL is being very hypocritical. As someone else mentioned, the NFL has all but celebrated these kinds of hits in an attempt to grow their product. Secondly, the NFL and the owners are pushing for an 18-game regular season schedule that would increase income for everyone except the players. The NFL first went wrong when they "overprotected" the QB. First they went with the slide rule, which is fine. Then they decided to bring in the no low hits rule. This is a bit questionable and should be based on the situation. Then they decided no hits to the QB's head even with a hand. That is becoming rediculas. I've seen many defenders jump up while being engaged with a blocker and slap towards the QB missing the tipped pass but yet hitting him in the face lightly and getting the 15 yd yellow hanky. Now spearing is a problem to a defensless reciever or person I agree (like a merriweather type NE play), but hitting is in the moment of the game and I understand the gripes of Ray Lewis, Harrison and others that the defense is near flag football status. Keep in mind, our tackling is not even as good as lets say the 2000 Ravens or 1990's Chiefs. Many teams rather work schemes to a point that it has gotten away from many bad habits that talent in college created and was never changed. The NFL is making it hard to adjust to with this anti defense ways of playing the great old game. The NFL should worry more about plays like Calvin Johnson's clear TD being called a non TD then a hard hit thats been happening for years. |
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Oct 27, 2010 8:34:46 GMT -6
I'd be much more hypersensitive about the concussion issue at the NFL level if: Players were wearing helmets that actually fit like a helmet should. I see far too many players slip a helmet on and off with little to no effort. Players were made to wear mouth pieces. Seems to me I read somewhere the reason for the mouth piece isn't to protect the teeth necessarily, it's to aid in preventing concussions. BUT I will also say this - basically what the NFL is saying to the players is PLAY RIGHT!! I for one am sick of seeing defensive players fly in there with a shoulder trying to knock down a ball carrier instead of hitting him and wrapping him up. If this rule change makes defensive players tackle properly then I fully support it. Now I do hate the defenseless receiver rules, I think those are 100% pure BS and I gained some respect for Steve Young last monday night when he said the problem was QB's not being able to read the coverage, throwing man routes vs zone coverage, or missing throwing windows. But that's what you get when you change the way the DBs can play, the defense will adapt. Yeah, the helmet thing. I'm convinced players want their helmets to come off...so they get their muggs on TV...helps in their marketing. Look at them when they put their helmet on. it's like putting a baseball cap on...that's wrong, there should be a bit of a struggle to get the helmet on. And soon as a helmet comes off, those cameras are all over that player. No idea why. There has to be a better system for chin straps...buttons are too easy to pop off. Mouth pieces too. Aaron Rodgers of the Packers doesn't use one at all...that is insanity. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 27, 2010 11:19:56 GMT -6
I'd be much more hypersensitive about the concussion issue at the NFL level if: Players were wearing helmets that actually fit like a helmet should. I see far too many players slip a helmet on and off with little to no effort. Players were made to wear mouth pieces. Seems to me I read somewhere the reason for the mouth piece isn't to protect the teeth necessarily, it's to aid in preventing concussions. BUT I will also say this - basically what the NFL is saying to the players is PLAY RIGHT!! I for one am sick of seeing defensive players fly in there with a shoulder trying to knock down a ball carrier instead of hitting him and wrapping him up. If this rule change makes defensive players tackle properly then I fully support it. Now I do hate the defenseless receiver rules, I think those are 100% pure BS and I gained some respect for Steve Young last monday night when he said the problem was QB's not being able to read the coverage, throwing man routes vs zone coverage, or missing throwing windows. But that's what you get when you change the way the DBs can play, the defense will adapt. Yeah, the helmet thing. I'm convinced players want their helmets to come off...so they get their muggs on TV...helps in their marketing. Look at them when they put their helmet on. it's like putting a baseball cap on...that's wrong, there should be a bit of a struggle to get the helmet on. And soon as a helmet comes off, those cameras are all over that player. No idea why. There has to be a better system for chin straps...buttons are too easy to pop off. Mouth pieces too. Aaron Rodgers of the Packers doesn't use one at all...that is insanity. I don't think it's that they want to get their helmet knocked off as much as they want to be able to get them on and off easily. They want them looser because a tight helmet is uncmfortable. I didn't like wearing a helmet and I didn't use a mouthpiece after HS. Just because they don't like wearing a properly fitted helmet, snapping it on correctly, or use a mouthpiece doesn't mean that they shouldn't. The NFL really enforces uniform policies so they should enforce equipment policies (not an original thought. I heard Marcellus Wiley say the same thing on the radio last night). The players will bitch. They'll get over it. Hockey players didn't like it when the NHL mandated helmets and baseball players didn't want batting helmets. They adapted. Last week everybody screamed that they couldn't break the spearing habit but this week they did. |
|
|
|
Post by gdoggwr on Oct 28, 2010 10:33:58 GMT -6
When I first heard this I was sorta pissed, because I like big hits as much as the next guy. However, after seeing some of the examples of the dangerous hits they were talking about the real issue isn't the increased fine/possible suspensions, its the officials not throwing the flags. Spearing has been illegal for a LONG time, and the helmet to helmet and defenseless player wording has been in the rules for several seasons (i'm too lazy to look up how many), and some of the hits were blatant, head down shots to the head. I know the officials have lot to see, but come on man, throw the flag.
|
|
