NFL Must Place Emphasis on Tackling versus Hits

[CelticG1]

I posted the South Park episode because frankly that is what is happening with the sport, but there are certainly ways to clean it up.  And while this didn't happen this time, the offensive players often lower their heads forcing the defenders to hit even lower.  Brady also knew when he threw that ball into that tight window that the safety was going to come over and tackle a pretty defenseless Gronk.  It isn't the defenders fault that someone gets hurt on a clean tackle that just hits low.

I agree about the offensive players lowering their heads (certainly the offensive players are contributing when that happens), but that has nothing to do with what happened in this situation.

To me, it's as simple as saying that defenders need to be limited in the methods they can use to take down offensive players.  Methods that are excessively dangerous and likely to result in serious injury should not be allowed, period.

Why not blame Brady for throwing the ball though?  Why does the defense have to change?  Why can't the offense?  If Brady doesn't throw the ball in a manner that leaves Gronk helpless, Gronk doesn't get hurt.

You don't know that for sure.

Gronk could legimately get hurt on any play.  The guy is 6'6".  Taking him down is no small chore.  Brady could hit him in stride on a slant pattern and a DB could still take the same route that TJ Ward did.  Most likely, they will do that route.

What happened to Gronk was unfortunate but was done legally.  You can't got for the head anymore so when you're giving 100 lbs and 6 inches to a guy, you're not going to go for the torso.  You chop down the legs.  It was just an unfortunate instance where Gronk got hurt by the way the play unfolded.

Yeah Cameron got hit on a similar hit in the first half. Who knows how many inches away it could have been from him getting a similar injury.


Anyway I've been in favor of some of the rule changes for safety but a lot of the rule changes having nothing to do with safety I'm not big on

[kozlodoev]

I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense. I get it that football is high-speed, impact sport, but is asking the tackler to aim above the knees and below the shoulders is really not _that_ much. that's pretty much 2/3 of the moving target.

Would injuries still happen? Sure will, much like in any sport. But this nonsense with hits targeting vulnerable parts of the runner's body has to stop. Also, it's ok for tackling to not be easy.

[wdleehi]

It is not about rule changes.



It is going to be about the technology used to protect the players. 



There is a lot of money out there for making the NFL players safer without having to reduce the amount of hitting that goes on. 




Just see what happened with Nascar after Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident.

Outside of bionic knees I'm not sure how technology is going to save Rob Gronkowski's knee when T.J. Ward launches himself at full speed while Gronk is in mid-air to wrench it laterally like that.

Yeah, I don't see either. 

This is extreme, but I honestly feel that lessening the pads and going back to the old leather helmets would be better than more protection.  I think players would generally start to calm down the more vicious hits b/c of the pain they would inflict upon themselves, they would completely stop leading with their head-first toward offensive players, and D-linemen would be less likely to make desperation dives at quarterback's knees/ankles in fear of their head getting stepped on (same with making RBs think twice about the chop block).

There would still be injuries, but I think overall we would see less severe ones.  A lot of the injuries would be more bumps/bruises related than torn ligaments and brain damage.

You are thinking about the wrong. 



When someone figures out the way to transfer the energy impacted on the helmet to the shoulder-pads, those higher hits become less dangerous, thus allowing the NFL to not worry so much about the head trauma.  Defenders would still have to aim for the shoulder pads, but if an offensive player ducks, there would be less need for the current penalty system.  (head hunting would still be a penalty)


As for the leather helmets, that will just cause more injuries.  These guys are not going to slow down. 

[Moranis]

It is not about rule changes.



It is going to be about the technology used to protect the players. 



There is a lot of money out there for making the NFL players safer without having to reduce the amount of hitting that goes on. 




Just see what happened with Nascar after Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident.

Outside of bionic knees I'm not sure how technology is going to save Rob Gronkowski's knee when T.J. Ward launches himself at full speed while Gronk is in mid-air to wrench it laterally like that.

Yeah, I don't see either. 

This is extreme, but I honestly feel that lessening the pads and going back to the old leather helmets would be better than more protection.  I think players would generally start to calm down the more vicious hits b/c of the pain they would inflict upon themselves, they would completely stop leading with their head-first toward offensive players, and D-linemen would be less likely to make desperation dives at quarterback's knees/ankles in fear of their head getting stepped on (same with making RBs think twice about the chop block).

There would still be injuries, but I think overall we would see less severe ones.  A lot of the injuries would be more bumps/bruises related than torn ligaments and brain damage.

You are thinking about the wrong. 



When someone figures out the way to transfer the energy impacted on the helmet to the shoulder-pads, those higher hits become less dangerous, thus allowing the NFL to not worry so much about the head trauma.  Defenders would still have to aim for the shoulder pads, but if an offensive player ducks, there would be less need for the current penalty system.  (head hunting would still be a penalty)


As for the leather helmets, that will just cause more injuries.  These guys are not going to slow down.

The current helmets are too good and more a weapon than a protection piece.  If you look at Rugby, the softer helmets actually help with a reduction of concussions because no one will lead with their head (because they don't have a weapon on it). 

[kozlodoev]

Defenders would still have to aim for the shoulder pads, but if an offensive player ducks, there would be less need for the current penalty system.  (head hunting would still be a penalty)

Why is this being discussed as if the only way to go is to either aim for the shoulder pads, or aim for the knees. God forbid you're forced to aim somewhere in between, because that may require you to be, you know, a good tackler, rather than just a human cannonball.

 

[wdleehi]

It is not about rule changes.



It is going to be about the technology used to protect the players. 



There is a lot of money out there for making the NFL players safer without having to reduce the amount of hitting that goes on. 




Just see what happened with Nascar after Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident.

Outside of bionic knees I'm not sure how technology is going to save Rob Gronkowski's knee when T.J. Ward launches himself at full speed while Gronk is in mid-air to wrench it laterally like that.

Yeah, I don't see either. 

This is extreme, but I honestly feel that lessening the pads and going back to the old leather helmets would be better than more protection.  I think players would generally start to calm down the more vicious hits b/c of the pain they would inflict upon themselves, they would completely stop leading with their head-first toward offensive players, and D-linemen would be less likely to make desperation dives at quarterback's knees/ankles in fear of their head getting stepped on (same with making RBs think twice about the chop block).

There would still be injuries, but I think overall we would see less severe ones.  A lot of the injuries would be more bumps/bruises related than torn ligaments and brain damage.

You are thinking about the wrong. 



When someone figures out the way to transfer the energy impacted on the helmet to the shoulder-pads, those higher hits become less dangerous, thus allowing the NFL to not worry so much about the head trauma.  Defenders would still have to aim for the shoulder pads, but if an offensive player ducks, there would be less need for the current penalty system.  (head hunting would still be a penalty)


As for the leather helmets, that will just cause more injuries.  These guys are not going to slow down.

The current helmets are too good and more a weapon than a protection piece.  If you look at Rugby, the softer helmets actually help with a reduction of concussions because no one will lead with their head (because they don't have a weapon on it).

And the soft helmets lead to neck injuries.  (see those soft caps of the 90s put on top of helmets)





Improved technology going forward will do more to protect players then major changes to the rules. 

[biggs]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that play was dirty. I dont say this because of the specific circumstances of the play (where he got hit, resulting injury) I say it because Ward was called for a penalty against gronk on the previous play and was out for blood. Wether or not  Ward wanted to destroy the hated patriots best player's entire knee will never be known since Ward would never admit to that, but to say he wasn't out for blood is absurd.

This type of mentality is what needs to be changed IMO. They're all millionaires playing a Childs game for a career. Is there really any room for vengeance in a job where everyone except the injured can "feed their families?" Or perhaps that's just it- no name players love making a name for themselves by headhunting big name players that should rightfully be held in the spotlight. See Saints head coach sitting out for a season as reference.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Ward says he went low because going high could draw a fine, and on the surface that reasoning sounds fair.

But here's the thing: Ward (as well as others) acted like there are only two possible areas to hit: the head, and from the knees down. But there's an entire middle section, which includes the shoulders, torso, waist, and upper legs. No fines for that area, and a lot less likelihood of injuries.

And yes, defenders should be trying to wrap up players anyway, not throwing themselves like projectiles, because it's the most fundamentally sound method of tackling.

[Donoghus]

And yes, defenders should be trying to wrap up players anyway, not throwing themselves like projectiles, because it's the most fundamentally sound method of tackling.

I will say that when you're giving up several inches and a 50-75 lbs (or even more) to a guy, its usually more effective to take down the player via projectile motion rather than the wrap up tackle method.  And since the head is off limits these days, you go for the legs.   Ideally, you'd like to see them either go for the thighs or trip someone up by the shoelaces but tackling is so-so bang, that can't always happen.

Going up high on a guy when you're giving up that much size is just not an effective way of tackling.

One last thing on the tackling front.  Fundamentally, the art of tackling has greatly diminished over the past 20 years or so.  A lot of that is due to the inabilty to coach a lot of full contact practices once the season starts.  If you're not practicing tackling, odds are gonna be that form tackling and sound defensive football is gonna take a significant drop. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

And yes, defenders should be trying to wrap up players anyway, not throwing themselves like projectiles, because it's the most fundamentally sound method of tackling.

I will say that when you're giving up several inches and a 50-75 lbs (or even more) to a guy, its usually more effective to take down the player via projectile motion rather than the wrap up tackle method.  And since the head is off limits these days, you go for the legs.   Ideally, you'd like to see them either go for the thighs or trip someone up by the shoelaces but tackling is so-so bang, that can't always happen.

Going up high on a guy when you're giving up that much size is just not an effective way of tackling.

One last thing on the tackling front.  Fundamentally, the art of tackling has greatly diminished over the past 20 years or so.  A lot of that is due to the inabilty to coach a lot of full contact practices once the season starts.  If you're not practicing tackling, odds are gonna be that form tackling and sound defensive football is gonna take a significant drop.

You make some good points about size differential and about the decline of tackling in recent years, and I agree with those things.

Food for thought: Since receivers and tight ends are generally quite tall and/or large these days (or at least trending that way), maybe these 5-10, 175-pound guys should consider some other position besides DB. Or maybe the NFL needs to install minimum size requirements for DBs? If the only ways you can bring down an opponent are going for the head or knees, you probably shouldn't be playing.

[Fan from VT]

I like "wrap up" tackling rules. Look back at football from back in the day, and it was basically rugby with more play stops and eventually a forward pass; rugby they have to wrap.

There is no "pure" form of football, it was invented and has continually changed.

And if you tweaked the defense to just not allow launch tackles and only wrap tackles, you could make other offensive rule tweaks to balance it out.

[kozlodoev]

And yes, defenders should be trying to wrap up players anyway, not throwing themselves like projectiles, because it's the most fundamentally sound method of tackling.

I will say that when you're giving up several inches and a 50-75 lbs (or even more) to a guy, its usually more effective to take down the player via projectile motion rather than the wrap up tackle method.  And since the head is off limits these days, you go for the legs.   Ideally, you'd like to see them either go for the thighs or trip someone up by the shoelaces but tackling is so-so bang, that can't always happen.

Well, if  you limit projectile hits to areas above the knees and below the shoulders, there is a good chance it will happen. But stuff that's going on in the NFL right now is just crazy. There's no other sport that allows you to launch yourself at the feet of a running person.

[kozlodoev]

I like "wrap up" tackling rules. Look back at football from back in the day, and it was basically rugby with more play stops and eventually a forward pass; rugby they have to wrap.

There is no "pure" form of football, it was invented and has continually changed.

And if you tweaked the defense to just not allow launch tackles and only wrap tackles, you could make other offensive rule tweaks to balance it out.

I have no problem with launch tackles per se, I have a problem with easy-mode launch tackles that target vulnerable parts and can cause a devastating injury (head, knees, feet).

I see no reason there couldn't be a mixed system where you can launch at the torso/waist/upper legs, but can't hit at the knees or lower, and need to wrap/pull/trip with your hands.

[Donoghus]

And yes, defenders should be trying to wrap up players anyway, not throwing themselves like projectiles, because it's the most fundamentally sound method of tackling.

I will say that when you're giving up several inches and a 50-75 lbs (or even more) to a guy, its usually more effective to take down the player via projectile motion rather than the wrap up tackle method.  And since the head is off limits these days, you go for the legs.   Ideally, you'd like to see them either go for the thighs or trip someone up by the shoelaces but tackling is so-so bang, that can't always happen.

Going up high on a guy when you're giving up that much size is just not an effective way of tackling.

One last thing on the tackling front.  Fundamentally, the art of tackling has greatly diminished over the past 20 years or so.  A lot of that is due to the inabilty to coach a lot of full contact practices once the season starts.  If you're not practicing tackling, odds are gonna be that form tackling and sound defensive football is gonna take a significant drop.

You make some good points about size differential and about the decline of tackling in recent years, and I agree with those things.

Food for thought: Since receivers and tight ends are generally quite tall and/or large these days (or at least trending that way), maybe these 5-10, 175-pound guys should consider some other position besides DB. Or maybe the NFL needs to install minimum size requirements for DBs? If the only ways you can bring down an opponent are going for the head or knees, you probably shouldn't be playing.

The height restriction would never happen.  Who else is gonna cover a WR who runs a 4.3/4.4 40?  The reason so many DBs are 6 feet or under is because of the speed factor along with their cutting ability.  If they're not playing DB, then where are they gonna play? RB? K? Slot WR?  That's about it. 

Football is football. There are going to be plenty of unfortunate injuries.  You really can't lower the tackling target to such a small window.  I understand the safety thing but, at some point, you're making the game something its not.  You're giving offenses yet another competitive advantage on top of all the advantages they already have under today's rules. At some point, you'll hit a tipping point with all these resticitions. Football is a violent game and these guys are choosing to play the game.  Some of these injuries are just an unfortunate byproduct.

[Donoghus]

I like "wrap up" tackling rules. Look back at football from back in the day, and it was basically rugby with more play stops and eventually a forward pass; rugby they have to wrap.

There is no "pure" form of football, it was invented and has continually changed.

And if you tweaked the defense to just not allow launch tackles and only wrap tackles, you could make other offensive rule tweaks to balance it out.

I have no problem with launch tackles per se, I have a problem with easy-mode launch tackles that target vulnerable parts and can cause a devastating injury (head, knees, feet).

I see no reason there couldn't be a mixed system where you can launch at the torso/waist/upper legs, but can't hit at the knees or lower, and need to wrap/pull/trip with your hands.

Ideally, I would totally agree.  Realistically, it'd be tough as heck to implement.  A lot of tackling is so bang-bang. Split second, reactionary stuff.

I could just see the amount of penalites called increase exponentially.  That would turn off a lot of people and will making playing defense that much more difficult.