Hip Drop Tackle Banned

[Sect140]

It will be interesting to see what the NFLPA reaction will be. A week ago they said they do not want this rule change to go through.

 

[Sect140]

Within 20 years ( if that long) the NFL will add an F to their brand.

NFFL - National Flag Football League

 

[BTTA]

IIRC, there are three specific steps that create a hip drop tackle. The demos I've seen were very distinct from other tracking techniques. I don't agree that this is going to be that difficult for players or refs.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Saw data mentioned which was pretty high. Not sure if it was accurate but 250 hip drop tackles which resulted in a 20% injury rate. 1 injury per game.

I don’t like it because if you get behind the player what are you supposed to do? There’s no way to stop the player after that without using your own weight. He’s got all the momentum. Are you supposed to get dragged like a rag doll and embarrassed Gronkowski style?

 

[CanadianPatriot]

Came across this video as I was reading up on the rule change and reading through some of the immediate reactions.

If that's the tackle that they are aiming to eliminate, I agree that it's a dangerous play that can lead to injuries that would otherwise be avoidable. The key element here in my opinion is the defender dropping their body with all of their weight on the back of the offensive player's legs.

I think that a defender should still be allowed to drop their weight to tackle an opposing player as long as their body weight is dropping to the ground first, like some of the later examples in the rugby video. Otherwise it's just another limitation against defenses and tilting the field even more towards offenses. I really hope that the intention is for the play to only be flagged when the defender is dropping their weight onto the legs of offensive player.

Even if that's the case, the other issue is that I have no faith in the current state of officiating to consistently make the right judgment to call this properly.

 

[Pape]

Not surprising, really... As soon as we heard the term "hip drop tackle" in association with some prominent injuries, it was only a matter of time until it was done away with...

They don't really care about player safety... They do care about the product on the field... Exciting football is offensive football... League is going to protect that as much as they can

 

[Thelonious]

Glad it's banned. It was cheap. It's similar to a horse collar. Young players need to watch tape of the generations before them on how to tackle.

Sounds good, but I suspect a lot of the injury risk results not from poor technique but from the fact that the players are just physically faster and more powerful than they used to be, and as physical training/nutrition/etc. improves, that will only get worse. We are distracted by football's popularity and ubiquity from the fact that it is objectively quite an extreme sport carrying risks far more extreme, by its very nature, than nearly any other sort of permitted human activity. What happens on the football field would be a significant crime off the field. This degree of transgressive violence - let's be honest - accounts for that popularity. Football, by the rules and standards we apply to nearly any other human activity, ought to banned, criminalized. But it amuses us to see those standards and rules broken, so it continues, and thrives. Maybe we need such safety valves. Maybe we don't. That's the real question, I suspect, but it's a question we show little inclination to discuss.

Instead of watching documentaries on Apple TV, we should all be rereading Freud's Civilization and its Discontents, wherein such matters are discussed at length. For those who haven't read the book, it is not a book with a happy ending.

What would I do? First, I would not let my kid play it. It is too dangerous and injurious, and the old idea that "sports build character" is now a sick joke. Second, I would let the pro game go on as it has been and stop adding rules, such as this one, inconsistent with its violent nature. It is, as our late and somewhat lamented GOAT HC would have said, what it is. Let it be. Football is for me my single guilty pleasure. Surely one is entitled to at least one of those.

 

[TomPatriot]

I’m all for player safety and if that’s the true rationale then we should applaud the NFL.

It occurs to me that this rule change could lead to more “judgment” calls that change the outcomes of games. Cui bono? Just sayin’.

 

[Thelonious]

I’m all for player safety and if that’s the true rationale then we should applaud the NFL.

It occurs to me that this rule change could lead to more “judgment” calls that change the outcomes of games. Cui bono? Just sayin’.

There is a point at which such a view becomes empty hypocrisy, lip service at the altar of nice speak, isn't there? It is a violent game. Pretending otherwise is nonsense. As niceness has now supplanted all the other more substantial virtues, I suppose this is to be expected. Perhaps we ought to encourage boxers to sit down together over a nice platter of organic crudités and a modest glass of Pouilly-Fuissé and, you know, kind of talk out their differences.

 

[Fuzz]

They aren’t banning all hip drop tackles, only a particularly dangerous technique where the defender lands on and pins the runners legs with their lower body. It’s much less common than a regular hip drop tackle.

From ESPN:

The rule requires officials to note two actions: If a defender "grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms" and also "unweights himself by swiveling and dropping his hips and/or lower body, landing on and trapping the runner's leg(s) at or below the knee."

On Monday, McKay clarified that Monday's rule change doesn't eliminate the hip-drop tackle -- only the "swivel technique that doesn't get used very often."

From NYPost:

So it's just the third part shown above that is banned. They can pin the legs with their upper body and arms, but not using their lower body. It is very clearly intentional when the tackler swivels their hips to land on a player with their lower body, so I don't think this is going to be as subjective as some other banned tackles we've seen in recent years.

 

[TomPatriot]

There is a point at which such a view becomes empty hypocrisy, lip service at the altar of nice speak, isn't there? It is a violent game. Pretending otherwise is nonsense. As niceness has now supplanted all the other more substantial virtues, I suppose this is to be expected. Perhaps we ought to encourage boxers to sit down together over a nice platter of organic crudités and a modest glass of Pouilly-Fuissé and, you know, kind of talk out their differences.

Yeah, I am skeptical that player safety has anything to do with it other than the fact that players are valuable commodities because they, ya know, do the actual work. Historically that’s what capitalists are most concerned about.

That said, you’re not wrong, but I would add that the shift to a less violent game parallels the casual fans’ love of scoring.

 

[Force Zero Boomer]

This is going to be a disaster. In many cases where the tackler falls is based on factors beyond his control. The actions of other players and the carrier himself could determine whether a penalty is assessed. A tackler can become "unweighted" by the dynamics of the play: a strong runner combined with other tacklers could take the tackler off his feet. Or, another tackler coming from the front could push the legs of the carrier underneath.

 

[Thelonious]

Yeah, I am skeptical that player safety has anything to do with it other than the fact that players are valuable commodities because they, ya know, do the actual work. Historically that’s what capitalists are most concerned about.

That said, you’re not wrong, but I would add that the shift to a less violent game parallels the casual fans’ love of scoring.

If it were not for these "capitalists" you whine about, they'd be working a chamois at some car wash.

 

[borisman]

Gronk with these rules would have been even more of a monster lol

Pollard would be in prison back then.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Came across this video as I was reading up on the rule change and reading through some of the immediate reactions.

If that's the tackle that they are aiming to eliminate, I agree that it's a dangerous play that can lead to injuries that would otherwise be avoidable. The key element here in my opinion is the defender dropping their body with all of their weight on the back of the offensive player's legs.

I think that a defender should still be allowed to drop their weight to tackle an opposing player as long as their body weight is dropping to the ground first, like some of the later examples in the rugby video. Otherwise it's just another limitation against defenses and tilting the field even more towards offenses. I really hope that the intention is for the play to only be flagged when the defender is dropping their weight onto the legs of offensive player.

Even if that's the case, the other issue is that I have no faith in the current state of officiating to consistently make the right judgment to call this properly.

What is interesting is the way rugby officials handle these penalties (at least in the World Cup). They are all subject to video review which the TV audience can actually see. The rugby penalties for things like a deliberate blow to the head (red card, meaning player is sent off and not replaced) are way more severe than in the NFL, and they also have more time to review penalties, so things aren't exactly comparable.

In the NFL, no reason why these tricky penalties shouldn't be reviewed by the booth on request by the ref. Or at least allow the ref to get input from the booth.

 

[patfanken]

At this point one must look at all NFL rules changes that rely on very murky definitions, such as this one, as an opportunity for the league to exert bias.

F Don Shula and his legacy of self serving BS imposed on the league by this “special fraternity” known as the Competition Committee. Why nobody ever questions this is beyond belief. Why do certain teams get representation and not all teams. They have been an instrument of double standards since that jutting jawed ****stain took command of it 50 years ago. Nobody with a current association with any team should be on such a committee. It should be staffed by former coaches and football professionals only. Someone like Saban would be perfect (not BB since he has a kid working for the Pats). Why Bendover Bob never seems to try to get representation on it tells you for the umpteenth time what his actual agenda is - a HOF jacket and profits, winning and the fans not so much.

I think you have really pointed out an IMPORTANT observation. The league has created a mechanism that allows an unfair advantage to JUST certain teams year after year. When Polian controlled it, his "suggestions" not only benefited HIS team, it literally changed the nature of the game. Now McKay, who happens to have one of the best young RB's in the league, passes more rules that seem to benefit, not only all offenses, but his team in particular.

I would REALLY like for this question to be asked by the media until they get a good answer from the league. WHY is the rules committee seemly controlled by one guy for several years in a row. Why isn't EVERY team represented, or perhaps its a job better left to NFL alumn, refs, or former refsi or other professionals. NOT individual franchises.

 

[Guts]

 

[JohnJH]

The NFL, ruining the game one Do and/or Don't at a time.

 

[TomPatriot]

If it were not for these "capitalists" you whine about, they'd be working a chamois at some car wash.

Not whining. It’s pretty much a statement of fact, bub.

 

[Thelonious]

Not whining. It’s pretty much a statement of fact, bub.

It may seem so to children, sociology majors, and involuntarily virgin college girls, but alas it is not the case.