NFL bans ALL hits where player lowers head

[Fixit]

Good for you, go watch some rugby!

Football might have evolved from rugby -- about 100 years ago. Comparing rugby to the NFL is not just apples and oranges, it's apples vs. watermelon.

I actually watch both, which is why I know what I'm talking about. But you go ahead and keep believing that good tackling is somehow nigh impossible in the NFL.

 

[maineman209]

If you are a RB running head first across the goal line and you hit a defensive player, is that a penalty?

NFL bans hits where player lowers head

 

[Soliel]

I hope there is fifteen flags on every down all year

 

[maineman209]

ouch

 

[maineman209]

Happy to do it. Still...working...on the actual comparison though. It might take a while

Although I'm sure it will be a great sacrifice on your part, we're all counting on you to perform copious and rigorous hands-on research and to post a detailed report with graphic examples.

 

[Soliel]

ouch

That was not a good tackle.

 

[maineman209]

That was not a good tackle.

Vernon Davis says (in a high-pitched, squeaky voice), "Really? Ya think?"

 

[Soliel]

Only in San Fran huh maineman?

The good ole nut tackle

 

[RobertWeathers]

Thanks Dr. Weathers

You are welcome

 

[RayClay]

As someone from a country where contact sport players know how to execute a tackle properly, I've never been able to understand why NFL players lead with their helmets.

It's simple. The league provides players with hard shell missiles to wear on their heads. If you had helmets which couldn't be used as weapons, no one in their right mind, or even a little daft, would lead with their helmet.

Players have used soft shell helmets, so where is the research to perfect one?

 

[RayClay]

Good for you, go watch some rugby!

Football might have evolved from rugby -- about 100 years ago. Comparing rugby to the NFL is not just apples and oranges, it's apples vs. watermelon.

Because rugby players don't wear helmets.

 

[Tunescribe]

I actually watch both, which is why I know what I'm talking about. But you go ahead and keep believing that good tackling is somehow nigh impossible in the NFL.

Huh? Did I ever make such a ridiculous suggestion? No. All I did was point out that the approach to tackling in the two games is inherently different, a fact now exacerbated at the NFL level by constant rule tweaking.

 

[long distance]

Pleasantly surprised this was finally addressed. Its not only about the irony (and serious health consequences of course) that a protection equipment is (ab)used as a weapon . not only about keeping football as a sport long term . its also about gaining unfair advantage (usually) by players lacking in technique etc.

It might make a mess of officiating, I understand that, but helmet had to go out, one way or another..

 

[Kontradiction]

LOL this is going to be horrific. I look forward to scanning this thread when the Pats inevitably get screwed by a ticky-tack call because of this rule change. Yeah, form tackling is great. Nobody will deny that. It's not always possible, however, for a defensive player to do his job when the guys in front of him are moving at 20+ MPH. The NFL may as well just eliminate defense altogether.

 

[Fixit]

Huh? Did I ever make such a ridiculous suggestion? No. All I did was point out that the approach to tackling in the two games is inherently different, a fact now exacerbated at the NFL level by constant rule tweaking.

I posted that people who think that good tackling is going to be just sooo hard due to these rules should watch rugby, and that NFL tackling technique sucks. You responded that football and rugby are completely different sports, implying that my point was somehow invalid.

Rugby players have been playing under these same rules for a long time. NFL players just don't want to actually tackle, because normal tackling is boring.

 

[Kontradiction]

I posted that people who think that good tackling is going to be just sooo hard due to these rules should watch rugby, and that NFL tackling technique sucks. You responded that football and rugby are completely different sports, implying that my point was somehow invalid.

Rugby players have been playing under these same rules for a long time. NFL players just don't want to actually tackle, because normal tackling is boring.

It's also not always possible. Especially if you're a safety.

 

[Fixit]

It's also not always possible. Especially if you're a safety.

True, sometimes mis-hits happen, but leading with the helmet is 100% on the tackler. Why did you highlight the safety position, though? They have to tackle differently? Or because we like to see receivers getting blown up? Because rugby dudes get legally decleated all the time.

Edited to add: if the NFL really wanted to cut way down on dangerous hits, they'd borrow another page from rugby (and hockey) and force the offending team to go short-handed.

 

[Tunescribe]

LOL this is going to be horrific. I look forward to scanning this thread when the Pats inevitably get screwed by a ticky-tack call because of this rule change. Yeah, form tackling is great. Nobody will deny that. It's not always possible, however, for a defensive player to do his job when the guys in front of him are moving at 20+ MPH. The NFL may as well just eliminate defense altogether.

Angles, spacing and speed ...

 

[IllegalContact]

LOL this is going to be horrific. I look forward to scanning this thread when the Pats inevitably get screwed by a ticky-tack call because of this rule change. Yeah, form tackling is great. Nobody will deny that. It's not always possible, however, for a defensive player to do his job when the guys in front of him are moving at 20+ MPH. The NFL may as well just eliminate defense altogether.

On the other hand,

Ex-NFL LB turns down Montana Football Hall of Fame nod because of concussions

 

[Kontradiction]

True, sometimes mis-hits happen, but leading with the helmet is 100% on the tackler. Why did you highlight the safety position, though? They have to tackle differently? Or because we like to see receivers getting blown up? Because rugby dudes get legally decleated all the time.

Edited to add: if the NFL really wanted to cut way down on dangerous hits, they'd borrow another page from rugby (and hockey) and force the offending team to go short-handed.

Because the safety position has to make a split second decision when tackling a lot of times and there isn't a whole lot of room for thinking about a wrap-up tackle. Another poster used Ebner as an example to you before. The safety's primary job, once the ball has been secured, is to bring the receiver down by any means that he has necessary to him. A lot of times, that doesn't constitute making a perfect form, wrap-up tackle. A lot of times, trying to do so will cause the receiver to shed the tackle and have nothing but daylight in front of him. So the league is essentially going to punish this position because it has to make split second decisions for the good of the team. That's not to say anything about the disparity of the calls for guys lowering their helmets to tackle vs. a RB lowering his helmet before trying to truck a tackler or a blocker lowering his helmet out of a three point stance. The rule is a terrible one. That's par for the course in Goodell's administration.