Would you watch it if it had more form tackling, like rugby tackling, and fewer massive collisions? I would.
Lowering of the head to initiate contact
- Thread starter Elias
- Start date
Would you watch it if it had more form tackling, like rugby tackling, and fewer massive collisions? I would.
No I would not watch it at all. 60 minutes of 0fense only games would bore me . The game would end on the coin toss. Teams would sore on everyepossession. It's a different game, when forward motion is stopped in the NFL, so is the play. Not the case in Rugby. Is also played at a much slower pace.
I have heard the rugby form tackle argument, but if you watch Rugby, the player making the tackle often still lower their heads to tackle, the ball carriers don't, but the play is still alive after the tackle. It's a very different game.
Below are some of the best Rugby tackles, most would result in a penalty in the NFL.
If you want to see Rugby form tackles in the NFL, you need to remove the tackling rules applied to the Defense and replace them with rules prohibiting the ball carriers/ receivers from lowering their bodies.
If MMA we're to remove take downs, kicks, wrestling and instituted boxing's rules, would people still watch it? Probably not because it would no longer be MMA, just watered down boxing.
In my opinion, not worth much I'm sure, watching NFL football with Rugby like form tackles would be as appealing to me as Black Bear hunting with blanks. There is one flag football league already, which I assure you I don't follow. I don't think we need another one. The rule, though well intended, is stupid.
So the Seahawks give up a TD every possession? Pete Carroll has been teaching this tackle style since he was at USC. It is largely based on the rugby style tackle, taking the head out of the equation and focusing on form and wrapping. That style has revolutionized how tackling is taught in college, and even more importantly the high school and youth levels.
Again, the Seahawks?
You do realize that Seattle has the most penalized Defense right?
Yes. But they have been teaching this tackling form for years. Are they the most penalized at spearing calls?
I will do you one better. Here is the Seahawks tackling video, narrated by Pete Carol.
all hand picked by him. 1/2 of these cherry picked tackles are now 15 yard penalties or ejections.
Then Watch the legion of boom hilights. About 28 of 30 real game tackles are penalties and 20 or so are ejections
Crown of the helmet and defenseless reciever.
Watch this and see by today's rules how many penalties and ejections you see. Damn near every play.
Well, I can say, having played in college in the mid 90s, before all this, I wish there had been a similar commitment to preventing head injuries then as there are now.
And having coached high school and youth programs more recently, I can tell you it has revolutionized the game, without taking out the contact. It's not touch or flag football. It's just safer for both the tackler and the ball carrier now. Maybe some fans don't like it, but I think it's a big step in the right direction.
We're you taught to initiate contact with your head? Oc course not. A form tackle has not changed for decades.
Head to Head contact is simply unavoidable. I get when a defender is stationary and a receiver stops to catch a ball, you can certainly apply more sound technique, but when it's a play in the open field or a LB is moving sidline to sidline and a RB cuts in his direction, it's not the same situation. The ball carriers and Receivers instinctively lower their head and shoulder. The fetal position essentially. It's human nature. And when tackles occour in a crowded are , trajectory changes faster than a player can react.
in rugby, the play is much slower, the played much smaller, probably 90-100 pounds on avg, and the ball can only be passed backwards. Less mass at lower speed = much less violent collisions. Even Rugby has seen a 200% increase in injuries in a couple year span as players have gotten bigger and faster on average.
The way the rule is written is to broad, too subject to interpretation and will definitely cost the league fans.
Fans do not trust the League as it is. Too many games are decided on very questionable calls. This new rule will be much more controversial than the catch rule ever was.Wait until Brady attempts a QB sneak,Fails and a D line man or LB get ejected,after Brady points to his helmet. The Pat's get a new set of downs and 15 yards or 1/2 the distance. (That example was for cheatenhater) It can be any team, but would have the same outcome. The Defensive player will always get the penalty vs QB or player in possession of the ball.
I also question whether or not rugby is actually safer. They have a fraction of the data that the NFL has, they havee a much higher rate of spinal injuries, and on avg at least 1 player per match is concussed. The big CTE study by Dr. Omalu states one season of Rugby is enough to cause CTE.
I'm all for increasing the safety of the players. The league has the money to invest in equipment studies. More paddong on the sides of helmets, I don't care if it means padding on both the inside and out, a double shell .
If they don't, the league will ultimately lose it's fan base.
??????
Head to Head contact is simply unavoidable. I get when a defender is stationary and a receiver stops to catch a ball, you can certainly apply more sound technique, but when it's a play in the open field or a LB is moving sidline to sidline and a RB cuts in his direction, it's not the same situation. The ball carriers and Receivers instinctively lower their head and shoulder. The fetal position essentially. It's human nature. And when tackles occour in a crowded are , trajectory changes faster than a player can react.
in rugby, the play is much slower, the played much smaller, probably 90-100 pounds on avg, and the ball can only be passed backwards. Less mass at lower speed = much less violent collisions. Even Rugby has seen a 200% increase in injuries in a couple year span as players have gotten bigger and faster on average.
The way the rule is written is to broad, too subject to interpretation and will definitely cost the league fans.
Fans do not trust the League as it is. Too many games are decided on very questionable calls. This new rule will be much more controversial than the catch rule ever was.Wait until Brady attempts a QB sneak,Fails and a D line man or LB get ejected,after Brady points to his helmet. The Pat's get a new set of downs and 15 yards or 1/2 the distance. (That example was for cheatenhater) It can be any team, but would have the same outcome. The Defensive player will always get the penalty vs QB or player in possession of the ball.
I also question whether or not rugby is actually safer. They have a fraction of the data that the NFL has, they havee a much higher rate of spinal injuries, and on avg at least 1 player per match is concussed. The big CTE study by Dr. Omalu states one season of Rugby is enough to cause CTE.
I'm all for increasing the safety of the players. The league has the money to invest in equipment studies. More paddong on the sides of helmets, I don't care if it means padding on both the inside and out, a double shell .
If they don't, the league will ultimately lose it's fan base.
??????
I perfectly understand that argument and unless you are indifferent to the health of the players on all levels including the pros, you can see the necessity for this rule when you look at the condition of so many former players today who suffered too many blows to the head. Its also a concern for the league, its survival might depend on it. So although I loved the violent nature of the game when I was a kid, its obvious that is no longer tenable. That said, I do think this particular call should be subject to review as it is in college. 1) Sometimes what looks like head to head in real time considering the speed of the game, you get a clearer picture of in slow motion and the calls will often be reversed. 2) Sometimes the offensive player goes in below the head as directed, but the defensive player lowers his head second, essentially causing the head-to-head collision. Thats another thing you may not notice in real time, but if the review shows that indeed was the case, the call should not only be nullified, it should be reversed and the offensive player should be flagged.
Green Jets & Ham;n163387 said:
That is a perfectly reasonable argument. I would agree with you that the way the call is currently constituted is just not a good rule. It needs to be changed.
That said, ESPN and other networks showing highlights could do its share by highlighting more form tackles and fewer head-first collisions.