NFL is becoming a joke: New tackling rule implemented.
- Thread starter PSUWrestlingFanSince2011
- Start date
I like the rule but feel it will be difficult to officiate because it will be like holding or PI: arbitrary.
But NFL scoring has gone down, down, and down the last three years. And the RB has become and afterthought. So if scoring goes up by a few points, I am OK with that. But so many players have gotten injured with this tackling technique something had to be done. No-brainer.
OK, on the other hand, lets let people drag runners down by the facemask, horse collars and double team low/high. How about clipping and trackbacks? That should be fun.
Fact is, football's only threat is the violence and injuries in game. CTE is a thing. Lots of parents won't let their kids play. Like it or not, those are facts. Players hate the hip-tackle and many ID defensive players use it to target them during the game.
I've got no problem with making the game safer. I hate it when great players are injured and taken out of the game. Lets implement it and see where it goes. We can always go back.
why do you want hip-tackling? why do you feel that the preservation of that technique is more beneficial to the lost of star players who get injured when the hip-tackle is executed?
It appears to me, over the last few years, players have started to use the hip-tackle with the intent to injure by pinning the knees and ankles with the defenders body while pulling the player down from the top. Its a problem.
Hugging the guy and bringing him down with a pillow underneath his head.
Bc tackling is hard and you need to have a way to bring down the player.
If you are in a certain position its the only way. I don't see one former/current player supporting this rule.
here is what the ruling was based on, statistically:
(Jeff, the NFL’s executive vice president of communications, public affairs and policy) Miller said there were 230 hip-drop tackles leaguewide last season, using the definition that includes the “swivel” element. The frequency increased roughly 65 percent year over year, he said. Of those 230 tackles last season, 15 resulted in injuries in which the ballcarrier missed playing time, according to Miller.
The NFL thus was dealing with a tackling technique that was occurring nearly once per game and resulting in nearly one significant player injury per week, he said.
Much ado about nothing (or very little).
That's what we're heading toward, it seems. The sport is going to become unwatchable. I do agree that there is a higher degree of injuries as a result of the hip-drop technique vs other techniques, but what is next? There are plenty of knee injuries for linemen. Is the NFL going to start rummaging through film to determine the largest contributor to ACL/MCL/Ankle injuries to linemen and ban that particular technique, next? And then what? What comes after that? It ultimately gets to flag-football or an outright ban of the sport.
Many here had issues with Abdul Carter getting hurt on a completely legal play in the bowl game. I'd have no issues with further limiting the blocks that are allowed below the waste. I still love watching the NFL even if we have fewer head shots and horse collar tackles...I'm sure that will continue as they get the hip drop tackle out of the game.
Despite all of the angst, two issues points need to be understood. first, scoring in the NFL has dropped over the last three years so defenses have no suffered with recent rule changes. Second, the league's stats say that around 240 plays would have been penalties last year given their definition. So that is about one per game. (272 games per season)
I don't think it is going to change the nature of the game but we'll see.
It’s a good rule change. They should also ban Logan Wilson for life.
These tackles went up significantly because of all the helmet rule penalties. Undersized dbacks were getting more shoulder injuries trying to avoid head tackles. Now they will have to alter their techniques again. Very hard to change what has become instinctive.
You really want to eliminate injuries? Take away all the padding and equipment, including helmets. Watch a rugby game and observe how they hit. Their serious injury rate is far lower because the can’t use their pads as weapons and learned proper techniques.
Is 17 significant injuries statistically insignificant?
But to be fair, the hip drop does cause fewer injuries than the Metlife Stadium turf.
I agree with all of that. I just don't understand the NFL in that way. Virtually EVERY team uses padding on their helmet head gear yet NONE use them in games. Why? The helmet is a weapon and while you see people get hurt with friendly fire, it is more common to be able to hurt an opposing player with your rock-hard helmet.
But nobody ever argued that the NFL isn't hypocritical.
its a start. I've got no problem with it. It may or may not be the choice I would make but I can't complain if it lowers injuries and doesn't materially affect the game. And it isn't written in stone.
Rugby player here. This is true to a degree. Pads/helmets are weapons, but there are a few other more significant factors.
1. Defenseless Positions - The biggest reasons for significant injuries are players being in a compromised/defenseless position. This occurs mostly due to blocking and foward passes. Neither of those are part of rugby.
2. Tackling technique - American Football is a game of inches and defensive players are taught to tackle with their head in front of the ball carrier. Rugby is a game of possession. Defensive players are taught to tackle with their head behind the ball carrier. Further, in rugby, a tackler cannot leave their feet and must attempt to wrap the ball carrier with their arms.
3. Position specialization - NFL players build their bodies to the extreme to excel at one thing. They generally struggle in any other phases of the game. How does this apply to injuries? You have elite OL playing at 300+ lbs and elite DL in the high 200s and low 300s. Think of the body of elite LBs. They are built to tackle only. Their bodies are extreme and that leads to bigger collisions and more stress on soft tissue. They also are built for short bursts(~6seconds) of maximum effort and then 20-30seconds of rest. Ask an NFL lineman to run a half marathon. There are few NFL players that could play high level rugby because they are too specialized. In rugby, every player participates in every phase of the game. Every player plays offense and defense. Every player tackles. Every player carries the ball and passes(lateral). Every player plays 80 minutes of a game that only stops for an infraction or the ball going out of bounds. Because of this, if you look at the average rugby team, their physiques cannot be so extreme. If you look at Ireland, which just won the 6 Nations, their equivalent of OL/DL, range from about 230-265lbs.
So, I would classify rugby as more violent, but the violence is more controlled and the game is less extreme in all facets.
Excellent dissection. It is a different game. But the NFL could learn a lot….if they wanted to.
Like Obli posted…..why wear soft helmets all week in practice but go to hard missile warheads for games?
….because fans like big hits and that makes big bucks for the NFL?
I'm not sure I believe that stat. I would guess that there are multiple per game, not one. I bet there is at least one each quarter. It is a very common tackling technique. You are forcing the ball carrier to carry their weight and yours.
But, like I said, I do get that it definitely increases the chance of injury. So, I'm sort of in the middle on this particular rule change. I just don't like the general direction the rules committee seems to be taking. Little by little they will make the game not much more than flag-football. That I don't approve of. It is, after all, a man's sport. Not a woman's sport. It's the level of violence of the sport that is so entertaining and visceral. And every player knows that going in. It's not like the players aren't educated about the risks in playing.
Last edited:
I agree. From a safety perspective, I believe the NFL should adopt the wrapping requirement and ban a tackler leaving their feet. Rules aside, there is also ample evidence on grass vs turf. If the NFL was serious, it would get rid of some, if not most/all turf.
The ultimate challenge however, is that, being a game of inches, big bodies are going to collide with the maximum possible force to decide those inches, and while it would be much safer to tackle with your head behind, that would give those inches to the offense. There is some inherent risk associated with the core principles of football (1st downs, blocking, forward passes) that make it inherently more dangerous.
Have you ever been on an NFL sideline? I have. Haloti Ngata was over 100 lbs heavier than Lambert and probably ran the same 40 time. Suggs, Clowney same height 50 lbs heavier. All these guys are bigger, faster and more athletic than Jack Lambert. It’s a different game and it requires different rules.
It's all a moot point. Football as we know it today, probably won't be around in 50 years. Players are getting too big and too fast. It's only a matter of time before there is another death on the field and the backlash to that won't be pretty.
No, but have you ever tried Colt 45 malt liquor?
"Big Daddy" Lipscomb was 6'6", 306 and he played BEFORE Lambert, if you want to have a gaslighting contest.
Anyway, skirts still seem to be the order of the day. It's inevitable.
These 2 points are huge, and also highlight the crappiness of the typical football fan or defensive player.
Almost all of these "big hits" are the result of some player being put in a position where they can't see who is coming for them, or they just get to see them, as they're approaching from an impeded angle, but they don't have the opportunity to adjust to avoid the hit, or lessen the blow.
This is what many fans cheer on, and point to as evidence that football players are bad ass and tough. They hoot and holler when a WR comes across the middle, gets the pass and some LB or safety comes from the side and lays him out. That tackler is such a tough guy. Such a manly man. Oh, watch out for so-and-so, he's an enforcer.
No, he's a punk. It doesn't take much manliness to run around a field looking to lay out people who can't avoid the hit, or who can't brace/retaliate.
The league has done some work to mitigate this ... but not nearly enough ... and the wannabe tough guy meatheads all hoot and holler that even the current modifications have wussified the game ... it's not even tackle football anymore, they say. But that stuff is punkish ... bordering on cowardly. But it's promoted because the average meathead loves to watch it.
Me? I like it when an LB squares up a RB running at him and form tackles him to the ground. That's skill. That's tough. That's manly. The typical NFL fan yawns ... waiting for someone to fly across the field and fold an outstretched receiver who just made a tough catch in traffic.
come on man. First off, Lipscomb was called Big Daddy because he called everyone around him "Little Daddy." It was not because he was big, but whatever.
There may have been exceptions back in the day, but if you want to throw around the term gaslighting, it would definitely be anyone trying to suggest that NFL players aren't significantly bigger and stronger today because you can name one big player. But let's be real, Gene Lipscomb was big, but he wasn't the physical specimen NFL players are today. Take a look at the wrestling pics at this link. If he was a recruit today, everyone would be here saying that "he has the frame to add a lot of good weight." Lipscomb was 6'6", 306. Albert Haynesworth was 6'6" 350. think about that. It's fair to day that Lipscomb played at 40-50lbs lighter than he would have if he was playing today.
Today, no lineman at 306 would be considered "large". On the OL, the MEDIAN weight is 310. On the interior DL, 306 is on the larger end, but doesn't raise eyebrows. You can check out this link for reference, if you care.
Evolution of the NFL Player | NFL Football Operations
Today's NFL athletes are bigger, faster and more specialized than they were in the league's earliest days. See how professional football players have evolved from "everyman" to "superman."
Let me speak more plainly so our friends on the slow side can keep up. We were discussing linebackers, genius. I mentioned Haloti Ngata because now even the d linemen are as fast as linebackers. And you don’t get a nickname like Big Daddy if you are an example of the average guy for your generation. Talk about gaslighting.
Last edited:
If you hit the QB too high, too low, too hard or look like you intend to hit him too hard it's a penalty. Now, if a ball carrier gets to the edge you have to leave him go if you have a certain angle or it's a penalty too. So yeah, the "skirts" reference seems perfectly appropriate when discussing the NFL descending deeper and deeper into wokeness. What's next, bubble uniforms and helmets for players larger than the 306 lb. "small" players, as you describe them. Maybe we could have lawyers on the sidelines ready to file instant lawsuits on behalf of victims of illegal tackles, hits or even if their feelings are hurt when taunted. That way they get instant justice for being offended, a prime tenet of wokeness.come on man. First off, Lipscomb was called Big Daddy because he called everyone around him "Little Daddy." It was not because he was big, but whatever.
There may have been exceptions back in the day, but if you want to throw around the term gaslighting, it would definitely be anyone trying to suggest that NFL players aren't significantly bigger and stronger today because you can name one big player. But let's be real, Gene Lipscomb was big, but he wasn't the physical specimen NFL players are today. Take a look at the wrestling pics at this link. If he was a recruit today, everyone would be here saying that "he has the frame to add a lot of good weight." Lipscomb was 6'6", 306. Albert Haynesworth was 6'6" 350. think about that. It's fair to day that Lipscomb played at 40-50lbs lighter than he would have if he was playing today.
Today, no lineman at 306 would be considered "large". On the OL, the MEDIAN weight is 310. On the interior DL, 306 is on the larger end, but doesn't raise eyebrows. You can check out this link for reference, if you care.
Evolution of the NFL Player | NFL Football Operations
Today's NFL athletes are bigger, faster and more specialized than they were in the league's earliest days. See how professional football players have evolved from "everyman" to "superman."operations.nfl.com
Not sure who you are yelling at.
It's 100% true that athletes today are larger and stronger than in the past.
It's basic physics that that larger and stronger athletes create more severe collisions and more stress on soft tissue like tendons and ligaments and brain matter.
When pointed out, your response is, "Hey, there once was a guy who played DT at 306." It's clear, that if "Big Daddy" played today, he would be 350.
If you want to debate specific rule changes and their impact on the game, fine, but there is no debate that bigger bodies cause bigger collisions and more trauma and that, on the margins, some rules changes may be warranted to reduce significant injury. The NFL's challenge, selfishly, is balancing keeping it's star players on the field, versus watering the game down to something that is not appealing to fans. No one wants to watch a game with a bunch of hurt players on the sidelines and no one wants to watch flag football. Respectfully, I detest wokeness, and I don't think the NFL is immune from it, but I don't think this has anything to do with it.
It's all about the biggest bottom line and how the NFLPA and owners jointly agree on how to synthesize player safety and impacts to the revenue they all depend on.
They need eyeballs and they need healthy players.
Step back from the ledge. The owners are just trying to protect their multi billion dollar industry. As was already pointed out there are strong anti football forces in our society just waiting to pounce. You’re already seeing it at the high school level and below. I think it’s why the owners went along with the whole seemingly illogical kneeling fiasco. They realize that they may not even be able to get an appropriate supply of future employees to keep the gravy train rolling.
Not yelling at anyone. My first post was just quoting Lambert and his statement about putting skirts on players who didn't want to play football. (Lambert's thoughts, not mine). Other posters interjected the size factor apparently to help with their argument that had nothing to do with my first post. In response, I just pointed out the NFL's hard move to wokeness by softening the way the game is played (whether you and others consider it legitimate or not). For proof, look at the way the defense has been hamstrung since the 60's, regardless of if it's the correct move or not. I just agree with a previous poster who stated we probably won't recognize football in 50 years or so as the NFL keeps softening the game to avoid huge settlements and lawsuits. Really, who can argue with the fact that players are significantly larger. My last point, the way they are protecting QBs now, it's as if they are wearing skirts without wearing skirts.Not sure who you are yelling at.
It's 100% true that athletes today are larger and stronger than in the past.
It's basic physics that that larger and stronger athletes create more severe collisions and more stress on soft tissue like tendons and ligaments and brain matter.
When pointed out, your response is, "Hey, there once was a guy who played DT at 306." It's clear, that if "Big Daddy" played today, he would be 350.
If you want to debate specific rule changes and their impact on the game, fine, but there is no debate that bigger bodies cause bigger collisions and more trauma and that, on the margins, some rules changes may be warranted to reduce significant injury. The NFL's challenge, selfishly, is balancing keeping it's star players on the field, versus watering the game down to something that is not appealing to fans. No one wants to watch a game with a bunch of hurt players on the sidelines and no one wants to watch flag football. Respectfully, I detest wokeness, and I don't think the NFL is immune from it, but I don't think this has anything to do with it.
It's all about the biggest bottom line and how the NFLPA and owners jointly agree on how to synthesize player safety and impacts to the revenue they all depend on.
They need eyeballs and they need healthy players.
Latest posts
-
Football Adisa Isaac finds perfect landing spot in Baltimore- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley