KDawg Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 There's a lot of confusion on the topic of the "correct" way to tackle in the football world. I think everyone, coaches, players, fans alike can all agree that the rule surrounding the helmet is going to be a hot button topic that is going to have more bad calls than good ones and open up Pandora's Box as it pertains to changing the flow of a game. I'm not even sure that can be debated. The core of the rule, though. The meat and potatoes is an excellent way to maintain the game of football for years to come. Young kids that have quality coaches are being taught this "new" way of tackling. This way of tackling has been around for a long time... and you can see it in use when watching any kind of rugby. The old way of tackling was actually a touch more complicated to get kids to comprehend. Head across the bow, bite the ball, drive feet through the ball carrier if you're not on the ball side. But if you are on the ball side there was always a dilemma. Head across means I can't bite the ball. Bite the ball means I can't get my head across. And this is one reason I saw a ton of missed tackles as a HS defensive coordinator and a D3 college football assistant coach. Do you go for the forced fumble or secure the tackle? The other problem with head across is that it led to a lot of "launching". If the ball carrier was good, they could get out of it simply by running towards your airborne feet. To be clear, leaving your feet was never one of the coaching cues. But holy **** did it happen often enough. And when your techniques are being taught and those kind of things happen, despite your best efforts, there's probably something wrong with the way you're coaching it. The "new" way of tackling is MUCH simpler. Step with the nearest foot to the ball carrier and strike with the near shoulder. Sometimes you're not on the ball side. Sometimes you are. "Bite the ball to force a fumble" as a cue is dead. But the action isn't necessarily dead. It's just much more clear cut. If I'm not on the ball side, I need to be a team player. I'm not going for the ball necessarily. I'm trying to stop the ball carrier. My goal is to shut down forward momentum and drive him BACK. With the old way, even if you got your head across, you'd sometimes wind up tripping the ball carrier up and having him fall forward for extra yardage. With this new way, when executed properly/with good position, you're "gator rolling" the ball carrier backwards. But that means your head isn't in position to knock the ball out. Remember when your coaches used to say, "the first man makes contact, the second goes for the ball"? Well, we were hypocrites. We taught you to bite the damn ball, but then said that wasn't your job necessarily and the next guy was supposed to do it. How does he punch the ball out when your helmet is on it? As you get older and more experience, players kind of figured out how to do it a touch better on their own. But that didn't make it right. With the new way, if you're on the ball carrier side you ARE biting the ball and trying to force a fumble. If you're not on the ball carrier side, you're helping your team by stopping momentum and making a tackle. The old way left your head and neck exposed to a lot of trauma. Head across left you vulnerable to a lot of forces acting in all sorts of different directions. By hitting with the near shoulder, your head isn't even in the equation. The bite the ball cue is dead, even on ball side tackles, because the near foot and near shoulder rule basically put your head there. Again, this is the way tackling should have been done a long time ago. The problem we have now isn't the fact that tackling is changing... It's how the rule is going to be enforced and how games are going to be effected by judgement calls on a routine basis. The spirit of the rule is great. The execution of it is going to be dicey... at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 If you want examples of proper tackling....watch a rugby game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bifflog Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 Yeah, going to level with you that no one is going to buy that this is a positive for anything other than human safety (which obviously is paramount). Trying to spin this as a tactical improvement that always would have been the best course of action rule or no rule isn't really going to work because it doesn't make sense. If this were an e-sport, it wouldn't be a metagame change that anyone would make. Doesn't mean that it isn't still the best decision for everyone involved, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 Thanks @KDawg for posting. We need more posts like this one hat talks football instead of players. And I always enjoy your posts like this one, learning something every time. It's an interesting look at the new rule. Despite some naysayers, you make a very good point. It is definitely safer but can also lead to more fundamentally sound tackling. Should be less missed tackles - while maybe a few less fumbles. Thanks again! More please!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 Defense is all but outlawed out of the league. Games are basically gonna come down to which offense doesn't make mistakes and if the defense can hold teams to FGs and maybe make one big stop late in the 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted August 4, 2018 Author Share Posted August 4, 2018 3 hours ago, Bifflog said: Yeah, going to level with you that no one is going to buy that this is a positive for anything other than human safety (which obviously is paramount). Trying to spin this as a tactical improvement that always would have been the best course of action rule or no rule isn't really going to work because it doesn't make sense. If this were an e-sport, it wouldn't be a metagame change that anyone would make. Doesn't mean that it isn't still the best decision for everyone involved, of course. People are entitled to their opinions on the topic. Fact: There are going to be less bone crushing hits that cause spectacular fumbles that aren't penalties. Opinion: This will enforce better fundamentals and less missed tackles over time. Opinion: The game is going to be a bit less exciting. Opinion: This is going to help human safety. Opinion: You'll see a similar amount of fumbles in the NFL even with the new rule. Opinion: Over time, this tackling style will be common place across all levels of football, beginning with youth. And over time, you'll see how much better the pros are at tackling. Opinion: Despite my enthusiasm for teaching this better tackling style and how I believe it IMPROVES the game, the NFL and their rules/referees are going to make a vast majority of people, including "Hawk Tackling" supporters, hate the new style of the game with inconsistency in rulings. Opinion: The tackling style and emphasis on fundamentals is extremely important to the game, but as usual the NFL is blind in how to implement these changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 5 hours ago, Warhead36 said: Defense is all but outlawed out of the league. Games are basically gonna come down to which offense doesn't make mistakes and if the defense can hold teams to FGs and maybe make one big stop late in the 4th. Which makes sense why alot of teams played on the Safety from FSU and went to add Dline support. I think we will see more and more teams draft lineman as that part of the game hasn't changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSSkinz Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 Whats to keep a WR from dropping their head at the last mili-second and getting the call every time, its an unwinnable situation for a D back. I think if I was a WR coach I tell my guys to get that head down when bracing for impact, your gonna get calls by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 7 hours ago, KDawg said: People are entitled to their opinions on the topic. Fact: There are going to be less bone crushing hits that cause spectacular fumbles that aren't penalties I see why you would think this, but I'm sorry I disagree. I have seen too many rugby games with text book tackling that were absolutely bone crushing and caused knock-ons (fumbling forward) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted August 5, 2018 Author Share Posted August 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Xameil said: I see why you would think this, but I'm sorry I disagree. I have seen too many rugby games with text book tackling that were absolutely bone crushing and caused knock-ons (fumbling forward) I should have specified that I meant more in the short term. Until the rule catches up and enforcement is more defined, I think we're going to have a lot of hesitant players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 I agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dckey Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 I don't think players would ever be able to make tackles like rugby players, because of the equipment. The helmets are making the head bigger and you have less neck movement than without one. There is no way possible to lean with your shoulder and the helmet not make contact. Which if you are trying to break up a pass you would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 This way makes more sense. The short lived "Heads up" tackleing was the worst ever. It made zero sense, did nothing to reduce injuries, and completely ignored that most tackling was not straight on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mexaskin Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 This is a step in saving football's future. There is an increasing number of parents who are keeping their kids from football because of the negative health concerns. I'm included in that category. If my son really wants to I will let him but as long as he is a year round soccer player I'm not even bringing it up. The game has to change . We might not like it in the short run but in the long run I think this is what they need to do. Change has to start somewhere . The NFL can always tweek what isn't working and what is down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatchetwound Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 On 8/4/2018 at 7:15 AM, Xameil said: If you want examples of proper tackling....watch a rugby game. The eagles took some rugby player in the 7th round...... and are converting him to an OT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 On 8/4/2018 at 7:07 PM, Xameil said: I see why you would think this, but I'm sorry I disagree. I have seen too many rugby games with text book tackling that were absolutely bone crushing and caused knock-ons (fumbling forward) Say "rugby" again. Say it again!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbit Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaxJoe Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 On 8/4/2018 at 9:15 AM, Xameil said: If you want examples of proper tackling....watch a rugby game. True. But in rugby, typically they’re not concerned about giving up a ‘first down’ and this is a big difference since giving up a yard or two isnt as important as bringing the runner down. Rugby gets just as bad as football with regards to leading with your head or ‘launching’ when the ball carrier is around the try-line. It’s very violent down there and likely the ball carrier is a big 260lb forward colliding with several defenders. Ive seen plenty of heads split open. Yuck. However, in general, rugby has 4x less injuries than football moreso because of the law on where not to tackle. In rugby, the defender is not allowed to tackle above the shoulders (fewer neck & head injuries) or below the knees (fewer ankle injuries). Also, it is forbidden to leave one’s feet to make a tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 15 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said: Say "rugby" again. Say it again!!!! Just for you.... RUGBY... Want me to sing a RUGBY song for you. With the amount you ****...you can be the RUGBY Queen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 26 minutes ago, JaxJoe said: True. But in rugby, typically they’re not concerned about giving up a ‘first down’ and this is a big difference since giving up a yard or two isnt as important as bringing the runner down. Rugby gets just as bad as football with regards to leading with your head or ‘launching’ when the ball carrier is around the try-line. It’s very violent down there and likely the ball carrier is a big 260lb forward colliding with several defenders. Ive seen plenty of heads split open. Yuck. However, in general, rugby has 4x less injuries than football moreso because of the law on where not to tackle. In rugby, the defender is not allowed to tackle above the shoulders (fewer neck & head injuries) or below the knees (fewer ankle injuries). Also, it is forbidden to leave one’s feet to make a tackle. Lol...seee for the most part, you proved my point. Plus a split head isn't even close to a concussion. That being said, I think broken backs are more common thanks to the scrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 Great thread and thank you to the well-respected "ES Coach" I think anything that attempts to preserve the long-term viability of the sport is a positive. It'll be tricky and dicey. It may very well decide a game or two (much like the catch rule came into play during the AFC Championship Game last year). But 20 years from now if there hasn't been a mass exodus of great athletes from football, I'll be happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brokenstriker Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 it's as simple as requiring that the tackler use their arms to wrap up the ball carrier and not make contact with the ball carriers head ... it's close to impossible to wrap someone up and spear them at the same time ... or lead with crown your head in general. The definition of the word is grasp or hold ... not collide or hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Brokenstriker said: it's as simple as requiring that the tackler use their arms to wrap up the ball carrier and not make contact with the ball carriers head ... it's close to impossible to wrap someone up and spear them at the same time ... or lead with crown your head in general. The definition of the word is grasp or hold ... not collide or hit. I wonder if one outside-the-box way to legislate this would be to require a "tackle" to include holding a player down...basically rolling back the "down by contact" idea. I remember seeing clips of old games where guys get knocked down and get back up to run. This would encourage tackling rather than hitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 48 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said: I wonder if one outside-the-box way to legislate this would be to require a "tackle" to include holding a player down...basically rolling back the "down by contact" idea. I remember seeing clips of old games where guys get knocked down and get back up to run. This would encourage tackling rather than hitting. It would also make pretty much any deep completion a TD. If a safety takes Gronkowski down by hitting him low, Gronk could get up and keep running. Here's the problem. You cannot make tackling Gronkowski safe either for the defender or for Gronkowski. He's not really a human being. It's like trying to tackle an elk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofAlvinWalton Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 57 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said: It would also make pretty much any deep completion a TD. If a safety takes Gronkowski down by hitting him low, Gronk could get up and keep running. Here's the problem. You cannot make tackling Gronkowski safe either for the defender or for Gronkowski. He's not really a human being. It's like trying to tackle an elk. That’s not a new issue though. Watch any video of Jim Brown running over/through dudes that sold refrigerators and/or insurance during the offseason. Gronk shouldn’t be punished for being a beast...coaches/players need to figure it out or lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.