(03-28-2018, 10:47 AM)Wyche Wrote: This.

We weren't taught rugby style tackling.....but we were taught heads up tackling in pee wee.  Our coach taught us to keep the head up, follow the numbers on the jersey (torso can't juke you), break down, come across the chest, try to put the facemask on the ball, and hit, wrap, lift the ball carrier, and drive him into the turf. (obviously, you can't ALWAYS execute proper form)

Admittedly, I've been away from the game both playing and a tad of little league coaching for years now, but as I watch....I can't figure out why we got away from tackling like that.  How many times do we see guys going for the kill shot.....lowering the head, and throwing forearms to the ball carrier instead of wrapping him up, only to see the offensive player bounce off and break free?

If done properly, I could actually see it improving the tackling.

Spot on Wyche! I disagree with the premise that, this is going to lead to more missed tackles. On the contrary it will result in better tackling as I alluded to yesterday. I'd rather see a great tackle, than some dipsh*t missing tackles trying to lay someone out. 

(03-28-2018, 11:21 AM)grampahol Wrote: Maybe they should just eliminate helmets and pads entirely. I hate to say it, but I enjoy watching Rugby more than football. I remember one season the Bengals weren't going anywhere and there was a local channel carrying the rugby championships..  That was great..no commercials every 15 seconds, non-stop rugby ...I was rooting for S Africa , but NZ mopped the floor with them . The problem with rugby is there's not really enough time for bathroom breaks.. lol   

The NZ Blacks are badass!!

My point exactly. Even with the good form tackles techniques brought up in this thread.

“Lowering the head to initiate contact with the helmet” would seem to happen on virtually every play"


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/28/no-one-knows-how-strictly-the-nfl-will-enforce-the-new-helmet-rule/

(03-28-2018, 12:28 PM)jj22 Wrote: My point exactly. Even with the good for tackles techniques brought up in this thread.

“Lowering the head to initiate contact with the helmet” would seem to happen on virtually every play"


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/28/no-one-knows-how-strictly-the-nfl-will-enforce-the-new-helmet-rule/

.....and it's a good point.  If the dumbasses had just called spearing correctly, AND EVENLY, over the last several years, it probably wouldn't be an issue today.

I'm thinking we'll see a lot of calls in the preseason, but not as much during the season.

(03-28-2018, 11:11 AM)Go Cards Wrote: see what you hit is what coaches were preaching in my day as well. 

But sadly the roar of the crowd and the big paydays change some players techniques when they get older it appears. 

Yep.....I don't know when or why it happens, but it seems to be a problem where it shouldn't be.....the professional level.  Of course, maybe it has to do with some teams seemingly coaching it, and others retaliating after the officials refuse to enforce the rules already in place regarding the use of the helmet.

(03-28-2018, 11:41 AM)sandwedge Wrote: Spot on Wyche! I disagree with the premise that, this is going to lead to more missed tackles. On the contrary it will result in better tackling as I alluded to yesterday. I'd rather see a great tackle, than some dipsh*t missing tackles trying to lay someone out. 

It may be ugly for a bit, but I think it will lead to more solid tackling as well.  It seems some guys are looking more to lay the wood than they are going for the ball or making a sure stop.  The problem is, as jj noted, how in the hell are they going to objectively enforce the rule?  We have finally fixed the catch rule, now opened up to more gray areas.  In my estimation, intentional spearing should have been automatic ejection and a 1 game vacation to begin with.  Then, the intentional shit goes by the wayside, and probably even reduces the instances of incidental helmet leading.

(03-28-2018, 12:50 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'm thinking we'll see a lot of calls in the preseason, but not as much during the season.

Prolly right.....

More like it's over for the cheap-shot tactics of piss-and-black football.

(03-28-2018, 01:43 AM)thegimp Wrote: We have been teaching rugby style tackling at the middle school and high school level for a few years now.  It takes the head completely out of tackling.  Pete Carroll popularized it and there have been a few studies that have shown positive effects on a players health.  It will take a while to gain traction at the collegiate and pro level, mainly because it takes away the highlight real hit.

For those that want to know more about the Hawk tackling that Pete Carroll popularized - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HihjPApzCg

(03-28-2018, 09:10 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I think there's very little doubt football is a dying sport. How long that death will take is the only question ?

My H.S. football team dresses half of the players it did in my day. The Band is a shadow of it's self back in the day ! Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 of the students in the top three grades were on the field either on the team, cheerleaders, band, flag corps, majorettes. Today you could take the band home in a minivan.

The middle class moms of America are less and less behind the game every year. Pee wee football numbers have been in decline for years and I've little doubt those numbers will continue to decline at even greater rates with all the concussion stuff going on now.

It's dying at the beginning, at the bottom. The top has no support if the base crumbles and it is.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-football-concussions-youth-kass-met-0906-20170905-column.html

https://nypost.com/2017/09/03/why-america-is-falling-out-of-love-with-football/

I coach pee-wee (age 8-10) and I can say that our numbers around the league have actually went up the past few years. Pee-wee is far less aggressive (don't like calling football violent), so that's probably why. Once you start getting into middle-school ish ball, that may be a different story. Or as a whole, too. 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/03/28/nfl-owners-meeting-new-targeting-rule?utm_campaign=themmqb&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

“With [tackling], it’s not going to be the adjustment that you think. Everybody’s teaching in that regard already,” Falcons coach Dan Quinn said. “I think what you’ll see is a spike in fouls, but from a teaching standpoint, it’s in the exact format we’ve been working under. And it’s not just for tackling. The tackling’s actually the easier part, as long as you have space, it’s easier than adjusting as a blocker.

“But we’ve been teaching it this way, and the emphasis has to continue to be on teaching.”

And the league trusts that’ll come from the coaches, because it’ll have to.

In college, teams dress over 100 players for games. So while it’s always hard to manage losing a player in-game, coaches at that level do have numbers to throw at the problem

It’s different in the pros. NFL teams only dress 46 players for games and, as Broncos coach Vance Joseph says, “I may only bring three safeties to a game, so I have to keep those guys available.” That, of course, puts it on the coaches to do their best to make sure more aggressive players aren’t putting the team in a tough spot; and it creates a different dynamic for players who may have previously been OK with paying fines.

It’s not perfect, of course. One recently retired linebacker texted me his concerns on Wednesday morning—“All running backs in the NFL run shoulders over knees, which creates crown contact on all plays. And OL vs. DL is all crown contract, so I don’t think they can just regulate that.”




If officiated as wrote, they are going to need to up the game day roster drastically. The ejections could become a serious issue for teams. Thinking the only person safe on our team is Dre!

(03-28-2018, 12:51 PM)Wyche Wrote: Yep.....I don't know when or why it happens, but it seems to be a problem where it shouldn't be.....the professional level.  Of course, maybe it has to do with some teams seemingly coaching it, and others retaliating after the officials refuse to enforce the rules already in place regarding the use of the helmet.


It may be ugly for a bit, but I think it will lead to more solid tackling as well.  It seems some guys are looking more to lay the wood than they are going for the ball or making a sure stop.  The problem is, as jj noted, how in the hell are they going to objectively enforce the rule?  We have finally fixed the catch rule, now opened up to more gray areas.  In my estimation, intentional spearing should have been automatic ejection and a 1 game vacation to begin with.  Then, the intentional shit goes by the wayside, and probably even reduces the instances of incidental helmet leading.

I agree, 15 yd penalty and an automatic ejection. Sure there is going to be incidental and you can't make that go away. It doesn't even have to be tackling, let's not forget Smith's block on Burfict. He clearly lined up Burfict and went for his head.

(03-27-2018, 08:21 PM)jj22 Wrote: Before it was face up, see what you hit. That's illegal now too.

No.  That is not illegal.

"face up" is the opposite of "lowering your head".

(03-28-2018, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  That is not illegal.

"face up" is the opposite of "lowering your head".

It is illegal now. That's what all the debate is over. It's still leading with your helmet rather it's face up or face down. The rule isn't lowering your head. It's leading with your helmet.

Either way the growing conclusion is it's going to be too hard to officiate fairly, and discussions will continue over the next couple months.

(03-28-2018, 05:34 PM)jj22 Wrote: It is illegal now. That's what all the debate is over. It's still leading with your helmet rather it's face up or face down.

Every single link I have seen says specifically "lowering the head".  So running through a ball carrier face up would still be fine.

The article you linked claimed there would have been about 10 hits last year that would have resulted in a ejection under this new rule. So there is no way in hell they outlawed every tackle where the helmet was used in any way.

Didn't quite understand this rule,does it only apply to Defense?

(03-28-2018, 03:35 AM)Thundercloud Wrote: If this is done right, what it may do is SAVE football.

(03-28-2018, 12:28 PM)jj22 Wrote: My point exactly. Even with the good form tackles techniques brought up in this thread.

“Lowering the head to initiate contact with the helmet” would seem to happen on virtually every play"


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/28/no-one-knows-how-strictly-the-nfl-will-enforce-the-new-helmet-rule/

This is the only part that worries me. I like the spirit of the rule, but will it be enforced correctly? Will it be called randomly? Or against some teams/players but not others? At best, it will lessen head injuries, promote proper tackling, and maybe even lengthen Tez's career by discouraging him from leading with his head (a bad habit of his that led to concussions). 

At worst, it's another subjective call for refs to unevenly enforce however and whenever they see fit. What if we score an 80 yard TD against the Steelers and it gets called back because Mixon lowered his head on someone at the LOS? That part does worry me a bit. We'll see. I guess if the refs wanted to bring back that hypothetical 80 yard run, they could just call a phantom hold. It's not like they haven't done that to us before.

(03-28-2018, 06:14 PM)firstand10 Wrote: Didn't quite understand this rule,does it only apply to Defense?

No, it's for both sides of the ball. As for football as we know it being over, I'm more pissed that they are discussing doing away with kickoffs and starting the game with a punt.

(03-29-2018, 08:35 AM)Sled21 Wrote: No, it's for both sides of the ball. As for football as we know it being over, I'm more pissed that they are discussing doing away with kickoffs and starting the game with a punt.

Same here, they are ruining the game in the name of safety.

Ruin lots of things nowadays in the name of safety, but i don't mind this at all as long as there are less
concussions and the penalties don't skyrocket. Have to wait on the zebras long enough as it is.

USA Today wrote something about how they went back to a Pitt Cincy game and under the new rule their would’ve been 24 (twenty-four) 24 two-four!!! such penalties called in ONE half.