Tackling for Fun, Profit and Brain Cells

[InstaFace]

A discussion of the hit on Matt Moore yesterday, as compared with Michael Floyd's hit on Lippett, turned into an interesting back-and-forth on the necessity of the way tackles are done in today's NFL. I'll pick it up from here:

This argument always bugs me.

NFL tackles are different than Rugby tackles because keeping a player from moving forward is almost (if not as) important as getting him to the ground. A guy dragging you 4 yards in rugby before going down isn't a big deal, in football it gives the other team another 4 downs. NFL players tackle the way they do because it's the optimal balance between stopping a player from gaining more yardage, and ending the play by downing him. Forcing rugby style tackling would fundamentally alter the way the game is played, and probably require increasing the yardage requirement from 10 to 15-20 yards.

If that's the only way to make the sport safer, that's fine, but the argument that they should just "tackle better" is ridiculous. Wrap-up style tackling is only the optimal strategy when the player has already past the first down marker.

Pete Carroll disagrees. In fact, he has been a strong advocate for the following system across both college and the NFL:


For every hit where a defender running full speed hits a ball carrier square-on, it would be just as effective a tackle if he planted his shoulder on the carrier's hip, wrapped his arms around the guy's legs, and drove through him from there. It gets the same amount of momentum transfer to try and stop forward progress, with noggins being involved. I rather doubt any additional people are getting "Dragged 4 yards" before completing a tackle.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Jesus Christ. Did we really need another thread so that you could set up another strawman?

I clarified this in the other thread. I will clarify it again.

Driving through a guys hips is exactly what I'm fucking talking about. You can't drive through a guys hips if you're standing still and he's moving forward - you have to be moving forward. Which means there will be a collision.

Carrol is not disagreeing with me here.

Wrapping your arms around a guy doesn't make it a "rugby style tackle"

 

[Drocca]

He's had to change his screen name twice to try and hide from his terrible posts; of course he has to set up another thread for his dog and pony show.

 

[DJnVa]

WHO IS IT????????????

 

[InstaFace]

Jesus Christ. Did we really need another thread so that you could set up another strawman?

I clarified this in the other thread. I will clarify it again.

Driving through a guys hips is exactly what I'm fucking talking about. You can't drive through a guys hips if you're standing still and he's moving forward - you have to be moving forward. Which means there will be a collision.

Carrol is not disagreeing with me here.

Wrapping your arms around a guy doesn't make it a "rugby style tackle"

Look, if we agree then we agree, but what spurred discussion in the gamethread was the necessity, or lack thereof, of "big hits" in the NFL, especially those that deliver a huge impulse to the ball carrier's upper body. Pull up any compilation of big hits in the NFL and the overwhelming majority will be players going high (and in years past, often hitting the head). But there is a huge, at this point well-understood difference between a collision between the tackler's shoulder and runner's hip, and between the tackler's head and, well, anything.

When I advocate "rugby-style tackling", I'm talking about a style whose goal isn't to knock someone over by hitting them above their center of gravity, but rather to take their balance from them by either rotating their body with an arm wrap-up or preventing them from taking their next step with their legs. You see this in the NFL some percentage of the time, often with open-field tackles of a WR by a DB that squares them up and is trying to prevent the WR dodging around them. You see it a lot less with RB runs, with kickoff returns, with big TEs like Gronk or Graham, and certainly with QB sacks. You also see a range of other techniques (e.g. "grab near the shoulders and spin them around", or shoves near the sidelines) because there are lots of situations and tackling is pretty instinctual.

I share the desire by some (Mauf, Marciano, etc) to greatly reduce the amount of dramatic, traumatic hits in the game, and my sense is that they almost all share characteristics of "leading with the head" and "aiming above center of mass". If you've got a different solution, or I'm not understanding the situation, by all means clarify.

 

[pappymojo]

Why do tackling rules even matter? Didn't Floyd block Lippett?

 

[mauf]

Why do tackling rules even matter? Didn't Floyd block Lippett?

Plays like the Floyd block can (and should) be eliminated from the pro game easily enough. Eliminating hits like the Dupree hit on Moore yesterday is harder. In the game thread, I suggested letting defenders hit QBs low when they're outside the pocket. That would've protected Moore, (or rather, would've protected his brain at the expense of his legs, which is a trade I'm willing to make), but Dupree would still be incented to put himself at risk by leading with his head. Not allowing ball carriers to stiff-arm defenders in the back might be a partial solution.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Carroll's approach to tackling is being used by at least 5 high schools and multiple leagues in my area. I was involved in a few clinics on his tackling techniques over the last year. The "Hawk roll" technique seems very simple at first glance, but it Is really clever. If you have a kid playing football you should watch that video and the other ones out there on Carroll's tackling approach.

 

[InstaFace]

Plays like the Floyd block can (and should) be eliminated from the pro game easily enough. Eliminating hits like the Dupree hit on Moore yesterday is harder. In the game thread, I suggested letting defenders hit QBs low when they're outside the pocket. That would've protected Moore, (or rather, would've protected his brain at the expense of his legs, which is a trade I'm willing to make), but Dupree would still be incented to put himself at risk by leading with his head. Not allowing ball carriers to stiff-arm defenders in the back might be a partial solution.

So, the Floyd block was a point of contention yesterday. Everyone agrees (or ought to) that it was a shoulder-to-shoulder hit that was legal by current rules. But was it in fact particularly risky to Lippett's health? You and Vinho Tinto - and probably others - seemed to think that it was the sort of hit that should be taken out of the game. Is that just because of the speed, because Lippett got flipped onto his side, or some other concern? As stoked as I was about that block, I'm open to the argument that it's as dangerous as a head shot... I just found the vehemence of its criticism surprising.

 

[pappymojo]

How do you take that Floyd block out of the game? Is he not allowed to block the defensive player because he is coming from the other side of the field? Does he have to throw a cross block?

 

[Marciano490]

So, the Floyd block was a point of contention yesterday. Everyone agrees (or ought to) that it was a shoulder-to-shoulder hit that was legal by current rules. But was it in fact particularly risky to Lippett's health? You and Vinho Tinto - and probably others - seemed to think that it was the sort of hit that should be taken out of the game. Is that just because of the speed, because Lippett got flipped onto his side, or some other concern? As stoked as I was about that block, I'm open to the argument that it's as dangerous as a head shot... I just found the vehemence of its criticism surprising.

I think you're misrepresenting their arguments. They weren't saying it should be taken out, they're saying it's potentially as harmful and pointing out the difficulty in legislating NFL hits and tackles without totally changing the face and nature of the game.

 

[HowBoutDemSox]

In the game thread, I suggested letting defenders hit QBs low when they're outside the pocket.

This is already part of the rule book:

When the passer goes outside the pocket area and either continues moving with the ball (without attempting to advance the ball as a runner) or throws while on the run, he loses the protection of the one-step rule provided for in (a) above, and the protection against a low hit provided for in (e) above, but he remains covered by all the other special protections afforded to a passer in the pocket (b, c, d, and f), as well as the regular unnecessary roughness rules applicable to all player positions. If the passer stops behind the line and clearly establishes a passing posture, he will then be covered by all of the special protections for passers.

 

[pappymojo]

It seems to me that the discussion is not necessarily about tackling but more about ways to reduce collisions when players are moving in opposite directions at high speeds. This could be a tackle, a block (including special teams play), or a disruptive hit of a receiver (preventing the receiver from making the catch - thus not a tackle).

For me, while these collisions can often bring out the violent blood-lust "he got lit up!" reaction from fans and the media, focusing exclusively on preventing these types of hits may be overlooking a larger problem as it does nothing to address the potential for brain injuries for offensive and defensive linemen, running backs and linebackers resulting from clean and legal but extremely violent collisions where an offensive player blocks a defensive player. The types of collisions being discussed here (the Floyd block and the Moore tackle) get everyone's attention but I'm not sure that they are the cause of the most prevalent brain injuries to NFL players. What is the rate of brain injuries for receivers and defensive backs versus offensive and defensive linemen and/or running backs and linebackers?

Unfortunately, I don't think we can say 'this is how to tackle a ball carrier' and then call it done. Many many many collisions happen in a typical NFL game that have nothing to do with tackling technique.

 

[mauf]

This is already part of the rule book:

My reading of the rule is that once the QB running outside the pocket goes to throw the ball, the protection against low hits is restored. Maybe it's reasonable to expect pass rushers to hit a more-or-less stationary QB in the pocket between the waist and the shoulders, but I don't see why a QB on the run should be afforded more protection than a defenseless receiver.

 

[The Needler]

double post

Weird, I guess it wasn't a double post.

My reading of the rule is that once the QB running outside the pocket goes to throw the ball, the protection against low hits is restored.

Then your reading is totally bizarre. Moore was throwing on the run out of the pocket. The rule very explicitly says the low hit protection is not available in that situation.

 

[KiltedFool]

Mauf the excerpt posted above by HBDS specifically says throwing on the run does not get the one-step protection rule.

 

[Tony C]

after seeing a # of head to head hits go unpenalized in tonight's Bama-Clemson game -- and brushed off by announcers -- the defense of Dupree's hit on Moore seem to be symptomatic of how engrained the idea is that football can't (or even shouldn't, in the argument someone whose handle escapes me) be changed in regard to these hits.

In re the initial debate, it was that Dupree couldn't help himself from hitting Moore in the head. I think that's just wrong -- just slow down and wrap up, that wouldn't harm the essence of the game in the least. The issue is that even with more flags thrown, the incentives are still there in football for dangerous head-to-head hits to be made. Again, witness those Bama hits tonight. Witness Bounty-gate. It's no more true that vigorously outlawing those sorts of hits damages the essence of the game than Mauf's reading of the rule on low hits -- just not the case.

That debate then morphed into "well, you didn't mind Floyd's hit." Certainly there's a fundamental hypocrisy that football is a very violent game and that's part of why we love it -- hence the celebration of Floyd's block. But one can (guiltily) love football's violence and still think it should be limited. I think what the hypocrisy argument missed is both that Floyd's didn't target (or hit) the head and that his hit was legal.

It may be, all the same, that it was a dangerous hit so should be decried even if Floyd didn't hit Lippett's head and even if his hit was legal. If so, fair enough. But then the target of criticism should be the rule-makers, not Floyd. If that sort of hit presents dangers in anywhere near the same range as headhunting does, then I'd have no problem making it illegal. (Not sure they do, but beyond my non-medical expertise to rule it out.)

Equating the two hits was a bit of a false equivalency, but to the degree there is a real analogy then both should be criticized rather than using Floyd's hit to excuse Dupree's.