Tackling technique...

[Pete]

I don't have a problem with the crown of the helmet being banned. I have a problem with the league stepping in on questionable plays. Those plays where the head isn't even touched.

Suspend the thugs. At least use judgement throughout the league, however.

You didn't see the defensive hesitancy that BuddyLee alluded to this weekend? You thought the defensive play was as good as ever? We might just have to disagree on that.

About the issue of 'leading with the helmet', it depends on the situation. When a defender is just running at someone and making a tackle without really leaving the ground, that's one thing. However, when a defender is coming in full speed and launches himself to get to the offensive player - making himself get close to vertical in the air - I don't see how he can keep his head from coming down. The head can only go back so far relative to the spine angle, and in those situations it's natural to bring the head down so that it's in line with the spine - which means you're 'leading with the helmet'. People don't walk around with their nose pointing at the sky - it's an uncomfortable position, and in this case, it would be a dangerous position for the defender. Leading with the helmet is, to some extent, a function of jumping toward someone and creating a spine angle that is more vertical.

I'm gonna go run full speed and jump face first the couch trying to hold my head all the way back. Wish me luck. I suspect I'll be okay though, as I won't be able to get my body as vertical as NFL players can.

They do not teach tackling by launching yourself horizontally. You cannot see what you are tackling if your head is down. That is a day 1 fundamental.

This is all about purposely leading with the crown of the helmet and striking the opponent in the head, which creates risk of spinal injury to the tackler and concussion to the tacklee. That takes effort and calculation on part of the tackler. It was already against the rules but the fine was so slight that it did not deter anyone from doing it. All the NFL has done is stiffen the fine to make what is already illegal more detrimental.

People can joke about it girling up the game all they want. Even the most gung ho hard ass player is still a human. You can pump weights and strengthen the body but there is no exercise that can strengthen brain tissue. I am sure if Harrison severed his spinal cord on one of these premeditated knock out shots to the head and he was in a wheel chair drooling through a press conference he would sing a completely different story.

 

[thurley42]

By defintiion protecting a "defenseless" player is an offensive advantage....and it's now up to the interpretation of a human who and who isn't defenseless.....if a QB throws a bad play where someone is diving over the middle to convert a must have 3rd and long....blow the play dead....uncatchable ball.....if the WR and QB have 0 fear of a defender jarring a ball loose or applying a big hit where is the fairness?
Hell just loft it high and over the middle where you will either catch it or draw a 15 yarder for hitting a defenseless player..

 

[Tilted]

They do not teach tackling by launching yourself horizontally. You cannot see what you are tackling if your head is down. That is a day 1 fundamental.

This is all about purposely leading with the crown of the helmet and striking the opponent in the head, which creates risk of spinal injury to the tackler and concussion to the tacklee. That takes effort and calculation on part of the tackler. It was already against the rules but the fine was so slight that it did not deter anyone from doing it. All the NFL has done is stiffen the fine to make what is already illegal more detrimental.

People can joke about it girling up the game all they want. Even the most gung ho hard ass player is still a human. You can pump weights and strengthen the body but there is no exercise that can strengthen brain tissue. I am sure if Harrison severed his spinal cord on one of these premeditated knock out shots to the head and he was in a wheel chair drooling through a press conference he would sing a completely different story.

Thanks for being subtle about pointing out that I'm an idiot who meant to say horizontal rather than vertical.

Anyway, launching yourself at the offensive player may not be what is taught at lower levels of football - it shouldn't be. But, it is a reality when it comes to NFL play. The game moves so fast and sometimes that's what defenders have to do to make the play. If we just want to outlaw that, then fine - but it's the same result, it means that sometimes the defender can't make the play (whether it be making the tackle, causing a fumble, or breaking up a reception).

Again, anytime a defender intentionally lowers his helmet to try to injure someone, that's different. But, some of these calls don't involve such intent - it's just natural reaction and/or a fast paced game with lots of moving parts that sometimes ends up with awkward, and unfortunate, collisions between various body parts. When the league can look at a play after the fact and be fairly sure there was bad intent or even inappropriate technique, that's different.

It's just too easy for offenses these days to exploit the limitations placed on the defense - whether it be minor contact on a receiver passed 5 yards, the failure to pull up from a mad rush to get to the quarterback, or having the entire offensive unit (and line) dancing around before the snap of the ball, motioning and jestering to each other, and never having a false start called. If they want to continue clamping down on defenses, they should allow them to play with 12 men instead of 11. Then, there might be some balance.

 

[Pete]

Thanks for being subtle about pointing out that I'm an idiot who meant to say horizontal rather than vertical.

Anyway, launching yourself at the offensive player may not be what is taught at lower levels of football - it shouldn't be. But, it is a reality when it comes to NFL play. The game moves so fast and sometimes that's what defenders have to do to make the play. If we just want to outlaw that, then fine - but it's the same result, it means that sometimes the defender can't make the play (whether it be making the tackle, causing a fumble, or breaking up a reception).

Again, anytime a defender intentionally lowers his helmet to try to injure someone, that's different. But, some of these calls don't involve such intent - it's just natural reaction and/or a fast paced game with lots of moving parts that sometimes ends up with awkward, and unfortunate, collisions between various body parts. When the league can look at a play after the fact and be fairly sure there was bad intent or even inappropriate technique, that's different.

It's just too easy for offenses these days to exploit the limitations placed on the defense - whether it be minor contact on a receiver passed 5 yards, the failure to pull up from a mad rush to get to the quarterback, or having the entire offensive unit (and line) dancing around before the snap of the ball, motioning and jestering to each other, and never having a false start called. If they want to continue clamping down on defenses, they should allow them to play with 12 men instead of 11. Then, there might be some balance.

I knew what you meant The rule and the intent of the league as "I understand it" is to eliminate the premeditated knock out shots to the head. That is pretty much it. The game can live without it, and those who are spared debilitating injuries certainly can. I believe that the ref's and players have/are being briefed on what is cool and what is not. It will be a judgement call of course but when some DB takes 4 steps and lowers his crown and puts it on an earhole expect a flag and a big fine.

Look at the Romo hit. It was hard and legal. No helmet to helmet. Ask Romo if he thinks that linebacker "held up".
In the end, regardless of their ego's these are people we are talking about. Most of them VERY young.

 

[Beta84]

They do not teach tackling by launching yourself horizontally. You cannot see what you are tackling if your head is down. That is a day 1 fundamental.

This is all about purposely leading with the crown of the helmet and striking the opponent in the head, which creates risk of spinal injury to the tackler and concussion to the tacklee. That takes effort and calculation on part of the tackler. It was already against the rules but the fine was so slight that it did not deter anyone from doing it. All the NFL has done is stiffen the fine to make what is already illegal more detrimental.

People can joke about it girling up the game all they want. Even the most gung ho hard ass player is still a human. You can pump weights and strengthen the body but there is no exercise that can strengthen brain tissue. I am sure if Harrison severed his spinal cord on one of these premeditated knock out shots to the head and he was in a wheel chair drooling through a press conference he would sing a completely different story.

The problem is they call helmet to helmet penalties for tackles that shouldn't necessarily be called that way. For instance, when you're running headlong toward someone and they're running upfield, you're both probably heading toward each other with your bodies leaned a little forward and helmets sticking out just a bit. That creates a helmet to helmet hit even if it's just a typical tackle. Sometimes it's just a (bad) reaction -- what better way to brace yourself for a hit than with your helmet?

But there are also players like Harrison who turn their heads down and use it to smash people just because they can. I have a problem with those tackles. The NFL needs to do a better job of realizing when there is an intentional helmet to helmet or when it's just an unfortunate angle.

 

[Pete]

The problem is they call helmet to helmet penalties for tackles that shouldn't necessarily be called that way. For instance, when you're running headlong toward someone and they're running upfield, you're both probably heading toward each other with your bodies leaned a little forward and helmets sticking out just a bit. That creates a helmet to helmet hit even if it's just a typical tackle. Sometimes it's just a (bad) reaction -- what better way to brace yourself for a hit than with your helmet?

But there are also players like Harrison who turn their heads down and use it to smash people just because they can. I have a problem with those tackles. The NFL needs to do a better job of realizing when there is an intentional helmet to helmet or when it's just an unfortunate angle.

We need to see how it is enforced. Will there be someone who feels wronged, certainly. Will there be someone who gets away with it, certainly. For the most part I think this will help curb the intentional helmet to helmet knock out shot.

 

[Beta84]

We need to see how it is enforced. Will there be someone who feels wronged, certainly. Will there be someone who gets away with it, certainly. For the most part I think this will help curb the intentional helmet to helmet knock out shot.

Agreed. Hopefully the league suspends the obvious ones and either lets the others goes or sticks with the fines.

 

[Zguy28]

The problem is they call helmet to helmet penalties for tackles that shouldn't necessarily be called that way. For instance, when you're running headlong toward someone and they're running upfield, you're both probably heading toward each other with your bodies leaned a little forward and helmets sticking out just a bit. That creates a helmet to helmet hit even if it's just a typical tackle. Sometimes it's just a (bad) reaction -- what better way to brace yourself for a hit than with your helmet?

With your shoulder pad. That's a better way, and it's proper tackling. If you are intentionally closing on a ball carrier with intent to stop him, you should strike with the shoulder pad with your helmet across the front of the torso. Not only does the shoulder pad deliver the blow better and more safely, but the helmet than can serve as an impediment to the runner but still fulfill it role as a protector instead of a weapon (this is the role of the shoulder pad).

One thing that good coaches harp on is "low man wins" for both blocking and tackling. You hit a man high and he will likely throw you off. Poor technique leads to broken tackles, so rather than improving technique, guys lead with the helmet instead.

 

[Larry Gude]

You didn't see the defensive hesitancy that BuddyLee alluded to this weekend? You thought the defensive play was as good as ever? We might just have to disagree on that. .

I saw guy pull up on incomplete passes instead of taking a free run. I saw guys go balls to the wall and textbook tackle people who went down Like a sack 'o taters. I saw GREAT technique, which ALL these guys know, putting the lie to this bang/bang can't be helped non sense.

The ONLY reason people have been using their helmets to try and wipe people out is because it WAS allowed and it DOES work in terms of getting people off the field thus, it was expected.

If a big hit to you is someone geting knocked silly due to helmet crown shots then there is nothing to disagree on. That is good defense to you. To me, it is wreckless and the height of poor play.

We just disagree on what football is.

 

[Larry Gude]

You didn't see the defensive hesitancy that BuddyLee alluded to this weekend? You thought the defensive play was as good as ever? We might just have to disagree on that.

About the issue of 'leading with the helmet', it depends on the situation. When a defender is just running at someone and making a tackle without really leaving the ground, that's one thing. However, when a defender is coming in full speed and launches himself to get to the offensive player - making himself get close to horizontal in the air - I don't see how he can keep his head from coming down. The head can only go back so far relative to the spine angle, and in those situations it's natural to bring the head down so that it's in line with the spine - which means you're 'leading with the helmet'. People don't walk around with their nose pointing at the sky - it's an uncomfortable position, and in this case, it would be a dangerous position for the defender. Leading with the helmet is, to some extent, a function of jumping toward someone and creating a spine angle that is more horizontal.

I'm gonna go run full speed and jump face first the couch trying to hold my head all the way back. Wish me luck. I suspect I'll be okay though, as I won't be able to get my body as horizontal as NFL players can.


EDIT: Changed all the verticals to horizontals.

If you think all the shots of two weeks ago that brought this all to a boil were good football, nothing more to discuss. If you enjoy the absolutely unnecessary and gratuitous nature of intentional crown shots, that's your business.

There WILL be enough crown shots as is without having those flat out cheap shots of two weeks ago.

 

[Larry Gude]

Anyway, launching yourself at the offensive player may not be what is taught at lower levels of football - it shouldn't be. But, it is a reality when it comes to NFL play. The game moves so fast and sometimes that's what defenders have to do to make the play. If we just want to outlaw that, then fine - but it's the same result, it means that sometimes the defender can't make the play (whether it be making the tackle, causing a fumble, or breaking up a reception).

That is not and has not been what I am talking about.

 

[Larry Gude]

Again, anytime a defender intentionally lowers his helmet to try to injure someone, that's different. But, some of these calls don't involve such intent - it's just natural reaction and/or a fast paced game with lots of moving parts that sometimes ends up with awkward,

That is and was what I am talking about.

Whether it is natural or not, players are TAUGHT proper technique and we witnessed it this weekend that they ALL know how to play properly.

All the shots in question were illegal AND intentional. As has been said time and again, what mattered is the league allowed people to basically get away with it and now, they've put a stop to it.

 

[BuddyLee]

Harrison didn't really miss any tackles. All he needs to do is not aim with his helmet, because he's the biggest offender.

The other two plays that you're giving examples of aren't related to the helmet-to-helmet hitting, but the other part of the issue that was overshadowed. The NFL put out a warning regarding hits on defenseless players and also added a list of repeat offenders regarding unneccessary roughness. There were numerous players who pulled up to prevent getting called on those hits -- not because of the potential helmet-to-helmet hits.

Yeah, that's the entire point. The league is suspending even for hits that aren't helmet-to-helmet. Thus, defenders are letting up and ruining the product and allowing offenses to march.

 

[kom526]

Yeah, that's the entire point. The league is suspending even for hits that aren't helmet-to-helmet. Thus, defenders are letting up and ruining the product and allowing offenses to march.

That was the excuse that the Dallas secondary used after last night's game.

 

[BuddyLee]

That was the excuse that the Dallas secondary used after last night's game.

 

[kom526]

That is paraphrased from today's "John Thompson Show" on 980.

 

[Pete]

Yeah, that's the entire point. The league is suspending even for hits that aren't helmet-to-helmet. Thus, defenders are letting up and ruining the product and allowing offenses to march.

Who has been suspended?

 

[Zguy28]

Who has been suspended?

Nobody.

 

[BuddyLee]

This is ALL I am talking about and you can see it clearly when a player hits properly and when he chooses, CHOOSES to lead with his crown.

Our issue isn't with helmet-to-helmet or leading with your crown type hits. Everyone basically agrees that has been banned previously and is a big no-no.

It's the ambiguous undefined "devastating" hits, which can lead to suspensions that has many in the NFL in an uproar.

 

[BuddyLee]

All he needs to do is not aim with his helmet, because he's the biggest offender.

He didn't do that last week.

Show me where he leads with his helmet.