The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread

davyjose

Rochey18 wrote: »

There was a slow motion replay on youtube seems to be gone, and it clearly showed he puts the head down and hits the side of the receivers head.

Great hit, but if you hit someone in the head, you have to be fined. Its a pity but thats the game.

Its a pity that there is no intelligence being used. Tarring all HtoH hits as the same is the problem. This was simply a great tackle with clearly no intention to harm.
We saw a career end in miami this week from a tackle purposely low.
I don't know who the receiver for SD was but the tackler, if given a redo, would probably just take the knees out. These are good, solid torso to torso tackles. Meaning incidental helmet contact is inevitable. The game is being ruined.

Realt Dearg Sec

davyjose wrote: »

Its a pity that there is no intelligence being used. Tarring all HtoH hits as the same is the problem. This was simply a great tackle with clearly no intention to harm.
We saw a career end in miami this week from a tackle purposely low.
I don't know who the receiver for SD was but the tackler, if given a redo, would probably just take the knees out. These are good, solid torso to torso tackles. Meaning incidental helmet contact is inevitable. The game is being ruined.

The receiver was Mike Willie, who went on, supposedly (I didn't see the full thing) to have a good game after.

davyjose

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

The receiver was Mike Willie, who went on, supposedly (I didn't see the full thing) to have a good game after.

There you go. No malice, no injury and the guy gets fined. Madness.

DubTony

What about the ruling on the field? It shouldn't have been ruled an incompletion, the receiver had it tucked in before the hit. :rolleyes:

The big problem with these rules is reflected in D.J Swearinger's hit on Dustin Keller. While probably innocent enough (although Miami's Brian Hartline didn't think so), it's just too easy to pop a guys knee. 10 years ago Swearinger would have hit Keller the same way Bostic hit Mike Willie. But if he does it now he's looking at a fine. Expect to see lots more knees going in the coming seasons.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/20/hartline-calls-swearinger-hit-on-keller-crap/
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000231986/article/brian-hartline-swearinger-answer-on-keller-hit-crap

Arawn

Yeah I agree here, careers are going to be ended. Everyone can tell when a player gets an intention head to head hit or a powerful, that was one of the best tackles I've seen in a while

D3PO

matthew8 wrote: »

What's so hard about leading with the shoulder? There is absolutely no reason that hit would have been less great if he made contact with the shoulder.

Mate if you had ever played you would know the answer to this. If you tackle with your shoulder your going to look like a mug when the receiver bounces off your pads and makes a heap of yards downfield due to the missed tackle.

DubTony

D3PO wrote: »

Mate if you had ever played you would know the answer to this. If you tackle with your shoulder your going to look like a mug when the receiver bounces off your pads and makes a heap of yards downfield due to the missed tackle.

When I played, we were taught to hit and wrap (Kind of rugby style). It was supposed to prevent the guy bouncing away from the hit. It's hard to wrap a guy if you're hitting him with your helmet. So the shoulder was the obvious choice. Our coaches were pretty adamant about this and even warned of concussions and neck injuries. That was ... ahem ... 25 years ago.

Justin10

Watch it again, Willie is 6ft 2. He does not lower his head and he gets smacked in the jaw/side of the head.
Ive no problem with guys leading with their head, but he hit Willie in the helmet, and that is just not allowed and rightly so.

Realt Dearg Sec

DubTony wrote: »

What about the ruling on the field? It shouldn't have been ruled an incompletion, the receiver had it tucked in before the hit. :rolleyes:

Presumably if it was a regular season game Trestman would have thrown a flag as it looked like a forced fumble.

Red Crow

A lot of it could have been his reaction after the tackle where he is on top of the reviever goading him. Rightly or wrongly I'd say that had an input into the fine. Also the NFL are bricking it about player safety.

D3PO

DubTony wrote: »

When I played, we were taught to hit and wrap (Kind of rugby style). It was supposed to prevent the guy bouncing away from the hit. It's hard to wrap a guy if you're hitting him with your helmet. So the shoulder was the obvious choice. Our coaches were pretty adamant about this and even warned of concussions and neck injuries. That was ... ahem ... 25 years ago.

I wasn't suggesting hitting with the helmet all you need to do is what the heads up video to know that's not the way to go either, and there is a place for form tackles but theres also a place for tackling a guy low.

going at a guys shoulder is more likely to lead to a guy bouncing out of a tackle or an inadvertent horse collar so it wouldn't be the best way to try get a guy to the ground.

HigginsJ

The NFL need to get a grip of themselves. Nothing wrong with Bostic's tacke. At this rate it'll touch football in a few years. It's also a massive fine for a rookie to pay

padraig_f

Just to clarify the rule he's fined under, it's the defenseless receiver one:

Bostic violated: RULE 12, SECTION 2, ARTICLE 7 (b) (2)

“It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: [. . .]
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
[. . .]
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.”

Important note here is that he doesn't need to make contact with the other player's helmet for it to be illegal.

I think the best replay to watch is the first one (0:25).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdV7TGyJ7jo

It looks to me like as he approaches the player, he turns his body to make the tackle with his shoulder. The NFL have obvioiusly judged here that he's led with the helmet.

You can probably argue it either way, but with the speed of the game and a debatable one like this, $21,000 fine for a first-offence seems crazy (extra-harsh for a rookie too). I think you could give warnings first, and if guys are repeatedly being found in violation of the rule, then you could start giving out fines.

davyjose

padraig_f wrote: »

Just to clarify the rule he's fined under, it's the defenseless receiver one:

Bostic violated: RULE 12, SECTION 2, ARTICLE 7 (b) (2)


Important note here is that he doesn't need to make contact with the other player's helmet for it to be illegal.

This makes it even more ridiculous. I can see why they might be a bit cagey about helmet to helmet, but helmet to body???

How is he supposed to tackle the guy? His head is on top of the body he's using to tackle with. How can he avoid his head making contact? Tackle with his fcuking fingertips?

HigginsJ

How long after a player catches the ball is he no longer defenceless? To me it looks like he has the ball tucked away and a slight turn away from Bostic.

No one is arguing that hits to the head should be outlawed and punished accordingly but there is going to be incidental contact on occasions when 2 guys who run 40 yards in under 5 seconds clash.

I think the spirit of the law is being ignored in hits like this one from Bostic.

matthew8

Rugby players never tackle with their heads. It's clearly very possible.

padraig_f

davyjose wrote: »

This makes it even more ridiculous. I can see why they might be a bit cagey about helmet to helmet, but helmet to body???

How is he supposed to tackle the guy? His head is on top of the body he's using to tackle with. How can he avoid his head making contact? Tackle with his fcuking fingertips?

Yeah, that's the other question, is the rule itself correct? I think the intention is to prohibit the helmet being used as a weapon, and it's probably to protect the tackler as much as the guy being tackled. Incidental contact with the helmet should be ok. Bostic's tackle looked more like incidental contact, where the main thrust of the tackle was not with the helmet, but it obviously wasn't judged that way.

davyjose

matthew8 wrote: »

Rugby players never tackle with their heads. It's clearly very possible.

Some examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD_1sone-Mk

Plenty of tackles here where the crown goes straight into the ball-carrier's torso.


The fact of the matter is Rugby is a completely different game, the play is often less dynamic. But when a player gets open, a lot of head to torso tackles occur (essentially the issue here).

Also, I don't want AF to become Rugby. I love both sports on their individual merits.

davyjose

padraig_f wrote: »

Yeah, that's the other question, is the rule itself correct? I think the intention is to prohibit the helmet being used as a weapon, and it's probably to protect the tackler as much as the guy being tackled. Incidental contact with the helmet should be ok. Bostic's tackle looked more like incidental contact, where the main thrust of the tackle was not with the helmet, but it obviously wasn't judged that way.

Agree 100% and whatever about throwing flags during a game, there's plenty of time to assess the situation after the game ends. The rule could be amended to say "with intent to injure/harm" and then plays reviewed during the week.

DubTony

D3PO wrote: »

If you tackle with your shoulder your going to look like a mug when the receiver bounces off your pads and makes a heap of yards downfield due to the missed tackle.

DubTony wrote: »

It's hard to wrap a guy if you're hitting him with your helmet. So the shoulder was the obvious choice.

D3PO wrote: »

going at a guys shoulder is more likely to lead to a guy bouncing out of a tackle or an inadvertent horse collar so it wouldn't be the best way to try get a guy to the ground.

I thought it was obvious that I meant lead with the shoulder. Sure you couldn't tackle a guy on the shoulder. You'd be doing well to get the leverage to pull him down.

matthew8

davyjose wrote: »

Plenty of tackles here where the crown goes straight into the ball-carrier's torso.


The fact of the matter is Rugby is a completely different game, the play is often less dynamic. But when a player gets open, a lot of head to torso tackles occur (essentially the issue here).

Also, I don't want AF to become Rugby. I love both sports on their individual merits.

But any head contact is incidental. They all lead with the shoulder. And tbh looking at it I think Bostic did lead with the shoulder, he even manages to wrap his right arm, but I think that when the player deliberately uses the helmet as a weapon they should be penalised.

davyjose

DubTony wrote: »

I thought it was obvious that I meant lead with the shoulder. Sure you couldn't tackle a guy on the shoulder. You'd be doing well to get the leverage to pull him down.

I agree with this, the problem is the speed of the game is too quick to ensure you're always going to catch a guy in this position. Too much speed, too many variables. The fact is, if this guy was two inches to the left, he's driving his helmet into the would-be guys chest/facemask.

Fining guys over this will encourage people to tackle lower -- much more detrimental to a guy's career.

Masked Man

I'd rather have a ****ed up knee than a ****ed up brain. It's not about careers it's about the rest of their life after the nfl.

Masked Man

Also there's been a lot of talk over the years about bad tackling technique in the nfl so I'm a little hesitant to buy into "it'll drive them lower" argument.

davyjose

matthew8 wrote: »

But any head contact is incidental. They all lead with the shoulder. And tbh looking at it I think Bostic did lead with the shoulder, he even manages to wrap his right arm, but I think that when the player deliberately uses the helmet as a weapon they should be penalised.

But that's exactly the case with Bostic; any helmet contact was incidental. As pointed out by Padraig, it wasn't even Helmet to helmet. It was helmet to (somewhere on his body) on a "defenseless receiver".

The point is there is a clear difference between a dangerous tackle with forcible use of the helmet, and a great tackle with incidental contact.

DubTony

davyjose wrote: »

I agree with this, the problem is the speed of the game is too quick to ensure you're always going to catch a guy in this position. Too much speed, too many variables. The fact is, if this guy was two inches to the left, he's driving his helmet into the would-be guys chest/facemask.

Fining guys over this will encourage people to tackle lower -- much more detrimental to a guy's career.

That's a really good point. Back in the day, the backs and receivers coming at me weren't exactly ripping up the field with speed, so I guess it was a lot easier to target your tackle.

Masked Man wrote: »

I'd rather have a ****ed up knee than a ****ed up brain. It's not about careers it's about the rest of their life after the nfl.

Most pro players don't see it that way. They want to play football. Like most people they live in the here and now, and for most of them football is their life.
And anyway, I think most of us believe that these rule changes are less about player safety and more about NFL money.

davyjose

Masked Man wrote: »

I'd rather have a ****ed up knee than a ****ed up brain. It's not about careers it's about the rest of their life after the nfl.

Watch the tackle. He didn't make contact with the receivers helmet.

Masked Man

I wasn't talking about this tackle specifically. I was responding to:

Fining guys over this will encourage people to tackle lower -- much more detrimental to a guy's career.

I can understand the nfl being over eager with this stuff in the short run.

davyjose

Masked Man wrote: »

I wasn't talking about this tackle specifically. I was responding to:



I can understand the nfl being over eager with this stuff in the short run.

Either way, it's going to affect how guys tackle. It could ruin the defensive element of the game, it could cause more career-enders (Dustin Keller is finished, sadly), or it could improve tackling. We don't know. But it will affect how the game is played -- good or bad.

Son Of A Vidic

It's been a few years now since I've played both disciplines. I don't know about anyone one else that's played and how it worked for them. But whenever I was targeting an opponent for a hit, the shoulders naturally dropped and my head followed. Now when tackling a guy from a vertical more upright position. Then it was of course easier to keep the eyes forward & head up going into the tackle. Like in a big body wrap or shoulder check.

But when trying to cut across the field at speed to reach an opponent. My tackle would end up coming from a horizontal position. In my experience, once you picked the area to attack, the shoulders dropped and the eyes & head followed. It's impossible to make a hit in this position and still keep your head upright. Unless you want to break your neck of course. My only criticism of NFL players is a lot of guys haven't a clue when it comes to taking a player down by the legs. Rugby tackling teaches you how to get down and wrap a guy up by the legs without crippling him. But just this week we saw a guys career being ended by a bad lower leg tackle.

This is also a by product of the current CBA, players exposure in pads is limited. So core tackling skills will continue to deteriorate in the league. The consequence is the horror tackle we saw a few days ago. Now unless players evolve into a hybrid, where their shoulders rise 18 inches and their heads and neck sink back 10-12 inches. Helmet contact can't be avoided a lot of the time.

The key issue should be intent, was the helmet contact clearly intentional or not? The Bostic tackle the other night was a fine hit, it was neither vicious or dirty imo. Is the NFL now afraid of spectacular hits? Or maybe they don't like when you can hear it so clearly on TV. Whatever their motivation, they are going to turn the game into a farce. The most worrying thing about this is, players will naturally become uncertain so the lower legs will be an easier option. And since many already aren't the best at safely tackling the leg region. Just watch how many poor guys are going to have their knees blown out by bad lower leg hits