New rules proposed by NFL & competition committee; Hip-drop tackles officially banned

[goldfishwars]

11 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Of course not! They'd grab the horse collar and pull the runner down that way. Why would any defender go through all the work to drop their body weight on the back of a runners' knees to get the buckle effect when they could grab the guy by the collar and throw him back?

You're talking about the issue, not the trend.

The league makes a tackle illegal and forces defenses to adapt. Now the adaptation is illegal and the league makes defenses adapt again. Repeat ad infinitum until you get the ridiculously tiny map of where you can hit a QB, or what you can do to a "defenseless" 250 pound guy running full speed at you in body armor. And every year it gets more absurd as the options get whittled down.

The hip-drop didn't appear as an adaptation to the horse collar, that's simply just not true. The swinging hip drop is to add a little bit of extra to a tackle, it's whole purpose is to inflict a bit of damage. 

[goldfishwars]

6 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Even if the intent of the rule was genuine by the NFL (and it ain't they just want more offense than defense) limited offseason participation with live tackling drills since yesteryear, + working officials not getting these details down in the offseason due to their union is going to make this a mess. I mean refs have done a good job adjudicating body weight for roughing the passer so this should just be a natural extension right??? 

Never disagreed on this point. I don't think it will be adjudicated well, especially given the timelines the league has outlaid. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, goldfishwars said:

The hip-drop didn't appear as an adaptation to the horse collar, that's simply just not true. The swinging hip drop is to add a little bit of extra to a tackle, it's whole purpose is to inflict a bit of damage. 

What are you talking about? You can see it in film.

Watch the 3rd or 4th example from the highlight reel the NFL provided:

In each case, you can see the defender grabbing the far shoulder pad specifically to avoid grabbing the horse collar.

[goldfishwars]

10 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

What are you talking about? You can see it in film.

Watch the 3rd or 4th example from the highlight reel the NFL provided:

In each case, you can see the defender grabbing the far shoulder pad specifically to avoid grabbing the horse collar.

But they don't need to drop their weight onto the legs by swinging. You can just pin the legs, or drive your opponent round the waist. 

Anyway, last I'm gonna say on it - I get why a competition committee of NFL head coaches wants to outlaw a dangerous tackle which is known to cause serious injury. But I don't think they can do this, given the timelines they have given teams and refs, to enforce this in a way which won't cause confusion. 

[LeotheLion]

4 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Gee, why didn't the NFL think of that??? How has the league not hired you yet??? 

Yes it maybe happens once a game, and the NFL is now making a mountain out of a molehill about it. If they were really concerned about preventing injuries they wouldn't be looking to expand the product to 18 games, so I really don't buy the sincerity of the NFL here. It more-so comes off as another breadcrumb to further push the game in the direction of scoring, because that leads to eyeballs, which leads to more money. 

Again, this happens once a a game. Do you really think that's going to increase scoring much? You are being overly dramatic. One 15 yard penalty isn't going to increase scoring. Especially when the offense is potentially sacrificing an injured offensive player for the yardage. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, goldfishwars said:

But they don't need to drop their weight onto the legs by swinging.

Yes they do. This is basic physics.

They are grabbing a player who weighs > 200 pounds moving god knows how fast with their arm fully outstretched. Applying the same amount of force over a longer radius means more torque on the defender, it's simply not possible.

The defender has 2 options:

1. Pull the grab arm so that the rest of the defender's body gets closer to the runner, thus limiting the radius and increasing the amount of force the defender can apply (you can also see this in clips 3/4 above, note how the defender bends their arm and appears to speed up through the tackle). This leads to the legs getting tangled up and the buckle that you see in the hip drop tackle. So not an option.
2. Leave the grab arm extended, and literally just pull the defender back. In order to tackle the defender, the force from their grip strength would have to exceed the force from a fully grown NFL runner. It's simply impossible.

[squire12]

45 minutes ago, goldfishwars said:

The hip-drop didn't appear as an adaptation to the horse collar, that's simply just not true. The swinging hip drop is to add a little bit of extra to a tackle, it's whole purpose is to inflict a bit of damage. 

That in bold is a really big assumption based on nothing.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

46 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

Again, this happens once a a game. Do you really think that's going to increase scoring much? You are being overly dramatic. One 15 yard penalty isn't going to increase scoring. Especially when the offense is potentially sacrificing an injured offensive player for the yardage. 

It doesn't matter, it's a move in that direction no matter how insignificant. And the potential for that type of penalty being called can further shackled defenses which are already shackled enough. In addition to officials just getting it wrong, like they do roughing the passer calls. 

The NFL has thrown away it’s own integrity by refusing to modernize officiating with technology while getting in bed with Vegas, leaving some folks like myself deeply skeptical of every move they make. The NFL’s actions created this type of attitude from goons like me that would rather yell at clouds. Blame them for consistently sucking, not a contingent of the peanut gallery for being wary of the product we’re being sold.

Edited March 26 by TecmoSuperJoe

[goldfishwars]

37 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Yes they do. This is basic physics.

They are grabbing a player who weighs > 200 pounds moving god knows how fast with their arm fully outstretched. Applying the same amount of force over a longer radius means more torque on the defender, it's simply not possible.

The defender has 2 options:

1. Pull the grab arm so that the rest of the defender's body gets closer to the runner, thus limiting the radius and increasing the amount of force the defender can apply (you can also see this in clips 3/4 above, note how the defender bends their arm and appears to speed up through the tackle). This leads to the legs getting tangled up and the buckle that you see in the hip drop tackle. So not an option.
2. Leave the grab arm extended, and literally just pull the defender back. In order to tackle the defender, the force from their grip strength would have to exceed the force from a fully grown NFL runner. It's simply impossible.

Man, now you're talking as if the swing tackle is the dominant form. It's rare! 

As I said, you can just pin the legs, or drive your opponent round the waist. 

Edited March 26 by goldfishwars

[goldfishwars]

Officially out on this topic - hysteria reigns.

[ramssuperbowl99]

4 minutes ago, goldfishwars said:

Man, now you're talking as if the swing tackle is the dominant form. It's rare! 

As I said, you can just pin the legs, or drive your opponent round the waist. 

I'm really not, this only happens because TEs run 4.5 40s these days and occasionally players take aggressive sideline angles.

You're correct in that they could still go low. But there's no legal way to tackle a guy high if you come from 90 degrees or behind a defender any more without risking a flag, because a crucial step in the physics of actually bringing the player down is the defender pulling themselves closer to the runner using their upper body, and this rule effectively makes that illegal.

[ramssuperbowl99]

48 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

Again, this happens once a a game. Do you really think that's going to increase scoring much? You are being overly dramatic. One 15 yard penalty isn't going to increase scoring. Especially when the offense is potentially sacrificing an injured offensive player for the yardage. 

If I'm an OC, I spend the rest of my offseason scheming up crossing routes with natural pick play components because this is going to be a point of emphasis.

Turn the 12 yard crosser into a 27 yard chunk play.

[LeotheLion]

8 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

It doesn't matter, it's a move in that direction no matter how insignificant. And the potential for that type of penalty being called can further shackled defenses which are already shackled enough. In addition to officials just getting it wrong, like they do roughing the passer calls. 

It does matter. Your point is that you believe the NFL is doing this to increase scoring and viewership. That opinion is absolutely insane given that this play happens ONE time per game and results in a TWENTY percent increase in likelihood of an OFFENSIVE injury. 

So in a roundabout way, you could argue this move will increase scoring because it will keep offensive players healthier. But I also am not going to get upset at the league for making an insignificant change to the rules that can prevent injuries. There's plenty of videos posted by Sam Monson on how players can still tackle legally. The fact is a lot of defensive players have absolutely horrible tackling technique.  

The argument about how the rules will be enforced is fair, but I'm not going to get mad about that until I see how it actually plays out. That's all hypothetical and admittedly I am not super optimistic of it going well, at least initially, with how taunting and RTP is handled. 

[LeotheLion]

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

If I'm an OC, I spend the rest of my offseason scheming up crossing routes with natural pick play components because this is going to be a point of emphasis.

Turn the 12 yard crosser into a 27 yard chunk play.

Great. You can do it once a game. Genius OC over here.

Not to mention the obvious intent of the play is to potentially injure your players for penalty yards. 

Edited March 26 by LeotheLion

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

If I'm an OC, I spend the rest of my offseason scheming up crossing routes with natural pick play components because this is going to be a point of emphasis.

Turn the 12 yard crosser into a 27 yard chunk play.

Third and Long:

Brace yourselves for 6-8 yards crossers all season where OC scheme up a TE on a DB. I’m 100% serious.

Force=Mass x Acceleration