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

[TecmoSuperJoe]

BTW funny how cut blocks haven't been banned after all these years. Oh wait, that benefits the offense. 

[MWil23]

11 minutes ago, goldfishwars said:

Officially out on this topic - hysteria reigns.

Were you anticipating anything else from a couple of jaded Midwest fans who watched the league steal their team and a plethora of other grievances that have negatively impacted the game as a whole?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

13 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

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. 

LMAO you really think the NFL is on the side of the angels looking out for what's best for the players, and not what's going to increase revenue first, and foremost? Hee haw. Yet we still have cut blocks in the league, CTE was knowingly brushed under the rug, roughing the passer calls are worse than they were in previous eras to the point of it being comical, and we're going to 18 games. 

And I love Sam Monson's takes on a lot of things. Everything he posted is from a different sport, and what in theory would ideally work. But it doesn't address the other issues that will nuke the governing of the rule. Let alone the real intent of why the crackdown is being implemented. 

 

Edited March 26 by TecmoSuperJoe

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, MWil23 said:

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

Yep. The DB either faces the TE head on and gets bowled over, the TE falls forward, and it's as good as a run play, or the TE has an angle, and it's a flag generating situation. Rinse, repeat.

[StatKing]

15 hours ago, goldfishwars said:

Lol what. Same way tacklers always have, pin the legs. You don’t have to swing and drop a hip down. No idea how this became about small guys tackling bigger dudes, it’s an easier technique for bigger linebackers to pin their weight on smaller receivers or running backs. 

So the NFL bans the hip drop tackle due to leg injuries and your solution is for them to dive at the ball carriers knees instead? Makes sense.

[sdrawkcab321]

I hate this league 

[LeotheLion]

26 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

LMAO you really think the NFL is on the side of the angels looking out for what's best for the players, and not what's going to increase revenue first, and foremost. Yet we still have cut blocks in the league, CTE was knowingly brushed under the rug, roughing the passer calls are worse than they were in previous eras to the point of it being comical, and we're going to 18 games. 

And I love Sam Monson's takes on a lot of things. Everything he posted is from a different sport, and what in theory would ideally work. But it doesn't address the other issues that will nuke the governing of the rule. Let alone the real intent of why the crackdown is being implemented. 

 

I think the NFL wants its star players healthy. I think coaches that wanted this rule passed want their players healthy. I don't think coaches thought this rule would increase scoring so therefore that is why I should pass it. I'm not naive, I know a lot of decisions revolve around revenue. I just think it is a massive leap to think the motivation behind this rule was increasing scoring. Especially in that the increase in scoring would inevitably come with referring controversy. 

You keep bringing up the 18 game thing. Studies have shown that this tackle increases risk of injury by 20%. I would be stunned if adding an extra game increases injuries to the same degree and again, that hasn't even happened yet. The league has clearly studied this a lot more than any of us have. 20% is a very significant number to increase risk of injury. That's a good enough reason for me to ban it. If you showed me that cut blocks cause injury to a similar degree then that would be a worthy discussion as well. And on the 18 game discussion, the players would benefit too as it would increase salary cap with an extra game. The hip drop tackle doesn't help the players. 

And the different sport is irrelevant. We are talking about the concept of tackling in each. It is the same. 

Edited March 26 by LeotheLion

[MWil23]

1 hour ago, LeotheLion said:

I think the NFL wants its star players healthy

No, it wants its star offensive players healthy. That’s the issue.

Cut block Kayvon Thibideaux from the side at the knee but that’s fine “in the box”.

Chop Myles Garrett in the perimeter or have Derrick Henry throw a club with forcible contact to the head and put it on a highlight reel.

Have a guy tackle clean and land on Aaron Rodgers or another QB and that’s a penalty.

It’s one sided on health and safety 

Edited March 26 by MWil23

[ramssuperbowl99]

19 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

Studies have shown that this tackle increases risk of injury by 20%.

36 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

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

 

Interesting why we changed from a total incidence to a rate here, I wonder if there's a reason why....

 

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2021/12002/effect_of_passing_plays_on_injury_rates_in_the.1.aspx

Quote

We obtained data for every regular season game played during the 2013–2016 seasons from the official NFL game books. There were 2,721 in-game injuries during the 4 seasons examined, with an overall rate of 1.33 injuries per team per game.

So, 2271 injuries over 4 seasons = 568 injuries/season

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/plays-per-game?date=2016-02-08

At a median of 64.4 offensive/snaps/team/game = 128.8 snaps/game = 32,972 snaps

So there are 0.0172 injuries/snap.

 

As you have said, this gets called one time per game. So for one snap, we would have a 20% increased injury rate, so instead of 0.172, we'd have 0.0344 extra expected injuries/snap for that one play. Multiplied across 256 games (16 game season in this dataset) and this saves 9 injuries/season.

Whoopie.

Edited March 26 by ramssuperbowl99

[bcb1213]

get ready for defenders diving at players knees all game

[TecmoSuperJoe]

56 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

I think the NFL wants its star players healthy. I think coaches that wanted this rule passed want their players healthy. I don't think coaches thought this rule would increase scoring so therefore that is why I should pass it. I'm not naive, I know a lot of decisions revolve around revenue. I just think it is a massive leap to think the motivation behind this rule was increasing scoring. Especially in that the increase in scoring would inevitably come with referring controversy. 

You keep bringing up the 18 game thing. Studies have shown that this tackle increases risk of injury by 20%. I would be stunned if adding an extra game increases injuries to the same degree and again, that hasn't even happened yet. The league has clearly studied this a lot more than any of us have. 20% is a very significant number to increase risk of injury. That's a good enough reason for me to ban it. If you showed me that cut blocks cause injury to a similar degree then that would be a worthy discussion as well. And on the 18 game discussion, the players would benefit too as it would increase salary cap with an extra game. The hip drop tackle doesn't help the players. 

And the different sport is irrelevant. We are talking about the concept of tackling in each. It is the same. 

You don't need a percentage calculator to know that cut blocks are a dangerous maneuver, and have been for like 40 years in the league. If the league is wiling to axe a type of tackle that occurs once a game, they can't in then-turn axe a blocking maneuver that has a chance of causing just as devastating a blow to an opposing player, and happens on many snaps per game??? BS homie. As for coaches, how many are collectively pounding the table for the rule to have been passed??? We certainly know what many players think, the guys that are actually on the field. 

Yes I keep bringing up the 18 games, because it's a bigger issue indicative of where the priorities lie for the league. And that's not all I brought up. They're a business first, and foremost. Follow the money. They're not making the game safer for everyone involved. They've making it safer for the offensive cast largely, and it's been trending that way for a while. It's really not that complicated to figure out why. An extra regular season game, well two now because we were at 16 games for like 40 years, obviously increases the risk for any injury. You can't preach safety, and then add two extra games. You can't preach safety, and then have games on Thursday, Tuesday, or whatever the schedule makers are doing now. And it doesn't take a bunch of goons working for the NFL to number crunch data to "prove" that more games, and wacky schedules aren't increasing the risk of injury. Sounds mighty convenient for them doesn't it??? Yes players get two extra games to make money. The league is made up of mostly guys trying to make rosters, stay on a roster, and play in one of those games to make a buck. That's irrelevant to the NFL prioritizing safety for it's workforce as it's paramount concern. 

How is a different sport irrelevant lmao? Football is a game of inches, and defenders need to stop a yahoo from getting past the sticks. That's not rugby. Tackling is not the same in the context of how each game is played. 

Edited March 26 by TecmoSuperJoe

[goldfishwars]

 

[MWil23]

22 minutes ago, goldfishwars said:

 

I trust that Uber athletic guy with the physique of a Greek god standing at about 5’9 205 in jeans and new balance shoes, but the gloves really bring it home, over Ryan Clark.

[LeotheLion]

34 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

You don't need a percentage calculator to know that cut blocks are a dangerous maneuver, and have been for like 40 years in the league. If the league is wiling to axe a type of tackle that occurs once a game, they can't in then-turn axe a blocking maneuver that has a chance of causing just as devastating a blow to an opposing player, and happens on many snaps per game??? BS homie. As for coaches, how many are collectively pounding the table for the rule to have been passed??? We certainly know what many players think, the guys that are actually on the field. 

I mean, it wouldn't be hard to figure out how frequently cut blocks injure players. We know a hip drop tackle drastically increases injury due to evidence. You don't have evidence. You are just speculating nonsense. 

36 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Yes I keep bringing up the 18 games, because it's a bigger issue indicative of where the priorities lie for the league. And that's not all I brought up. They're a business first, and foremost. Follow the money. They're not making the game safer for everyone involved. They've making it safer for the offensive cast largely, and it's been trending that way for a while. It's really not that complicated to figure out why. An extra regular season game, well two now because we were at 16 games for like 40 years, obviously increases the risk for any injury. You can't preach safety, and then add two extra games. You can't preach safety, and then have games on Thursday, Tuesday, or whatever the schedule makers are doing now. And it doesn't take a bunch of goons working for the NFL to number crunch data to "prove" that more games, and wacky schedules aren't increasing the risk of injury. Sounds mighty convenient for them doesn't it??? Yes players get two extra games to make money. The league is made up of mostly guys trying to make rosters, stay on a roster, and play in one of those games to make a buck. That's irrelevant to the NFL prioritizing safety for it's workforce as it's paramount concern. 

The players would benefit from the 18th game. It doesn't just make the owners more money but the players as well. Yes, adding 2 extra games obviously increases opportunity for injury. We just added a 17th game. If injuries shot up 10% due to the extra game, then we can debate if it is worth it to financially. But again, this is all baseless speculation on your part. We have evidence that the hip drop tackle is infrequent in its use and dangerous when used. That makes all the sense in the world to get rid of it. I'll see myself out of this tin-foiled hat conspiracy that rule change is only for revenue that will be generated by an extra 15 penalty yards per game. 

 

[squire12]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

I trust that Uber athletic guy with the physique of a Greek god standing at about 5’9 205 in jeans and new balance shoes, but the gloves really bring it home, over Ryan Clark.

The demo using an inanimate object is awesome.  Offensive players often stop and remsin still when defender is trying to tackle them