Can NFL tackling rules be reasonably altered (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

Kinda spitballing here, just trying to hash out some ideas. Here's part of the inspiration for this topic, from SI's 2011 NFL Preview issue:

Good, hard, sharp, and sure tackling is the very essence of a successful defense, and no player should hope to be placed upon a team unless he has become adept in this most important of football fundamentals. No team is going to be severely beaten, even if it has no offense at all, if it is composed of eleven good tacklers ...

—GLENN SCOBEY (POP) WARNER, May 1927

On a November Sunday in Cleveland last year, Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez completed a pass to wideout Braylon Edwards in the shallow left flat. Browns cornerback Sheldon Brown jumped forward to perform the essential job that Pop Warner had described 83 years earlier: Tackle the ballcarrier. (Huddle. Repeat.) Football plays can end in various ways: with touchdowns, field goals, incompletions, fair catches, dead-ball penalties and stepping out-of-bounds. But most end with the ballcarrier being taken to the ground by the defense. It is absolute. After a tackle, whistles are blown, the ball is spotted and the offense must draw up another play and start anew.

But tackling has also become one of the most uncertain elements in the modern NFL, altered not only by evolutions in strategy (sideline-to-sideline passing attacks supplanting between-the-numbers power running) and performance (more elusive athletes with each passing year), but also most recently by rules changes designed to protect ballcarriers from injuries by limiting concussive, helmet-to-helmet hits. The pure, unbridled, bone-jarring tackle is a fading memory.

As Brown moved up on Edwards, his instincts told him to blast headlong with little regard for the consequences, tactical or physical. There are two basic ways to tackle: either "break down" into a balanced crouch to reduce the possibility of getting juked in the open field, or barrel into the ballcarrier at full speed. Brown had played his first seven NFL seasons for the Eagles under the late defensive coordinator Jim Johnson, who gave his troops only one option.

"Coach Johnson taught us to never break down, just keep running through like knives," says Brown. "And if I miss on the correct side, one of my teammates will be right behind me, running like a bat out of you know where, and he'll make the hit and maybe force a turnover. One of the knives will hit." (Ravens coach John Harbaugh, who worked under Johnson in Philadelphia, says, "Arrow through snow" that's what Jim used to say: Attack like an arrow through snow.")

As an Eagle, Brown lived Johnson's credo. In January 2007 he laid out Saints running back Reggie Bush with a blowup hit by driving hard upfield on a swing pass, a shot so monumental it made the cover of SI six months later. But here, against the Jets, Brown hesitated. The previous month, after the notorious Oct. 17 afternoon so packed with violent, concussive hits that it became known as Black Sunday, the NFL announced it would stringently enforce rules against head shots. That clouded Brown's mind. "I tried to break down and then come up," says Brown of the play on Edwards. "He dipped his shoulder, and that got him lower than me, and I took the brunt of the hit. They talk about defenseless receivers. I put myself in a defenseless position, and I hurt my shoulder. I was confused with all the changes, and I made an adjustment." (Though his forward momentum was stopped, Edwards never did go down—four other Cleveland defenders threw themselves into the play, and the whistle blew with the Jets receiver still standing.)

It seems clear that certain types of tackling techniques that are physically riskier than others. The question I'm raising is this: can safer tackling techniques be legislated within the rules of the game of football? Here are some speculative rule changes that come to mind -- haven't considered all angles or potential game-play consequences, just brainstorming:
[*]Illegal for tacklers to leave their feet if their shoulder, chest, or head touches the ball carrier -- this means that if DB wants to blow up a WR over the middle, they cannot launch themselves like a missle. They can still run through the WR, but the fact that the ground dissipates some of the force should lessen the impact of these over-the-middle tackles. Note that the way this rule is worded, the intent is to still allow diving at a ball carries feet, or a last-second dive to grab a jersey, or tackle attempts like that. So long as there's no leaving the feet to launch the upper body into a ball carrier, the tackle is legal.

[*]Illegal for shoulder, chest, or head of tackler to touch the ball carrier if at least one hand does not touch the ball carrier -- I'd call this the "wrap-up" rule, and it also aims to discourage launching-type tackles. I considered proposing that BOTH hands must touch the ball carrier if the tackler's upper-body conacts the ball carrier, but I was thinking that might be a little too restrictive. Maybe the two-hand version of the rule could be instituted for QBs in the pocket.

[*]Institute a tackling "strike zone" -- The tackler's upper body (shoulders, helmet, chest) can only contact the ball carrier's body between the shoulders and knees. This one is actually partially in place, as explicit head shots are forbidden. Diving at a player's feet to trip them up with the hands or arms would still be legal.

[*]Relax the pass-intereference rules in favor of the defense -- Saw this proposed elsewhere. The idea is that with pass-interference rules so strongly favoring the offense, defenses have adopted the strategy ot taking hard shots at receivers to jar caught balls loose. Letting DBs guard routes more physically would give the defense another option. My corollary is to perhaps change the 5-yard-bump zone into a 10-yard zone, or even 15 yards -- bring back true bump-&-run coverage.

So ... are these kinds of proposals (not necessarily these specific ones) reasonable? How much safer can tackling rules help make the game? Enough to get us to credible, player-approved 18-game seasons? And what kinds of game-safety changes do others envision the NFL adopting in the near future?

.

 

[Casting Couch]

We would never again see a player lead with the crown of their helmet if we went back to leather helmets.

 

[Doug B]

We would never again see a player lead with the crown of their helmet if we went back to leather helmets.

Thanks for that. All ideas are welcome -- equipment changes could be as much a part of the eventual solution as on-field rule changes.Not 1940s-style leather helmets, but I wonder if modern faceguards will be adapted with a soft-shell style helmet in the near future? I have heard some speculation about that, but some say that the hard shell will not die quietly because it better supports logo presentation and branding.

 

[Fensalk]

Football is a violent sport. I can think of 2 ways to fix it. Either convert to flag football rules, or put a MAXIMUM age limit on the NFL. Do not allow players to play 10 years and wreck their body with cumulative injuries. A player is eligible to play for 5 years, max. After that, its forced retirement.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Its an easy fix...

REMOVE helmets from the game, and hard plastic (shoulder) pads.

 

[Max Power]

Those suggestions would be impossible to enforce with accuracy across the board and it would put the outcome of games into the offical's hands even more. These hits happen too fast, these ideas would ruin the game IMO.

 

[Doug B]

Those suggestions would be impossible to enforce with accuracy across the board and it would put the outcome of games into the offical's hands even more. These hits happen too fast, these ideas would ruin the game IMO.

Similar calls are made for penalties such as spearing and illegal chop blocks. I do agree that the one-hand rule would be hard to enforce, but I think the others are reasonable. However, one thing I also advocate (but didn't originally conceive of being related to the safety rules) is that every play should be officiated in part by replay. Not with the ref running over to a monitor, though -- do it college-football style, from the booth....

BigSteelThrill, that would basically be rugby with forward passing.That would actually be compelling to watch, at least to me. But I bet most NFL fans wouln't be on board.

...

Fensalk -- you've created the Logan's Run league

 

[GregR]

I think the best way to make the game safer without losing the physicality of the game that makes it special, is to focus on the types of plays that result in the most serious injuries.

And I think if you make a list of such plays, and come up with rules to try to make those plays safer, you end up with 90% of what the NFL actually did. They didn't remove the ability to hit a defenseless receiver, they said don't hit him in the head. They didn't remove the ability to hit a QB who is passing, they said don't dive at his knees or hit him in the head.

They didn't try to change too many things that don't commonly cause injuries. For instance, horse collar tackles while trailing a runner tend to lead to injuries as the defender tends to fall on the guy's legs so they can't bend freely. The same horse collar tackle done on a QB in the pocket seldom causes an injury because you don't have that same issue about the QB's legs. So why make it illegal?

So I would start with exactly what the NFL has done with a few tweaks. They erred on overdoing it with blows to the QB's head at first, but then correctly amended it to only be a foul if it's a forceful hit. Right now they are overdoing it on hits to defenseless receivers, throwing the flag when in doubt. They need to back off that and throw the flag when they are sure, and let fines/suspensions deal with plays where they missed it on the field.

They still need to look at cut blocking I think. I believe the biggest problem is cut blocks from the side or behind. The rules already say you have to get your helmet in front of the guy you're blocking, so they already have rules to try to address it and a lot of that is already illegal. But it still allows too much possibility to be cut blocked without seeing it coming. Perhaps make it illegal for anyone who lined up within 1 yard of the LOS, which would let RBs still do it in blitz pickup, but not really anyone else.

I don't know that they'll ever be able to make a change to the game that will deal with the long term brain issues that stem from repeated contact and not only from major concussions. Not without changing the game too drastically.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is WWI all over again.

Technology has outpaced the men who employ it and the result is mayhem.

Either improve the technology further or ban some elements of it.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

If the NFL were as popular as Hockey no one would give a ####...

The more and more popular it goes the more likely it will be that there will be no more tackling, just glorified rough-touch.

 

[Warrior]

Technology isn't the problem. Players are bigger, faster, stronger, hit harder, and make more money donig it than ever before. Rubber/leather helmets aren't the solution.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Australian Rules Football

Look no further than the AFL.

Australian Rules football is every bit as physical as the NFL,

without the breaks between plays. They wear no equipment. It's the essence of sport,imo.

 

[Doug B]

They still need to look at cut blocking I think. I believe the biggest problem is cut blocks from the side or behind. The rules already say you have to get your helmet in front of the guy you're blocking, so they already have rules to try to address it and a lot of that is already illegal. But it still allows too much possibility to be cut blocked without seeing it coming. Perhaps make it illegal for anyone who lined up within 1 yard of the LOS, which would let RBs still do it in blitz pickup, but not really anyone else.

Greg, have you ever heard of "interscholasic football rules"? I'm not 100% on the name, but it's the rule set that a lot of state-level high-school athletic associations use for football (Louisiana, by contrast, uses NCAA rules).Anyway, by intershcolastic rules, any blocking below the waist is illegal. Think that could be employed in the NFL? It would sure change blitz pickup -- no more Reggie Bush or Warrick Dunn types cutting out DEs' legs. You'd basically have to have an Ironhead Heyward type guy in the backfield ... or a TE or even a third guard.

 

[Doug B]

Australian Rules football is every bit as physical as the NFL,

without the breaks between plays. They wear no equipment. It's the essence of sport,imo.

Then there's that. I don't know if it's still "American football" if there are no breaks to reset the ball after plays. But having to play both ways necessarily limits the size of the players. That's one of the reasons linemen in the 40s & 50s weren't crazy-heavy (Art Donovan was a fat-boy freak at 270 lbs).

 

[BigSteelThrill]

BigSteelThrill, that would basically be rugby with forward passing.That would actually be compelling to watch, at least to me. But I bet most NFL fans wouln't be on board.

No it wouldn't be rugby.You have schoolyard football played by millions of kids and adults year round with very few injuries (By way of comparison).

 

[GregR]

They still need to look at cut blocking I think. I believe the biggest problem is cut blocks from the side or behind. The rules already say you have to get your helmet in front of the guy you're blocking, so they already have rules to try to address it and a lot of that is already illegal. But it still allows too much possibility to be cut blocked without seeing it coming. Perhaps make it illegal for anyone who lined up within 1 yard of the LOS, which would let RBs still do it in blitz pickup, but not really anyone else.

Greg, have you ever heard of "interscholasic football rules"? I'm not 100% on the name, but it's the rule set that a lot of state-level high-school athletic associations use for football (Louisiana, by contrast, uses NCAA rules).Anyway, by intershcolastic rules, any blocking below the waist is illegal. Think that could be employed in the NFL? It would sure change blitz pickup -- no more Reggie Bush or Warrick Dunn types cutting out DEs' legs. You'd basically have to have an Ironhead Heyward type guy in the backfield ... or a TE or even a third guard.

I don't like restricting things unless there is a reason. If some types of cut blocks lead to serious injuries and others don't, then I'd say restrict the first group and let the second group go unless there is some other reason.Sure the NFL could do it. But I'd want them to actually look at the history of such plays and see if it is needed. So far I think the NFL has done a pretty good job of not making blanket rule changes when they aren't needed. Where they have failed has been too strict of enforcement on those plays where the rule did change.