finknottle Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Rugby and football aren't comparable. The tackling and territoriality aren't the same. Without helmets you would see people splitting their heads open. Take away the facemask and you have quality protection to the top of the head but the risk of damage to the face would be enough of a deterrent to keep people from leading with the head. Also Rugby has an issue with leg and knee injuries as well (Yeah its better then head injuries but its a sport were a lot of its older athletes have sever leg damage). That's the point: tackling in the NFL has evolved to where it is today (good at intimidation, abysmal at open-space tackling) precisely because the helmet and the equipment have turned defenders into fearless projectile weapons. Take off the helmet and the pads, and see how many safeties are going to launch themselves headfirst into the pumping legs of a charging runningback. You will pretty quickly see defenders changing their technique. Those who don't will be injured pretty quickly. Which brings us back to the central question. What do we want out of this debate? Less injuries, sure. But do we want defenders who make tackles, or who deliver hits? For over 20 years now the NFL has been drifting in the direction of jarring hits (riskier defensively, but a better chance of a turnover) over simply bringing the guy down, and I don't see why it is neccessarily a good thing for the game. People think equipment is to protect the offensive player. For the most part, it isn't. It is to protect the guy making the tackle. Think about it: shoulder pads are to protect your shoulder when you are initiating contact while leading with your shoulder, not to protect your shoulder when somebody is hitting you. So change the protection to the tackler, and the tacklers technique will adjust accordingly.
Another Point of View Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Not a completely bad idea but a face mask was designed to keep hands and fingers away from the eyes. Not sure this would change anything........What you will have is teeth less players and broken noses.
Offside Number 76 Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 The solution is so obvious we can't see it. Get rid of the helmet altogether. You'll no longer see any defenders leading with their heads. What we are really talking about here is the basic purpose of the tackle. Is it to bring the man down, or is it to give him a hit he'll remember? Defensive play in the NFL has for years been drifting away from fundamentals and towards the highlite big hit. Rugby is played without helmets and with an enforced 'must use your arms to make a tackle' rule, and it works just fine. Throw out the helmet, and ban any tackle (such as a shoulder slam) where you are not wrapping with your arms. You will see fewer injuries and much more effective tackling. I don't want to get rid of helmets, but the rest of this identifies the root of the problem: when football became about hitting, rather than tackling, we started to see more injuries and poorer defense. I've seen enough receivers bounce off of a hockey check by the defender and gain ten more yards, when the defender simply could have wrapped up and stopped the play. And of course, classic tackling presents less of an injury risk.
finknottle Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 I don't want to get rid of helmets, but the rest of this identifies the root of the problem: when football became about hitting, rather than tackling, we started to see more injuries and poorer defense. I've seen enough receivers bounce off of a hockey check by the defender and gain ten more yards, when the defender simply could have wrapped up and stopped the play. And of course, classic tackling presents less of an injury risk. The decline of tackling might not be due to stupidity - it may be a conscious tradeoff. I believe the thinking among coaches is that while big hits will result in more missed tackles and extra yardage than sure tackling, the yardage given up is more than offset by the occasional forced turnover.
jo39416 Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 keep the helmet...but lose the FACEMASK.......i like it. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/JoePa-didn-t-wear-a-facemask-He-doesn-t-think-t?urn=ncaaf-278329 Joe DeLamielleure who lives down here in Charlotte called up a local radio show and suggested the same thing, FWIW.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 seriously... just get rid of the helmets, or go back to the old leather ones. players are leading with the hard plastic helmets using them as weapons instead of for protection
DrDawkinstein Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 The solution is so obvious we can't see it. Get rid of the helmet altogether. You'll no longer see any defenders leading with their heads. What we are really talking about here is the basic purpose of the tackle. Is it to bring the man down, or is it to give him a hit he'll remember? Defensive play in the NFL has for years been drifting away from fundamentals and towards the highlite big hit. Rugby is played without helmets and with an enforced 'must use your arms to make a tackle' rule, and it works just fine. Throw out the helmet, and ban any tackle (such as a shoulder slam) where you are not wrapping with your arms. You will see fewer injuries and much more effective tackling. As a football player from age 5 to 18, and a Rugby player from 18 to 24, I agree completely. The problem is that players have changed the way they tackle. I specifically remember it starting around the time of Kurt Schulz because when he started doing it, it drove me NUTS since it is such POOR tackling form. They all want to be a "human missle" and "blow the guy up", instead of wrapping and driving. BTW, the wrapping and driving technique can produce the same huge hits with way less injury. That's the point: tackling in the NFL has evolved to where it is today (good at intimidation, abysmal at open-space tackling) precisely because the helmet and the equipment have turned defenders into fearless projectile weapons. Take off the helmet and the pads, and see how many safeties are going to launch themselves headfirst into the pumping legs of a charging runningback. You will pretty quickly see defenders changing their technique. Those who don't will be injured pretty quickly. Which brings us back to the central question. What do we want out of this debate? Less injuries, sure. But do we want defenders who make tackles, or who deliver hits? For over 20 years now the NFL has been drifting in the direction of jarring hits (riskier defensively, but a better chance of a turnover) over simply bringing the guy down, and I don't see why it is neccessarily a good thing for the game. People think equipment is to protect the offensive player. For the most part, it isn't. It is to protect the guy making the tackle. Think about it: shoulder pads are to protect your shoulder when you are initiating contact while leading with your shoulder, not to protect your shoulder when somebody is hitting you. So change the protection to the tackler, and the tacklers technique will adjust accordingly. Another great post. Everyone should pay close attention to wear the defenders face is pointing on all of the "big hits" from last weekend. On every play, the defender has his face pointing towards the ground. That is the WORST thing you can do when trying to tackle someone. It not only creates a dangerous play for the person about to be speared with a helmet, but opens the defender up to serious neck and head injury. What it comes down to is simple, defenders need to have PROPER tackling technique reinforced. I GUARANTEE that is NOT the way they were taught to tackle when they first started playing. I doubt any coach out there is teaching kids technique that will only serve to injure both the offensive and defensive player. Break down, keep your head up to see what you are tackling, come in with your face, slide to shoulder, wrap up, and DRIVE through. Do NOT just come flying in and dive head first into a man.
BUFFALOKIE Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) As a football player from age 5 to 18, and a Rugby player from 18 to 24, I agree completely. The problem is that players have changed the way they tackle. I specifically remember it starting around the time of Kurt Schulz because when he started doing it, it drove me NUTS since it is such POOR tackling form. They all want to be a "human missle" and "blow the guy up", instead of wrapping and driving. BTW, the wrapping and driving technique can produce the same huge hits with way less injury. Another great post. Everyone should pay close attention to wear the defenders face is pointing on all of the "big hits" from last weekend. On every play, the defender has his face pointing towards the ground. That is the WORST thing you can do when trying to tackle someone. It not only creates a dangerous play for the person about to be speared with a helmet, but opens the defender up to serious neck and head injury. What it comes down to is simple, defenders need to have PROPER tackling technique reinforced. I GUARANTEE that is NOT the way they were taught to tackle when they first started playing. I doubt any coach out there is teaching kids technique that will only serve to injure both the offensive and defensive player. Break down, keep your head up to see what you are tackling, come in with your face, slide to shoulder, wrap up, and DRIVE through. Do NOT just come flying in and dive head first into a man. You've made a great point. I dont think that "helmet-to-helmet contact" is difinitive enough. If they are going to be stricter at enforcing the rule, they need to more clearly define it. This should be the definitive rule: Hitting with the crown of your helmet is illegal, hitting with your facemask is legal, regardless of where you hit them - so long as it is above the thighs. As you observed, it should be clear to the ref whether the defender is looking at the ground or looking at runner/receiver. That should apply to hitting the quarterback as well. Edited October 21, 2010 by Buffalokie
olivier in france Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Without helmets, we would see what is a fixture of any good rugby game: some good old fist fights!!
Meark Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Lets put some skirts on em and give some em flags and call it a game. I hate this response. Just because you wear a skirt doesn't mean anyone else wants too..
Terry Tate Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Leather helmet, no facemask. More broken noses and lost teeth, but less concussions and neck injuries.
papazoid Posted October 21, 2010 Author Posted October 21, 2010 Mike Ditka joins the chorus of no facemasks.... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/21/mike-ditka-joe-paterno-think-facemasks-do-more-harm-than-good/
Fan in San Diego Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 The solution is so obvious we can't see it. Get rid of the helmet altogether. You'll no longer see any defenders leading with their heads. What we are really talking about here is the basic purpose of the tackle. Is it to bring the man down, or is it to give him a hit he'll remember? Defensive play in the NFL has for years been drifting away from fundamentals and towards the highlite big hit. Rugby is played without helmets and with an enforced 'must use your arms to make a tackle' rule, and it works just fine. Throw out the helmet, and ban any tackle (such as a shoulder slam) where you are not wrapping with your arms. You will see fewer injuries and much more effective tackling. Take away the shoulder pads as well. Old school tackling will then take place. If you watch closely, most so called tackles are merely rocket launches with the shoulder to knock the person down, there is very little arm tackling taking place.
papazoid Posted October 22, 2010 Author Posted October 22, 2010 here is the official NFL Video on clean and dirty hits: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81b80962/Player-safety?module=HP_headlines
flopagamo Posted October 22, 2010 Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Leather helmet, no facemask. More broken noses and lost teeth, but less concussions and neck injuries. Yes! Back to the leather helmets! No projectile defensive backs, lineman would succeed through footwork and hand technique, etc. The game would slow down a bit in some ways, but careers would be longer. Edited October 22, 2010 by flopagamo
finknottle Posted October 22, 2010 Posted October 22, 2010 For those whimsically contemplating a helmet-less NFL, here is the #1 reason why it will never happen: What is the single most powerfull advertising icon for the NFL? The team logo. The logo *is* the team. And where is the logo? On the helmet. Take away the helmet, and you can no longer identify the uniform in many cases. The NFL helmet logo is a powerfull advertising asset unlike anything else in professional sports. It will never go away.
papazoid Posted October 22, 2010 Author Posted October 22, 2010 here are some nice tackles WITHOUT a helmet:
Peace Posted October 22, 2010 Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) For those whimsically contemplating a helmet-less NFL, here is the #1 reason why it will never happen: What is the single most powerfull advertising icon for the NFL? The team logo. The logo *is* the team. And where is the logo? On the helmet. Take away the helmet, and you can no longer identify the uniform in many cases. The NFL helmet logo is a powerfull advertising asset unlike anything else in professional sports. It will never go away. If you remove the helmet, you sell a whole other thing: The individual player, who you can now see. If the logo was that amazing of a marketing tool, it would be on hockey helmets. It's a "thing" but it's not that big of a thing. If you just remove the facemask or use the "leather" like helmet, you still have the logo. A 2011 lockout year would be a nice time to play with these ideas. Edited October 22, 2010 by Peace
shrader Posted October 22, 2010 Posted October 22, 2010 For those whimsically contemplating a helmet-less NFL, here is the #1 reason why it will never happen: What is the single most powerfull advertising icon for the NFL? The team logo. The logo *is* the team. And where is the logo? On the helmet. Take away the helmet, and you can no longer identify the uniform in many cases. The NFL helmet logo is a powerfull advertising asset unlike anything else in professional sports. It will never go away. I don't believe in this whole leather helmet thing for one second, but I'm sure they could work out a way of having the logo on there. If David Puddy can have an 8-ball leather jacket, they can put running buffalo on a leather helmet.
dave mcbride Posted October 22, 2010 Posted October 22, 2010 Anyone who thinks the NFL was about "clean tackling" and not vicious hits in the 1950s/1960s is living in fantasy land. The era of the clothesline and the headslap was brutal. Christ, the reason we know so much now about the effects of concussions is because of the human wreckage that football from that era created. Moreover, players are a lot better now than they were then. Another thing: taking away facemasks is the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. Sometimes I really think that some people secretly want to see someone die on the field.
Recommended Posts