Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
They're incredibly ineffectual. See, Suh, Ndomekan

A player that should be banned from NFL.

As should Brandon Merriwether

Why not introduce a card-based system (like in soccer) or a penalty box rather than allowing players to buy their way out of punishments?

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why not introduce a card-based system (like in soccer) or a penalty box rather than allowing players to buy their way out of punishments?

Magic The Gathering started out as an attempt to create a card system for the NFL. True Story*.




*Not a true story.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

when it comes to tackling, it is more similar than you think... If you took out what amounts to shoulder charging in American Football and enforced a use of arms in tackling rule, as they do in rugby, IMO, could go quite a long way to making things safer.

I don't agree. In football you're encouraged to use your head as a point of contact when tackling, in rugby you are encouraged to protect your head. You can get away with this in football because you're wearing a helmet. It is more than possible to lay an injurious hit on someone without shoulder charging given that.

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

As should Brandon Merriwether

I don't think his actions are comparable to Suh's as they are part and parcel to playing the safety position in the NFL and its farm system (NCAA), while Suh's are not.

That isn't to say Meriweather should get a pass, he absolutely shouldn't, only that his actions are reflective of the nature of the game, while Suh's are not.

Jesus. That article about practice is telling when it comes to Suh.

Dude sounds like he may be a sociopath. Was bound to happen in the NFL.

 cincydooley wrote:

Dude sounds like he may be a sociopath. Was bound to happen in the NFL.

You act as if this is a new thing.

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

when it comes to tackling, it is more similar than you think... If you took out what amounts to shoulder charging in American Football and enforced a use of arms in tackling rule, as they do in rugby, IMO, could go quite a long way to making things safer.

I don't agree. In football you're encouraged to use your head as a point of contact when tackling, in rugby you are encouraged to protect your head. You can get away with this in football because you're wearing a helmet. It is more than possible to lay an injurious hit on someone without shoulder charging given that.

In football, you are encouraged to "put your head on the ball", yes, but what that is doing is putting your head in prime position to be hit. It also leads somewhat inadvertently to helmet-to-helmet blows. I also agree that, even if a tackler follows all rules of rugby, injuries can still happen (see Dan Carter v. Bismarck du Plessis in the first test between them in this years Rugby Championship)....

The reason a football player is taught to put a helmet on the ball, is to cause a possible fumble, as play stops once the tackle is complete. However, I feel that football would be better served teaching its players to tackle in more of a rugby manner, thereby keeping the head out of the tackle, and making the helmet a device that it was originally intended to be: a protective implement, not a weapon.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

In football, you are encouraged to "put your head on the ball", yes, but what that is doing is putting your head in prime position to be hit.

Or, more broadly, across the body. A form tackle in rugby involves placing your head behind the body. You can get away with this in rugby because inches of forward progress don't matter very much. Whereas, in football, they are critical.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

However, I feel that football would be better served teaching its players to tackle in more of a rugby manner, thereby keeping the head out of the tackle, and making the helmet a device that it was originally intended to be: a protective implement, not a weapon.

I agree. Securing the tackle should be the first priority. The emphasis on the "big hit" stems from a desire to disrupt forward passes by way of actual contact, and fear of actual contact.

Well, and an emphasis on spectacle.

Did you ever actually play football dogma? Not trying to be disrespectful, but some of your comments make me think that maybe you didn't.

And romanowski was a huge fething racist. That had a lot to do with his dirty play.

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

In football, you are encouraged to "put your head on the ball", yes, but what that is doing is putting your head in prime position to be hit.

Or, more broadly, across the body. A form tackle in rugby involves placing your head behind the body. You can get away with this in rugby because inches of forward progress don't matter very much. Whereas, in football, they are critical.

I take it you aren't a forward in rugby then... Inches of forward progress are our bread and butter.

 cincydooley wrote:
Did you ever actually play football dogma? Not trying to be disrespectful, but some of your comments make me think that maybe you didn't.

For 9 years. High school and college.

 motyak wrote:

I take it you aren't a forward in rugby then... Inches of forward progress are our bread and butter.

I alternate between 6, 7, and 8. Occasionally I play 2 if our legitimate 2 goes down.

 motyak wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

In football, you are encouraged to "put your head on the ball", yes, but what that is doing is putting your head in prime position to be hit.

Or, more broadly, across the body. A form tackle in rugby involves placing your head behind the body. You can get away with this in rugby because inches of forward progress don't matter very much. Whereas, in football, they are critical.

I take it you aren't a forward in rugby then... Inches of forward progress are our bread and butter.

In the grand scheme of things though, in rugby, a few inches arent as important as they are in american football. There are no "downs" in rugby. If there were 'only' phases in american football, then it would be much the same.



But, more in line with the OP, I'm honestly not sure what else we can do to protect the QB more than we already have... I mean, we practically put a belt/flags on them as it is. Of course, Mr. Favre played in a different era to today's QBs, and the punishment that he and others of his generation of QB took probably had something to do with the protection afforded today.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Did you ever actually play football dogma? Not trying to be disrespectful, but some of your comments make me think that maybe you didn't.

For 9 years. High school and college.

.

Color me surprised. I guess we were taught how to tackle and hit differently!

Where'd you play your college ball?

 djones520 wrote:



Seems on topic.

I'm telling ya... NJ's Scott Stevens is the Master of Disaster of open ice hits. o.O

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

In football, you are encouraged to "put your head on the ball", yes, but what that is doing is putting your head in prime position to be hit.

Or, more broadly, across the body. A form tackle in rugby involves placing your head behind the body. You can get away with this in rugby because inches of forward progress don't matter very much. Whereas, in football, they are critical.

I take it you aren't a forward in rugby then... Inches of forward progress are our bread and butter.

In the grand scheme of things though, in rugby, a few inches arent as important as they are in american football. There are no "downs" in rugby. If there were 'only' phases in american football, then it would be much the same.

You say that, but on some days it becomes a 9 person game if you have a good halfback, 8 otherwise, and you just ruck ruck ruck from the lineout 30m away to the tryline. Admittedly it isn't the regular game, but when it is a big forwards game (like on a really rainy day when the field is muddy as hell) it is pretty much just rucks and gradually rolling forwards. Or maybe that's just how my team always played, but then we had quite a good forward pack so we could do that.

 cincydooley wrote:

Color me surprised. I guess we were taught how to tackle and hit differently!

How were you taught to tackle?

 cincydooley wrote:

Where'd you play your college ball?

Macalester College. So, the bottom rung of D3.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Color me surprised. I guess we were taught how to tackle and hit differently!

How were you taught to tackle?

 cincydooley wrote:

Where'd you play your college ball?

Macalester College. So, the bottom rung of D3.

I think I may have misunderstood what you wrote when I made that response, but with football we were always taught head up, bullneck, nose in chest, up and through. Which I realized is probably illegal now with the up and through part. Haha. I was a wrestler too so my tackles were typically all basically double legs, if I could. Double leg translates pretty well to rugby, too.

Good to know there are other members of the D3 football club here . Wittenberg University in the house.

I'm going to have to guess what you mean by 'double leg', is that hitting them and getting behind their knees with your arms so they go straight down? So taking out both of their legs at once?

If that's the case, then its only useful sometimes. Sometimes you want to keep them on their feet (say you have a really good forward pack who are nearby and you'll be able to drive them back a ways), whereas other times you will want to bring them straight down (no one else around so you can scavenge the ball as soon as you are on your feet/too close to the tryline and you don't want them accidentally falling over it).

 cincydooley wrote:

I think I may have misunderstood what you wrote when I made that response, but with football we were always taught head up, bullneck, nose in chest, up and through. Which I realized is probably illegal now with the up and through part. Haha. I was a wrestler too so my tackles were typically all basically double legs, if I could. Double leg translates pretty well to rugby, too.

I was also a wrestler, and a proper double leg takedown does not involve placing your head in your target's torso.

Well, so much for pleasant conversation. I'm sure you were simply much better than me and I had no idea what I was doing.

 cincydooley wrote:
Well, so much for pleasant conversation. I'm sure you were simply much better than me and I had no idea what I was doing.

I made no such claim, and there is no need to argue defensively.

That said, using your head as a principle point of contact is always foolish; especially when the option to engage an opponent obliquely exists.

I don't care. I want to see players look like they were hit by rhinos for my amusement. In fact I want to see the defensive line try to stop a charging rhino.

 motyak wrote:
You say that, but on some days it becomes a 9 person game if you have a good halfback, 8 otherwise, and you just ruck ruck ruck from the lineout 30m away to the tryline.

This sentence makes no sense to me

Is it time to break out the Gladius swords and Scutum shields yet? No. Then it is a second tier gladiatorial sport in my book.

In other news, I hear that these reports are seriously impacting recruitment of players on the Youth League levels; which will eventually impact recruits that funnel into the NFL.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 motyak wrote:
You say that, but on some days it becomes a 9 person game if you have a good halfback, 8 otherwise, and you just ruck ruck ruck from the lineout 30m away to the tryline.

This sentence makes no sense to me

That's understandable, a similar sentence in NFL speak would probably have me just as lost.

It means that on rainy days where you don't want to pass the ball a long way in case you drop it (a bigger deal in rugby than NFL), you take the ball into a tackle, go down, secure it in a mini scrum (basically) then do it again, and again, and again, making about a metre each time. It's good fun.