John Harbaugh gives a good analysis of why he's against the hip-drop tackle.
Maywood
Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'm not always in agreement with what John Harbaugh does, sometimes his decision making for the Ravens seems flawed. But this analysis of the hip-drop-tackle and why it should be banned is pure simplicity and right on the money for me.
Thanks, John.
Maywood.
“When did you ever hear about the hip-drop tackle until like two years ago, three years ago, right?,” Harbaugh said, via Jamison Hensley of ESPN.com. “That’s because it was discovered, probably, in rugby and started being executed as a standalone technique. It’s a three-part movement, [and] you’ve got to execute that play. You’ve got to be close enough to that ball carrier to actually get him around the hips, pull him close to yourself, swing your hips through and drop on the back of his legs. If you’re that close, wrap him up, tackle him and take him to the ground, like Ray Lewis used to do and everybody did for 100 years before that.”
Comments
I can get behind this thinking
Proper Tackling in the NFL is lacking big time.
They want to hit and too many times they hurt their own teammates.
this is a Hip-Drop...
"Like Ray Lewis used to do...." So we can go back to game tape and see him and Ed Reed what used to be done. Someone should ask him how many times he thinks they would have been thrown out for targeting and how many flags for defenseless players or making tackles by any means necessary.
He has a QB that makes a ton of money that loves to run and now he can complain every tackle a flag isnt thrown. It has nothing to do with trying to hurt someone, its just smaller guys that could be giving up 40-80 pounds or just got beat trying to bring someone down with their body weight
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I watched a report about the rules changes that are being made/proposed. What was said about use of the hip-drop is that it increases the frequency of leg/ankle injuries 20%, a fact supposedly acknowledged by the NFLPA, and yet they were opposed to the rule and the associated penalty. It should be interesting to see if there's a correlation in injury drop-off with implementation of the penalty. It's strange that the Union would be against this when they are so adamant about reducing injuries and the whole concussion protocol that was instituted recently. The two things don't mesh with each other.
It was also pointed out that the talk about the penalty being hard to call/identify doesn't make sense. It's a play that 100% of the time takes place with whoever has the ball, everyone is always watching that part of the game. I can't tell you how many times last season I called out "hip-drop" while watching a game. Sometimes the announcers mentioned it, mainly when a player gets up and is clearly hobbled/injured. The NFL has done a pretty good job of trying to get rid of all the really dangerous plays, blind side blocks, tripping, defenseless receiver, clipping, cutting Offensive Lineman when they're engaged, all the protections afforded the QB. This just seems like another proven dangerous play that injures a lot of players.
Also, I think all the remarks about "flag football" are a bit over the top. Think of all the really good defensive players we have watched over the years, they never used this technique and they didn't need to. They were skilled in their craft, new how to tackle.
I completely agree with everything Basebal21 says so consider that seconded! It’s a thing.
Those poor little CB's!!
I see "flag football" commentary as more hyperbole indicating the progression from "what few things constitute an illegal tackle" vs the flip to "what few options constitute legal tackles". This distinction is what I think many people have an issue with as more and more specific and, sometimes, subjective "football moves" are legislated into football.
Preventing injury by disallowing dangerous plays is a great strategy for maintaining the product.
Changing the product with the intent to prevent any and all bad outcomes is the concern many have.
If a DL trips into the knee of... I don't know... some random QB like... Brady.... Well. I guess the trip-knee tackle needs to be banned.
Transport Alan Page into today's NFL and... How many ambulances need to be ready to go?
None of these things are "banned" in the strict sense of the word. Players can still use the hip-drop if they can't adjust, it'll just be a 15 yard penalty if observed by an Official. What I believe the outcome of this to be is a teaching of more basic tackling fundamentals taught by coaches to players, going back probably all the way to High School. I've watched the NFL since 1965, at games and best of all on TV. Players always adjust, the game is fast moving but they always adjust. Rarely is there a block in the back, rarely is there tripping, rarely are QB's hit below the knees. Spearing still happens but not very often and there is still the occasional horse-collar tackle, but the players adjust to the rules and the game goes on without skipping a beat.
Despite all the chest thumping and gnashing of teeth over this rule change I doubt it will have much of a negative affect on what we watch. Quite the opposite, I see a reduction in ankle injuries and leg injuries overall. That's a good thing.
I agree with you that there will be minimal impact.
Historically, placing more subjectivity into the hands of the officials has led to some undesirable side-effects. I am only assuming that the purpose of rule changes wasn't to allow the refs to determine who wins -- if it was then, mission accomplished.
I've seen enough outcomes impacted by the refs, that I personally find the game less appealing.
I would point to the tackle on Pollard as a legal, and generally safe, tackle which will now be considered a 'hip drop tackle' even though it's not the same... it was solo and there was no swivel. That was bad luck.