Hip drop tackle: what is it? Should it be a penalty? Will the refs even be able to identify and call it correctly? (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

Owners to vote on a drop tackle rule...

Meanwhile, the committee's attempt to eliminate the hip-drop tackles -- a dangerous technique that often results in lower body injuries -- requires officials to note two actions: If a defender "grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms," according to the wording of the proposal and also "unweights himself by swiveling and dropping his hips and/or lower body, landing on and trapping the runner's leg(s) at or below the knee."

I don't like this one bit. Adding subjectivity on almost every tackle isn't a good thing.

Is it really all that subjective though? Landing on the players legs is a key component...none of the things they're looking for to define it are all that difficult to see

I think it will be. I think the criteria of wrapping up and "unweighting" is a textbook tackle. Now if you land on the players legs in the process of this it's going to be a penalty?

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Owners to vote on a drop tackle rule...

Meanwhile, the committee's attempt to eliminate the hip-drop tackles -- a dangerous technique that often results in lower body injuries -- requires officials to note two actions: If a defender "grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms," according to the wording of the proposal and also "unweights himself by swiveling and dropping his hips and/or lower body, landing on and trapping the runner's leg(s) at or below the knee."

I don't like this one bit. Adding subjectivity on almost every tackle isn't a good thing.

Is it really all that subjective though? Landing on the players legs is a key component...none of the things they're looking for to define it are all that difficult to see

I think it will be. I think the criteria of wrapping up and "unweighting" is a textbook tackle. Now if you land on the players legs in the process of this it's going to be a penalty?

It’s like porn. You know it when you see it imo

 

[belljr]

Owners to vote on a drop tackle rule...

Meanwhile, the committee's attempt to eliminate the hip-drop tackles -- a dangerous technique that often results in lower body injuries -- requires officials to note two actions: If a defender "grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms," according to the wording of the proposal and also "unweights himself by swiveling and dropping his hips and/or lower body, landing on and trapping the runner's leg(s) at or below the knee."

I don't like this one bit. Adding subjectivity on almost every tackle isn't a good thing.

Is it really all that subjective though? Landing on the players legs is a key component...none of the things they're looking for to define it are all that difficult to see

I think it will be. I think the criteria of wrapping up and "unweighting" is a textbook tackle. Now if you land on the players legs in the process of this it's going to be a penalty?

They can't get the body weight on a sack correct.....color me skeptical

 

[Max Power]

Owners to vote on a drop tackle rule...

Meanwhile, the committee's attempt to eliminate the hip-drop tackles -- a dangerous technique that often results in lower body injuries -- requires officials to note two actions: If a defender "grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms," according to the wording of the proposal and also "unweights himself by swiveling and dropping his hips and/or lower body, landing on and trapping the runner's leg(s) at or below the knee."

I don't like this one bit. Adding subjectivity on almost every tackle isn't a good thing.

Is it really all that subjective though? Landing on the players legs is a key component...none of the things they're looking for to define it are all that difficult to see

I think it will be. I think the criteria of wrapping up and "unweighting" is a textbook tackle. Now if you land on the players legs in the process of this it's going to be a penalty?

It’s like porn. You know it when you see it imo

Sadly at least 2 or 3 times a game the refs see things differently than I do. This would be another one to add to the list.

 

[need2know]

Owners to vote on a drop tackle rule...

Meanwhile, the committee's attempt to eliminate the hip-drop tackles -- a dangerous technique that often results in lower body injuries -- requires officials to note two actions: If a defender "grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms," according to the wording of the proposal and also "unweights himself by swiveling and dropping his hips and/or lower body, landing on and trapping the runner's leg(s) at or below the knee."

I don't like this one bit. Adding subjectivity on almost every tackle isn't a good thing.

Is it really all that subjective though? Landing on the players legs is a key component...none of the things they're looking for to define it are all that difficult to see

I think it will be. I think the criteria of wrapping up and "unweighting" is a textbook tackle. Now if you land on the players legs in the process of this it's going to be a penalty?

They can't get the body weight on a sack correct.....color me skeptical

Also have problems with catches and spotting the ball. I don't want to give them more to do. They don't do great with the tasks they have

 

[Ilov80s]

I almost feel like it needs to be a thing the refs on the field can't call but refs in the booth or refs in NY can review and if ruled illegal the player who did it is removed from the game or suspended the next week. I agree with @need2know that the refs are already looking at too much and struggling to handle it.

 

[Da Guru]

I almost feel like it needs to be a thing the refs on the field can't call but refs in the booth or refs in NY can review and if ruled illegal the player who did it is removed from the game or suspended the next week. I agree with @need2know that the refs are already looking at too much and struggling to handle it.

I don`t want any more delays in play though. I saw Hutch do 3-4 hip drops last year but by chance he did not land on the legs of the runner. If by chance he caught a foot should he be suspended? I don`t want that.

 

[menobrown]

I'd be hard pressed to come up with something I've agreed with the NFLPA more on:

x.com

twitter.com

 

[rockaction]

Gonna send @Hot Sauce Guy into a tizzy. That's all I know.

I'd be hard pressed to come up with something I've agreed with the NFLPA more on:

https://twitter.com/NFLPA/status/1770559945055916058

I clicked on this thinking I'd read typical boilerplate about the issue. Whoa. I have to say that I totally disagree with them. It's become a move that is almost rehearsed and its use is obvious to me and tactically designed to hurt players. It should be easy to enforce. That's purely my opinion.

Take heart, NFLPA—we agree on grass fields, so we'll always have that!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Gonna send @Hot Sauce Guy into a tizzy. That's all I know.

I'd be hard pressed to come up with something I've agreed with the NFLPA more on:

https://twitter.com/NFLPA/status/1770559945055916058

I clicked on this thinking I'd read typical boilerplate about the issue. Whoa. I have to say that I totally disagree with them. It's become a move that is almost rehearsed and its use is obvious to me and tactically designed to hurt players. It should be easy to enforce. That's purely my opinion.

Take heart, NFLPA—we agree on grass fields, so we'll always have that!

I’m not in a tizzy.

People can have different opinions on things and remain tizzy-less.

I don’t see every tackle that ends up like this as a deliberate intentional means of causing injury. I’m of the opinion that what starts out as a normal tackle can sometimes result in an inadvertent hip-drop tackle.

Might a small % of these be intentional? Possible.

Defenders tackle. Offensive players try to break tackles. Lots of stuff happens with 2 big dudes trying to achieve opposing goals. Sometimes it’s good stuff for the defender like a tackle. Sometimes it’s good stuff for an offensive player like extra yardage.

And sometimes it’s bad for everyone because it results in injury.

There’s always swimming or lacrosse for players who don’t want to be tackled for a living.

 

[Max Power]

Gonna send @Hot Sauce Guy into a tizzy. That's all I know.

I'd be hard pressed to come up with something I've agreed with the NFLPA more on:

https://twitter.com/NFLPA/status/1770559945055916058

I clicked on this thinking I'd read typical boilerplate about the issue. Whoa. I have to say that I totally disagree with them. It's become a move that is almost rehearsed and its use is obvious to me and tactically designed to hurt players. It should be easy to enforce. That's purely my opinion.

Take heart, NFLPA—we agree on grass fields, so we'll always have that!

I have to disagree it's designed to hurt people. I think defenders have limited tackling options from certain angles and have to resort to body weight style tackles against bigger players.

The Logan Wilson tackle on Andrew's wasn't dirty at all. Wilson had to stop Andrew's forward momentum by going to the ground and just happened to land on his ankle.

 

[rockaction]

I’m not in a tizzy.

People can have different opinions on things and remain tizzy-less.

Aw jeez. You haven’t even weighed in yet. How would I know your attitude right now? I was teasing you, bro. No more and no less.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Aw jeez. You haven’t even weighed in yet. How would I know your attitude right now? I was teasing you, bro. No more and no less.

Oh I know. You’re not that subtle. All good. lol

 

[zed2283]

Jumping in again to repeat, there is no such thing as a "hip drop tackle." It's just a tackle. The exact same tackle you grew up with in the back yard.

 

[pinkstapler]

I guess most of my trepidation comes from the current state of reffing in the league and my disbelief they will be good at identifying and making these calls. The more I watched rugby videos explaining and showing examples, the more I did think there's a decently clear distinction between tackles from behind that are illegal hip drops and those that aren't.

Also, while my tin foil hat isn't quite solid enough to believe the NFL is rigged lol, I do think the organization itself could have ulterior motives here. In general, rules that have been pushed through in recent years all seem to be very conducive to increasing offense; especially big plays, broken plays, TD plays. Limiting a defenders ability to make open field tackles (for a minute removing the notion of whether it's a dangerous tackle/debating how dangerous it is vs. it's impact on the game) fits this trend, and I don't think that's really debatable. It will make things easier for the offense, and increase big plays/broken plays/scoring plays. Also, the other tin foil hat notion, games seem to be getting longer imo. Referees having to confer on what's likely to be a lot of tackles from behind is only going to increase this. And if they make the call one that a coach can challenge, or a play that will get reviewed within 2 minute situations by the box, will increase it a lot I believe. Which means more commercial and ad breaks, and more revenue. Those are two worries for me as well.

The one area I'm still fuzzy on are plays where a defender, who's likely stationary or with little forward momentum, is being met by an offensive player at full speed with a sizable downhill start. They arm wrap the offensive player, who's momentum continues forward, the defender swings towards his backside due to the offensive players force and momentum being much greater, the offensive player falls down continuing forward due to his momentum, and the end shot we see on camera is basically the offensive player on his belly stretching the ball forward for the 1st down marker or goalline, and a defender with his arms wrapped at his waist and his chest laying on his lower half including his legs. By the definition I read of the proposed rule, this qualifies as a penalty. By everything I learned watching those rugby videos, this is in no way a hip drop. It feels like it's missing a key component, and really what makes the play dangerous, and it's a torquing motion where the defender really slings himself into the offensive players legs.

 

[Da Guru]

I'd be hard pressed to come up with something I've agreed with the NFLPA more on:

x.com

twitter.com

Sad but What the players want will mean next to nothing to the NFL and rules committee.

Richard Sherman

@RSherman_25

Brother I’m at a loss for words. Guys going to have to make a decision to either allow them to drag them to the first down or give it by penalty. They are ruining the game

 

[Max Power]

The one area I'm still fuzzy on are plays where a defender, who's likely stationary or with little forward momentum, is being met by an offensive player at full speed with a sizable downhill start. They arm wrap the offensive player, who's momentum continues forward, the defender swings towards his backside due to the offensive players force and momentum being much greater, the offensive player falls down continuing forward due to his momentum, and the end shot we see on camera is basically the offensive player on his belly stretching the ball forward for the 1st down marker or goalline, and a defender with his arms wrapped at his waist and his chest laying on his lower half including his legs. By the definition I read of the proposed rule, this qualifies as a penalty. By everything I learned watching those rugby videos, this is in no way a hip drop. It feels like it's missing a key component, and really what makes the play dangerous, and it's a torquing motion where the defender really slings himself into the offensive players legs.

The bolded is what scares me the most. Like you said if they alter the wording, I could entertain it a bit more, but as its written currently it's a mess.

 

[Max Power]

NFL officials responded Thursday to protests over a proposal to outlaw a version of the "hip-drop tackle," a technique the league says has resulted in an injury rate that is up to 25 times higher than on tackles when it is not employed.

"As gatekeepers of the game, this is something that we have to remove," said Troy Vincent, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, during a conference call with reporters.

According to competition committee chairman Rich McKay, the proposed rule was written to address only a subset of the rugby tackling style that has spread around the NFL in recent years. It calls for a 15-yard penalty if a defender grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms and unweights himself by swiveling and dropping his hips and/or lower body, landing on and trapping the runner's leg at or below the knee."

The NFL Players Association joined many current and former players in objecting to the proposal this week, which needs approval from 24 owners to pass. In a statement posted to social media, the NFLPA said the rule would cause confusion among players, coaches, officials and fans.​

But both McKay and Vincent strongly implied Thursday that the rule would likely be enforced in ways similar to that of the "use of helmet" rule, which typically leads to warning letters and fines in the week following a game rather than by flags during the game.

"We are very quick to say, 'Listen it's hard to see all of the elements of the hip drop,' in one continuous action," McKay said. "So the number one thing we had to do is get a rule on the books that we can enforce on Monday and try to get the technique out of the game."

NFL officials back hip-drop tackle rule change

NFL officials responded Thursday to protests over a proposal to outlaw a version of the "hip-drop tackle," a technique the league says has resulted in an injury rate that is up to 25 times higher than on tackles when it is not employed.

www.espn.com

Right there is why 50% of the league doesn't support this. NFL wants to fine you on a Monday for tackle that wasn't even flagged on Sunday. I somehow hate it even more now.

 

[jm192]

I see both sides of it.

We don't want players out for extended times if it's avoidable.

BUT...

At some point, we've really neutered the defense's ability to make a play.

 

[Ilov80s]

I almost feel like it needs to be a thing the refs on the field can't call but refs in the booth or refs in NY can review and if ruled illegal the player who did it is removed from the game or suspended the next week. I agree with @need2know that the refs are already looking at too much and struggling to handle it.

I don`t want any more delays in play though. I saw Hutch do 3-4 hip drops last year but by chance he did not land on the legs of the runner. If by chance he caught a foot should he be suspended? I don`t want that.

Yeah that’s what I am saying. You don’t stop the game. Someone other than the refs in the game review it and when they come to a decision, they either call in and the refs eject the player or it’s decided by the league on Tuesday and the player gets suspended for the next game.

 

[Ilov80s]

NFL officials responded Thursday to protests over a proposal to outlaw a version of the "hip-drop tackle," a technique the league says has resulted in an injury rate that is up to 25 times higher than on tackles when it is not employed.

"As gatekeepers of the game, this is something that we have to remove," said Troy Vincent, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, during a conference call with reporters.

According to competition committee chairman Rich McKay, the proposed rule was written to address only a subset of the rugby tackling style that has spread around the NFL in recent years. It calls for a 15-yard penalty if a defender grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms and unweights himself by swiveling and dropping his hips and/or lower body, landing on and trapping the runner's leg at or below the knee."

The NFL Players Association joined many current and former players in objecting to the proposal this week, which needs approval from 24 owners to pass. In a statement posted to social media, the NFLPA said the rule would cause confusion among players, coaches, officials and fans.​

But both McKay and Vincent strongly implied Thursday that the rule would likely be enforced in ways similar to that of the "use of helmet" rule, which typically leads to warning letters and fines in the week following a game rather than by flags during the game.

"We are very quick to say, 'Listen it's hard to see all of the elements of the hip drop,' in one continuous action," McKay said. "So the number one thing we had to do is get a rule on the books that we can enforce on Monday and try to get the technique out of the game."

NFL officials back hip-drop tackle rule change

NFL officials responded Thursday to protests over a proposal to outlaw a version of the "hip-drop tackle," a technique the league says has resulted in an injury rate that is up to 25 times higher than on tackles when it is not employed.

www.espn.com

Right there is why 50% of the league doesn't support this. NFL wants to fine you on a Monday for tackle that wasn't even flagged on Sunday. I somehow hate it even more now.

Yeah the messed up part is the league is fining people for plays so much less dangerous than the hip drop. Makes no sense. Also the NFL needs to fine by contract % and not just flat rates. A $50,00 fine to a 5th round rookie is not at all the same as it is to TJ Watt.

 

[Da Guru]

Been watching football forever. I can`t remember anyone ever talking about the so called 'hip drop" tackle before last season.

 

[Joe Schmo]

This is what the NRL(Rugby) considers elements of a hip drop tackle, which they have also banned because of injury concerns. It's not just letting your weight fall as you grab a runner in order to get them to the ground, it's also adding the body twist with the intent of falling on the runners legs that makes the technique inherently more prone to injury.

Normal tackle technique trains you to become dead weight but does not incorporate a body twist onto the legs. That's the new part.

 

[pinkstapler]

This is what the NRL(Rugby) considers elements of a hip drop tackle, which they have also banned because of injury concerns. It's not just letting your weight fall as you grab a runner in order to get them to the ground, it's also adding the body twist with the intent of falling on the runners legs that makes the technique inherently more prone to injury.

Normal tackle technique trains you to become dead weight but does not incorporate a body twist onto the legs. That's the new part.

This is what I was doing a poor job of referencing, much appreciated. And I think something the NFL needs to include in the definition of the penalty and referee training.

 

[zed2283]

Been watching football forever. I can`t remember anyone ever talking about the so called 'hip drop" tackle before last season.

That's because it was formerly known as a tackle.

 

[JohnnyU]

Butkus is rolling over in his grave.

 

[KellysHeroes]

maybe the Offensive Player should just protect themselves

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm aligned with Troy Vincent on this:

“I’ve been in that position before as a leader of the Player’s Association involved in many of the meetings,” NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent said during a Thursday conference call with reporters regarding the proposal rule changes. “There’s always going to be resistance from the player when you talk about removing things. There’s going to be resistance, and I respect that. There was resistance in removing the blindside block. There was resistance removing the crackback block. There was resistance removing the attack block. There was resistance removing the horse collar. Again, I mentioned it earlier in the opening, durability and availability is the number one and two aspect for any professional athlete and particularly with football players. I have a technique that causes 20 to 25-percent injury rate when it occurs. I respect their position, but as gatekeepers of the game . . . this is something that we have to remove.

... And the chop block, and lowering the helmet, and landing on quarterbacks and...

I'd imagine many of you had grandfathers bemoaning the fact that Deacon Jones couldn't give people concussions with his head slap move anymore.

Anyway, it's probably misnamed; it's not the general dropping off hips that's the problem. The problem is the dropping of full body weight into the backside of a guy's legs when engaged in the act of tackling.

 

[Da Guru]

I'm aligned with Troy Vincent on this:

“I’ve been in that position before as a leader of the Player’s Association involved in many of the meetings,” NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent said during a Thursday conference call with reporters regarding the proposal rule changes. “There’s always going to be resistance from the player when you talk about removing things. There’s going to be resistance, and I respect that. There was resistance in removing the blindside block. There was resistance removing the crackback block. There was resistance removing the attack block. There was resistance removing the horse collar. Again, I mentioned it earlier in the opening, durability and availability is the number one and two aspect for any professional athlete and particularly with football players. I have a technique that causes 20 to 25-percent injury rate when it occurs. I respect their position, but as gatekeepers of the game . . . this is something that we have to remove.

... And the chop block, and lowering the helmet, and landing on quarterbacks and...

I'd imagine many of you had grandfathers bemoaning the fact that Deacon Jones couldn't give people concussions with his head slap move anymore.

Anyway, it's probably misnamed; it's not the general dropping off hips that's the problem. The problem is the dropping of full body weight into the backside of a guy's legs when engaged in the act of tackling.

I get it but playing at game speed trying to tackle guys from behind who don`t want to go down it will be difficult. There are awkward tackles from all angles every game.

Might make it a two part rule. No bodyweight dropped, and runners must give themselves up and go down if engaged from behind to prevent possible injury.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm aligned with Troy Vincent on this:

“I’ve been in that position before as a leader of the Player’s Association involved in many of the meetings,” NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent said during a Thursday conference call with reporters regarding the proposal rule changes. “There’s always going to be resistance from the player when you talk about removing things. There’s going to be resistance, and I respect that. There was resistance in removing the blindside block. There was resistance removing the crackback block. There was resistance removing the attack block. There was resistance removing the horse collar. Again, I mentioned it earlier in the opening, durability and availability is the number one and two aspect for any professional athlete and particularly with football players. I have a technique that causes 20 to 25-percent injury rate when it occurs. I respect their position, but as gatekeepers of the game . . . this is something that we have to remove.

... And the chop block, and lowering the helmet, and landing on quarterbacks and...

I'd imagine many of you had grandfathers bemoaning the fact that Deacon Jones couldn't give people concussions with his head slap move anymore.

Anyway, it's probably misnamed; it's not the general dropping off hips that's the problem. The problem is the dropping of full body weight into the backside of a guy's legs when engaged in the act of tackling.

I get it but playing at game speed trying to tackle guys from behind who don`t want to go down it will be difficult. There are awkward tackles from all angles every game.

Might make it a two part rule. No bodyweight dropped, and runners must give themselves up and go down if engaged from behind to prevent possible injury.

I don't mean to parse your words too much but there's lots of things that are difficult that aren't counterbalanced by allowing something dangerous. It's difficult for running backs to block the knees of rushing, bigger d-linemen/linebackers, for instance.

There are mismatches of many types on the football field. I don't think you rectify that by allowing things that cause more injuries.

 

[JohnnyU]

Why don't they just switch to flag football. Call it the NFFL.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Why not just give them broadswords and put lions on the field? Are they "modern day gladiators" or aren't they?

Hyperbole is fun...wheeeeeee!

 

[Da Guru]

I'm aligned with Troy Vincent on this:

“I’ve been in that position before as a leader of the Player’s Association involved in many of the meetings,” NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent said during a Thursday conference call with reporters regarding the proposal rule changes. “There’s always going to be resistance from the player when you talk about removing things. There’s going to be resistance, and I respect that. There was resistance in removing the blindside block. There was resistance removing the crackback block. There was resistance removing the attack block. There was resistance removing the horse collar. Again, I mentioned it earlier in the opening, durability and availability is the number one and two aspect for any professional athlete and particularly with football players. I have a technique that causes 20 to 25-percent injury rate when it occurs. I respect their position, but as gatekeepers of the game . . . this is something that we have to remove.

... And the chop block, and lowering the helmet, and landing on quarterbacks and...

I'd imagine many of you had grandfathers bemoaning the fact that Deacon Jones couldn't give people concussions with his head slap move anymore.

Anyway, it's probably misnamed; it's not the general dropping off hips that's the problem. The problem is the dropping of full body weight into the backside of a guy's legs when engaged in the act of tackling.

I get it but playing at game speed trying to tackle guys from behind who don`t want to go down it will be difficult. There are awkward tackles from all angles every game.

Might make it a two part rule. No bodyweight dropped, and runners must give themselves up and go down if engaged from behind to prevent possible injury.

I don't mean to parse your words too much but there's lots of things that are difficult that aren't counterbalanced by allowing something dangerous. It's difficult for running backs to block the knees of rushing, bigger d-linemen/linebackers, for instance.

There are mismatches of many types on the football field. I don't think you rectify that by allowing things that cause more injuries.

The NFL and safety has always been a misnomer.

Artificial turf causes way more season/career ending injuries than the so called hip drop, but that will never be addressed because it makes the fields looks cleaner and the indoor venues. There have been numerous studies done on this. We have all seen many players blow their knees our without being touched on turf.



Studies found that non-contact (ACL) and (PCL) tears occurred almost 3 times as often on turf than on grass.

Even Athletes playing at lower levels experienced anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears almost two times more often on turf than they did on grass.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm aligned with Troy Vincent on this:

“I’ve been in that position before as a leader of the Player’s Association involved in many of the meetings,” NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent said during a Thursday conference call with reporters regarding the proposal rule changes. “There’s always going to be resistance from the player when you talk about removing things. There’s going to be resistance, and I respect that. There was resistance in removing the blindside block. There was resistance removing the crackback block. There was resistance removing the attack block. There was resistance removing the horse collar. Again, I mentioned it earlier in the opening, durability and availability is the number one and two aspect for any professional athlete and particularly with football players. I have a technique that causes 20 to 25-percent injury rate when it occurs. I respect their position, but as gatekeepers of the game . . . this is something that we have to remove.

... And the chop block, and lowering the helmet, and landing on quarterbacks and...

I'd imagine many of you had grandfathers bemoaning the fact that Deacon Jones couldn't give people concussions with his head slap move anymore.

Anyway, it's probably misnamed; it's not the general dropping off hips that's the problem. The problem is the dropping of full body weight into the backside of a guy's legs when engaged in the act of tackling.

I get it but playing at game speed trying to tackle guys from behind who don`t want to go down it will be difficult. There are awkward tackles from all angles every game.

Might make it a two part rule. No bodyweight dropped, and runners must give themselves up and go down if engaged from behind to prevent possible injury.

I don't mean to parse your words too much but there's lots of things that are difficult that aren't counterbalanced by allowing something dangerous. It's difficult for running backs to block the knees of rushing, bigger d-linemen/linebackers, for instance.

There are mismatches of many types on the football field. I don't think you rectify that by allowing things that cause more injuries.

The NFL and safety has always been a misnomer.

Artificial turf causes way more season/career ending injuries than the so called hip drop, but that will never be addressed because it makes the fields looks cleaner and the indoor venues. There have been numerous studies done on this. We have all seen many players blow their knees our without being touched on turf.



Studies found that non-contact (ACL) and (PCL) tears occurred almost 3 times as often on turf than on grass.

Even Athletes playing at lower levels experienced anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears almost two times more often on turf than they did on grass.

You'll get no argument from me about the NFL being two faced. They should fix the turf issue too.

 

[Da Guru]

I'm aligned with Troy Vincent on this:

“I’ve been in that position before as a leader of the Player’s Association involved in many of the meetings,” NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent said during a Thursday conference call with reporters regarding the proposal rule changes. “There’s always going to be resistance from the player when you talk about removing things. There’s going to be resistance, and I respect that. There was resistance in removing the blindside block. There was resistance removing the crackback block. There was resistance removing the attack block. There was resistance removing the horse collar. Again, I mentioned it earlier in the opening, durability and availability is the number one and two aspect for any professional athlete and particularly with football players. I have a technique that causes 20 to 25-percent injury rate when it occurs. I respect their position, but as gatekeepers of the game . . . this is something that we have to remove.

... And the chop block, and lowering the helmet, and landing on quarterbacks and...

I'd imagine many of you had grandfathers bemoaning the fact that Deacon Jones couldn't give people concussions with his head slap move anymore.

Anyway, it's probably misnamed; it's not the general dropping off hips that's the problem. The problem is the dropping of full body weight into the backside of a guy's legs when engaged in the act of tackling.

I get it but playing at game speed trying to tackle guys from behind who don`t want to go down it will be difficult. There are awkward tackles from all angles every game.

Might make it a two part rule. No bodyweight dropped, and runners must give themselves up and go down if engaged from behind to prevent possible injury.

I don't mean to parse your words too much but there's lots of things that are difficult that aren't counterbalanced by allowing something dangerous. It's difficult for running backs to block the knees of rushing, bigger d-linemen/linebackers, for instance.

There are mismatches of many types on the football field. I don't think you rectify that by allowing things that cause more injuries.

The NFL and safety has always been a misnomer.

Artificial turf causes way more season/career ending injuries than the so called hip drop, but that will never be addressed because it makes the fields looks cleaner and the indoor venues. There have been numerous studies done on this. We have all seen many players blow their knees our without being touched on turf.



Studies found that non-contact (ACL) and (PCL) tears occurred almost 3 times as often on turf than on grass.

Even Athletes playing at lower levels experienced anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears almost two times more often on turf than they did on grass.

You'll get no argument from me about the NFL being two faced. They should fix the turf issue too.

Agree, Troy Vincent is just an NFL front office yes man. Vincent would never say "Well as a former DB tackling is difficult and I disagree that we need a rule change, but now we should take a look at all the injuries caused by artificial turf.

JJ Watt stated. "I did not even know what hip drop means, I could not demonstrate it. The game is so fast and tackles happen, you can`t lead with your head anymore so more players are wrapping up and pulling down, if you can`t lead with your head or pull down from behind what is left?"

 

[Gruden's Keyboard]

People who don't see the problems with hip drop tackles don't understand ball.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I looked into this a while ago and my understanding is the rule as enforced in NRL would apply to very few tackles in the NFL. In other words, this form of legal tackle appears rarely in the NFL and therefore causes very few injuries — but when it happens, there is a substantial increase in the risk of injury. I agree that after-game enforcement is the best way to deal with it because of the difficulty of training existing referees to call it consistently in real time. I don’t think it would be the great upheaval doom scenario some are speculating. I disagree with the suggestion that it’s hard to tackle from behind without doing a hip drop. The great great majority of tackles from the side or from behind are cleanly executed without swinging your hips and dropping them on the ball carriers legs.

Also, a comment as a rugby fan. The hip drop tackle is known as a dangerous technique but is not outright banned or penalized in the great majority of world rugby. It is not penalized in Rugby Union, which is the most popular form of rugby and the type of rugby most of us would recognize. It is banned in two specific leagues in Australia that play a different form of the game known as “rugby league.”

 

[Summer Wheat]

People who don't see the problems with hip drop tackles don't understand ball.

I guess most NFL players don`t understand ball then.

 

[JohnnyU]

What’s next, throwing a flag for how hard you tackle someone? Oh wait, they already do that with the ridiculous landing with your full weight on the QB penalty. That one is a doozy.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I almost feel like it needs to be a thing the refs on the field can't call but refs in the booth or refs in NY can review and if ruled illegal the player who did it is removed from the game or suspended the next week. I agree with @need2know that the refs are already looking at too much and struggling to handle it.

I don`t want any more delays in play though. I saw Hutch do 3-4 hip drops last year but by chance he did not land on the legs of the runner. If by chance he caught a foot should he be suspended? I don`t want that.

Yeah that’s what I am saying. You don’t stop the game. Someone other than the refs in the game review it and when they come to a decision, they either call in and the refs eject the player or it’s decided by the league on Tuesday and the player gets suspended for the next game.

What if it’s an unintentional hip drop?

LB A tackles receiver B.
Player A has his arms around B’s hips.

Receiver B tries for YAC, dragging LB A behind him.

LB A’s only option is gravity, going dead weight while still holding B’s hips.

Player B turns awkwardly upfield going for those yards, A lands on his foot, dislocating it.

Does player A get suspended & fined?

If so, congratulations. Tackle football is dead. Put flags on them and rename the sport.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

JJ Watt stated. "I did not even know what hip drop means, I could not demonstrate it. The game is so fast and tackles happen, you can`t lead with your head anymore so more players are wrapping up and pulling down, if you can`t lead with your head or pull down from behind what is left?"

watt is corrrct.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

What’s next, throwing a flag for how hard you tackle someone? Oh wait, they already do that with the ridiculous landing with your full weight on the QB penalty. That one is a doozy.

Except for AJ Hawk, everyone seems to have figured it out.

 

[JohnnyU]

What’s next, throwing a flag for how hard you tackle someone? Oh wait, they already do that with the ridiculous landing with your full weight on the QB penalty. That one is a doozy.

Except for AJ Hawk, everyone seems to have figured it out.

That’s just it, they shouldn’t have to figure it out. My God, one should be able to tackle a QB and not have to worry about whether his full weight is on the QB. That is just plain stupid.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

What’s next, throwing a flag for how hard you tackle someone? Oh wait, they already do that with the ridiculous landing with your full weight on the QB penalty. That one is a doozy.

Except for AJ Hawk, everyone seems to have figured it out.

That’s just it, they shouldn’t have to figure it out. My God, one should be able to tackle a QB and not have to worry about whether his full weight on the QB. That is just plain stupid.

I find your argument compelling and have subsequently changed my mind.

 

[Ilov80s]

I almost feel like it needs to be a thing the refs on the field can't call but refs in the booth or refs in NY can review and if ruled illegal the player who did it is removed from the game or suspended the next week. I agree with @need2know that the refs are already looking at too much and struggling to handle it.

I don`t want any more delays in play though. I saw Hutch do 3-4 hip drops last year but by chance he did not land on the legs of the runner. If by chance he caught a foot should he be suspended? I don`t want that.

Yeah that’s what I am saying. You don’t stop the game. Someone other than the refs in the game review it and when they come to a decision, they either call in and the refs eject the player or it’s decided by the league on Tuesday and the player gets suspended for the next game.

What if it’s an unintentional hip drop?

LB A tackles receiver B.
Player A has his arms around B’s hips.

Receiver B tries for YAC, dragging LB A behind him.

LB A’s only option is gravity, going dead weight while still holding B’s hips.

Player B turns awkwardly upfield going for those yards, A lands on his foot, dislocating it.

Does player A get suspended & fined?

If so, congratulations. Tackle football is dead. Put flags on them and rename the sport.

I don't know. Intent is difficult to ascertain. I am not even in favor of a rule outlawing it. I am just saying, if they decide to outlaw it then this is how I would want it done. Don't add more to the refs plate, don't add more stoppages to the game, etc.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don't know. Intent is difficult to ascertain

That’s my entire point and why this should not be a rule.

 

[Ilov80s]

I don't know. Intent is difficult to ascertain

That’s my entire point and why this should not be a rule.

But you could put that into just about penalty. Did mean for helmet to helmet or did he just miss his target? Did he mean to trip him or did he just happen stick his leg in the wrong spot at the wrong time? In the end, intent doesn't really matter. Did you trip the guy or not? Just like in life. I didn't mean to hit a pedestrian with my car or I didn't mean to knock over that vase at the store. It doesn't mean that relieves me of the consequences of that.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't know. Intent is difficult to ascertain

That’s my entire point and why this should not be a rule.

But you could put that into just about penalty. Did mean for helmet to helmet or did he just miss his target? Did he mean to trip him or did he just happen stick his leg in the wrong spot at the wrong time? In the end, intent doesn't really matter. Did you trip the guy or not? Just like in life. I didn't mean to hit a pedestrian with my car or I didn't mean to knock over that vase at the store. It doesn't mean that relieves me of the consequences of that.

Mr. Jones, why did you shoot him 6 times? “I was cleaning my gun when it suddenly went off”.

 

[Ilov80s]

I don't know. Intent is difficult to ascertain

That’s my entire point and why this should not be a rule.

But you could put that into just about penalty. Did mean for helmet to helmet or did he just miss his target? Did he mean to trip him or did he just happen stick his leg in the wrong spot at the wrong time? In the end, intent doesn't really matter. Did you trip the guy or not? Just like in life. I didn't mean to hit a pedestrian with my car or I didn't mean to knock over that vase at the store. It doesn't mean that relieves me of the consequences of that.

Mr. Jones, why did you shoot him 6 times? “I was cleaning my gun when it suddenly went off”.

Oh well then, since you didn't mean to shoot him, we are just going let you walk free. Have a great day and just be a little more careful next time.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't know. Intent is difficult to ascertain

That’s my entire point and why this should not be a rule.

But you could put that into just about penalty. Did mean for helmet to helmet or did he just miss his target? Did he mean to trip him or did he just happen stick his leg in the wrong spot at the wrong time? In the end, intent doesn't really matter. Did you trip the guy or not? Just like in life. I didn't mean to hit a pedestrian with my car or I didn't mean to knock over that vase at the store. It doesn't mean that relieves me of the consequences of that.

Mr. Jones, why did you shoot him 6 times? “I was cleaning my gun when it suddenly went off”.

Oh well then, since you didn't mean to shoot him, we are just going let you walk free. Have a great day and just be a little more careful next time.

Will do, thank you officer. Say hi to the misses.