FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[WarhawkDad]

Good morning OAC supporters.

UWW is a finalist in the Enterprise Leasing Small Schools, Big Stage contest and it is an opportunity for a DIII school to get recognition for all of DIII.   Please consider voting for UWW at
www.Facebook.com/BestofCollegeFootball

Thanks

WarhawkDad

[wally_wabash]

I think it is a legal hit under the current rules, but ExTartan already made my point. Hits like this are not the product of good football or good technique. They are a product of SportsCenter. Hits like this are also the reason I hope my boys do not want to play football. I understand the game is violent, but these kinds of hits are UNNECESSARILY violent. They don't represent the best way to tackle or finish a play, while at the same time they increase the odds of injury.

So a hit like this, without attempting to wrap up, is both dangerous and stupid. It does have the sole redeeming quality that it makes everyone watching the tape or from the stands go "Oooh" and chuckle that it wasn't them that just had his block knocked off.

Good entertainment, bad football. In this case it worked out, but I'm always happy when the DB leads with the shoulder attempting the big hit and the running back or receiver bounces off and keeps going for a big run. Had the tackler wrapped up, it is less flashy but more effective.

Oh, I don't know if that's fair.  I'm all for piling on ESPN when ESPN deserves it, but I don't think this is their fault.  We're quite a ways removed from the "Jacked Up!" era at ESPN.  I don't think there's really "fault" involved here.  I think it's a clean play.  No launching, no use of the helmet as a weapon, and no targeting the head of the receiver.  I'm calling this good defense.  Could have been great defense, except that somehow that kid held onto the ball. 

ETP mentioned that maybe we shouldn't allow that kind of collision to be a means to defend passes.  Why not?  Is the guy supposed to stop and wait for that receiver to collect the ball and start running for the end zone before he goes to tackle?  Haven't we restricted defenses enough with current rules? 

[ExTartanPlayer]

I think it is a legal hit under the current rules, but ExTartan already made my point. Hits like this are not the product of good football or good technique. They are a product of SportsCenter. Hits like this are also the reason I hope my boys do not want to play football. I understand the game is violent, but these kinds of hits are UNNECESSARILY violent. They don't represent the best way to tackle or finish a play, while at the same time they increase the odds of injury.

So a hit like this, without attempting to wrap up, is both dangerous and stupid. It does have the sole redeeming quality that it makes everyone watching the tape or from the stands go "Oooh" and chuckle that it wasn't them that just had his block knocked off.

Good entertainment, bad football. In this case it worked out, but I'm always happy when the DB leads with the shoulder attempting the big hit and the running back or receiver bounces off and keeps going for a big run. Had the tackler wrapped up, it is less flashy but more effective.

Oh, I don't know if that's fair.  I'm all for piling on ESPN when ESPN deserves it, but I don't think this is their fault.  We're quite a ways removed from the "Jacked Up!" era at ESPN.  I don't think there's really "fault" involved here.  I think it's a clean play.  No launching, no use of the helmet as a weapon, and no targeting the head of the receiver.  I'm calling this good defense.  Could have been great defense, except that somehow that kid held onto the ball. 

ETP mentioned that maybe we shouldn't allow that kind of collision to be a means to defend passes.  Why not?  Is the guy supposed to stop and wait for that receiver to collect the ball and start running for the end zone before he goes to tackle?  Haven't we restricted defenses enough with current rules?

It definitely is a clean play under the current rules, and I know I'm asking for a little leap of faith here, I don't have a perfect solution.  But there is some part of me that wonders, yeah, what if we made defending passes strictly about playing the ball rather than the man?  Now, I do agree in this case, the kid already was in the process of catching the ball and this could reasonably be deemed a tackle of a ballcarrier...again, though, what if we made tackling about actually wrapping up the ballcarrier instead of just knocking him down?

[jknezek]

Oh, I don't know if that's fair.  I'm all for piling on ESPN when ESPN deserves it, but I don't think this is their fault.  We're quite a ways removed from the "Jacked Up!" era at ESPN.  I don't think there's really "fault" involved here.  I think it's a clean play.  No launching, no use of the helmet as a weapon, and no targeting the head of the receiver.  I'm calling this good defense. Could have been great defense, except that somehow that kid held onto the ball. 
ETP mentioned that maybe we shouldn't allow that kind of collision to be a means to defend passes.  Why not?  Is the guy supposed to stop and wait for that receiver to collect the ball and start running for the end zone before he goes to tackle?  Haven't we restricted defenses enough with current rules?

So if you were coaching a DB, is this how you would want him to make the tackle? This is "good" bordering on "great defense"? Personally I think it is poor tackling, and poor tackling is poor defense. How would you teach the DB to make that tackle? Facemask to chest or ball, wrap up with your arms, drive with your legs and take the player to the ground. That is how a coach would teach it. I have never found a defensive coach who was any good who instructed his players to tackle by running as fast as possible with his shoulder into the receiver's chest.

It is simply BAD defense. Not only that, but given the current climate, legal hit or not, this BAD defense didn't separate ball from man AND cost a 15 yard penalty. It's not "good" bordering on "great", it's poor bordering on painful and it hurt his team. But it sure was fun to watch!

I guess if the entertainment is what you are after, it is defensible. If good defense is what you are after, this isn't it. I won't argue about it anymore, but just think about how you were taught. Presumably you were taught the correct way to tackle. This is simply not it. Since it is incorrect, inefficient, and more likely to cause an injury, I don't really have a problem with it being removed from the game. But I suppose if you like big hits, with the possibility of whiffing or having the offensive player bounce off, plus extra opportunities to cause an injury, then this is the kind of hit you would coach a player to make.

It really is that simple...

[amonachino]

That was 100% legal hit.  Here's why.  When two guys today celebrate they do chest bumps.  this was a chest bump, the only thing missing was the other guy forgot to participate.  A chest bump does not involve heads hitting. there was not head hitting here.   the hit was in the chest.   just look at the tape of it.  It's football and this was within TODAY'S rules. 

[wally_wabash]

Oh, I don't know if that's fair.  I'm all for piling on ESPN when ESPN deserves it, but I don't think this is their fault.  We're quite a ways removed from the "Jacked Up!" era at ESPN.  I don't think there's really "fault" involved here.  I think it's a clean play.  No launching, no use of the helmet as a weapon, and no targeting the head of the receiver.  I'm calling this good defense. Could have been great defense, except that somehow that kid held onto the ball. 
ETP mentioned that maybe we shouldn't allow that kind of collision to be a means to defend passes.  Why not?  Is the guy supposed to stop and wait for that receiver to collect the ball and start running for the end zone before he goes to tackle?  Haven't we restricted defenses enough with current rules?

So if you were coaching a DB, is this how you would want him to make the tackle? This is "good" bordering on "great defense"? Personally I think it is poor tackling, and poor tackling is poor defense. How would you teach the DB to make that tackle? Facemask to chest or ball, wrap up with your arms, drive with your legs and take the player to the ground. That is how a coach would teach it. I have never found a defensive coach who was any good who instructed his players to tackle by running as fast as possible with his shoulder into the receiver's chest.

It is simply BAD defense. Not only that, but given the current climate, legal hit or not, this BAD defense didn't separate ball from man AND cost a 15 yard penalty. It's not "good" bordering on "great", it's poor bordering on painful and it hurt his team. But it sure was fun to watch!

I guess if the entertainment is what you are after, it is defensible. If good defense is what you are after, this isn't it. I won't argue about it anymore, but just think about how you were taught. Presumably you were taught the correct way to tackle. This is simply not it. Since it is incorrect, inefficient, and more likely to cause an injury, I don't really have a problem with it being removed from the game. But I suppose if you like big hits, with the possibility of whiffing or having the offensive player bounce off, plus extra opportunities to cause an injury, then this is the kind of hit you would coach a player to make.

It really is that simple...

I think the argument that #9 hurt his team with this play is silly.  Per the rules, this play didn't warrant a penalty.  And I would venture a guess that had the WR's helmet not popped off and exaggerated the collision, it wouldn't have been penalized.  So no, #9 didn't hurt his team.  The game officials made a mistake. 

Now if I'm coaching DBs is that how I want my guy to tackle?  Generally not, but I think I also have to aware that you don't get anything for style points.  Wouldn't it be swell if every single tackle in a fast-moving game where guys are literally colliding with one another at full speed on every single play happened in glorious, textbook, bear huggy fashion?  You bet it would.  But if that's my DB he's got two jobs on that play.  First, break that pass up.  If you can't break that pass up, don't let that dude run any farther than where he catches the ball.  Mission accomplished.  Zero RAC on that play.  Maybe you can pull that up on film after the fact and explain to the kid that he should get his arms involved next time, but in that moment that kid's job is stop forward momentum by any LEGAL means necessary.  Which he totally did.  No helmet to helmet, no launching...it's a good play.  Grouse about how he didn't "wrap up" if you will, but the player did his job. 

And no, I don't like that play because it looks neat.  I didn't jump out of my chair or anything like that.  I'm not force feeding that GIF to my twitter followers.  It's not a highlight play for me...so the "wow" factor isn't part of my analysis here. 

BTW, a few years ago a Wabash quarterback got taken down on a scramble by a Washington U. linebacker.  Stuck him good.  Face mask in the torso, wrapped him up and planted him in the ground.  He'd get an A+ in your book.  Fast forward to a few hours after the game and that Wabash quarterback has to be ER'd after passing out in the shower...punctured lung and a couple liters of blood sloshing around his insides where it didn't belong.  Kid almost died -he almost DIED- as a result of your textbook hit-'em-in-the-chest-and-wrap-'em-up tackle.  The moral of the story is that football is insanely dangerous...whether you play the "right way" or not.  It's dangerous.  Playing the game is an assumed risk.  Administrators and coaches at all levels are doing a great job of getting the contact above the shoulders out of the game and should be applauded for (finally) adressing the issue.  But you can never, ever, ever eliminate the risk from playing tackle football.  Not as long as the object is to either be the wall that stops somebody from going any further or be the guy that runs through that wall...you can't have full grown men in peak physical condition running into each other at full speed and not think people aren't getting hurt.  People aren't getting hurt playing football because they're doing it wrong.  Sometimes, yes.  But not always.  Probably not even most of the time. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Oh, I don't know if that's fair.  I'm all for piling on ESPN when ESPN deserves it, but I don't think this is their fault.  We're quite a ways removed from the "Jacked Up!" era at ESPN.  I don't think there's really "fault" involved here.  I think it's a clean play.  No launching, no use of the helmet as a weapon, and no targeting the head of the receiver.  I'm calling this good defense. Could have been great defense, except that somehow that kid held onto the ball. 
ETP mentioned that maybe we shouldn't allow that kind of collision to be a means to defend passes.  Why not?  Is the guy supposed to stop and wait for that receiver to collect the ball and start running for the end zone before he goes to tackle?  Haven't we restricted defenses enough with current rules?

So if you were coaching a DB, is this how you would want him to make the tackle? This is "good" bordering on "great defense"? Personally I think it is poor tackling, and poor tackling is poor defense. How would you teach the DB to make that tackle? Facemask to chest or ball, wrap up with your arms, drive with your legs and take the player to the ground. That is how a coach would teach it. I have never found a defensive coach who was any good who instructed his players to tackle by running as fast as possible with his shoulder into the receiver's chest.

It is simply BAD defense. Not only that, but given the current climate, legal hit or not, this BAD defense didn't separate ball from man AND cost a 15 yard penalty. It's not "good" bordering on "great", it's poor bordering on painful and it hurt his team. But it sure was fun to watch!

I guess if the entertainment is what you are after, it is defensible. If good defense is what you are after, this isn't it. I won't argue about it anymore, but just think about how you were taught. Presumably you were taught the correct way to tackle. This is simply not it. Since it is incorrect, inefficient, and more likely to cause an injury, I don't really have a problem with it being removed from the game. But I suppose if you like big hits, with the possibility of whiffing or having the offensive player bounce off, plus extra opportunities to cause an injury, then this is the kind of hit you would coach a player to make.

It really is that simple...

I think the argument that #9 hurt his team with this play is silly.  Per the rules, this play didn't warrant a penalty.  And I would venture a guess that had the WR's helmet not popped off and exaggerated the collision, it wouldn't have been penalized. So no, #9 didn't hurt his team.  The game officials made a mistake. 

Now if I'm coaching DBs is that how I want my guy to tackle?  Generally not, but I think I also have to aware that you don't get anything for style points.  Wouldn't it be swell if every single tackle in a fast-moving game where guys are literally colliding with one another at full speed on every single play happened in glorious, textbook, bear huggy fashion?  You bet it would.  But if that's my DB he's got two jobs on that play.  First, break that pass up.  If you can't break that pass up, don't let that dude run any farther than where he catches the ball.  Mission accomplished.  Zero RAC on that play.  Maybe you can pull that up on film after the fact and explain to the kid that he should get his arms involved next time, but in that moment that kid's job is stop forward momentum by any LEGAL means necessary.  Which he totally did.  No helmet to helmet, no launching...it's a good play.  Grouse about how he didn't "wrap up" if you will, but the player did his job. 

And no, I don't like that play because it looks neat.  I didn't jump out of my chair or anything like that.  I'm not force feeding that GIF to my twitter followers.  It's not a highlight play for me...so the "wow" factor isn't part of my analysis here. 

BTW, a few years ago a Wabash quarterback got taken down on a scramble by a Washington U. linebacker.  Stuck him good.  Face mask in the torso, wrapped him up and planted him in the ground.  He'd get an A+ in your book.  Fast forward to a few hours after the game and that Wabash quarterback has to be ER'd after passing out in the shower...punctured lung and a couple liters of blood sloshing around his insides where it didn't belong.  Kid almost died -he almost DIED- as a result of your textbook hit-'em-in-the-chest-and-wrap-'em-up tackle.  The moral of the story is that football is insanely dangerous...whether you play the "right way" or not.  It's dangerous.  Playing the game is an assumed risk.  Administrators and coaches at all levels are doing a great job of getting the contact above the shoulders out of the game and should be applauded for (finally) adressing the issue.  But you can never, ever, ever eliminate the risk from playing tackle football.  Not as long as the object is to either be the wall that stops somebody from going any further or be the guy that runs through that wall...you can't have full grown men in peak physical condition running into each other at full speed and not think people aren't getting hurt.  People aren't getting hurt playing football because they're doing it wrong.  Sometimes, yes.  But not always.  Probably not even most of the time.

Strongly agree with bolded point #1.  The helmet popping off made it look like a helmet-to-helmet hit if you weren't looking directly at the play.

Clarification of bolded point #2.  Some people are getting hurt playing football because they're doing it wrong, but that doesn't account for every injury.  Many injuries happen in the course of "normal" gameplay that falls within the rules, but some injuries may be avoided by rule changes.  I think your paragraph is very well-written, just wanted to clarify the last part.

[amonachino]

when a referee  makes a call it is either a correct call or an incorrect call.  to say it was a mistake or a good call or a bad call do not apply.  that is  job to make the call correct.  when he does not then he was incorrect in his judgement.  also there is no such thing as a make up call.  the ref. can be aware of a something that is brought to his attention.  if a ref. is influenced by anything other then is job, he is not going to be a ref. who will advance.

[jaypeter]

I'll weigh in and say that I, too, agree that this hit was legal and that the defender didn't do anything wrong according to the playbook.  But, I'll also say that I don't have a major issue with a flag being thrown here.  Maybe I have a slow computer, but the speed I see the gif is slower that what must have happened in real time.  That, with the way that the ref's attention is shifting around prior to the moment of impact, it's easy to see how a ref would call that a penalty.  Mistaken, yes...understandable, yes. 

Refs have been told if they have any doubt to throw the flag.  The speed with which the play happened and the speed he needed to make a decision, I find it hard to be overly critical of missing the call in this situation.  Yeah he's paid to get it right, but it's a mistake I can live with when part of the reason behind the mistake is the emphasis on trying to keep the hits safe. 

Now, a mistake like that changes the outcome of a game, I may be less reasonable!  But hopefully the refs get more practice in making the calls, the defenders get more practice in trying to get lower and wrap, and the receivers get more practice in tightening up the stap!

[HScoach]

In my opinion,  the hit looked when seeing it  live and the video confirms it.    Only reason it was called is because receiver 's helmet popped off.

Which was a problem all game long for ONU players.    Someone needs to teach them how to tighten a chin strap.

[reality check]

Sitting here at my local sports bar and see ESPN airing the national Crossfit games. I'm watching the clean and jerk event and see a name that looked familiar. A quick google confirms that amount Union's own Scott Panchik is apparently one of the top Crossfit athletes in the country.

[Small but Slow]

In my opinion,  the hit looked when seeing it  live and the video confirms it.    Only reason it was called is because receiver 's helmet popped off.

Which was a problem all game long for ONU players.    Someone needs to teach them how to tighten a chin strap.

The play appears to be legal and fundamentally sound. The defenders head was up and to the outside shoulder of the receiver. I would like to have seen the defender attempt to wrap up the receiver, but that wouldn't have kept the helmet on his head. 
With the emphasis on reducing head injuries the way the game is played will have to change, or it will die.  When I coach at youth camps or instruct at youth clinics I make wrapping up and shooting with the head up to the outside of the offensive player a major point of emphasis.  If the game is going to remain relevant we need to focus on tackling well over making big hits.  It's going to be a big change in the way we all look at the game.

[Knightstalker]

In my opinion,  the hit looked when seeing it  live and the video confirms it.    Only reason it was called is because receiver 's helmet popped off.

Which was a problem all game long for ONU players.    Someone needs to teach them how to tighten a chin strap.

The play appears to be legal and fundamentally sound. The defenders head was up and to the outside shoulder of the receiver. I would like to have seen the defender attempt to wrap up the receiver, but that wouldn't have kept the helmet on his head. 
With the emphasis on reducing head injuries the way the game is played will have to change, or it will die.  When I coach at youth camps or instruct at youth clinics I make wrapping up and shooting with the head up to the outside of the offensive player a major point of emphasis. If the game is going to remain relevant we need to focus on tackling well over making big hits.  It's going to be a big change in the way we all look at the game.

It will also be more fun to watch.  I don't know about others but to me the tackling in todays college and pro games is pretty gotdamawful, nobody wraps up anymore.  Maybe then we will see tackling like this

[Mr. Ypsi]

In my opinion,  the hit looked when seeing it  live and the video confirms it.    Only reason it was called is because receiver 's helmet popped off.

Which was a problem all game long for ONU players.    Someone needs to teach them how to tighten a chin strap.

The play appears to be legal and fundamentally sound. The defenders head was up and to the outside shoulder of the receiver. I would like to have seen the defender attempt to wrap up the receiver, but that wouldn't have kept the helmet on his head. 
With the emphasis on reducing head injuries the way the game is played will have to change, or it will die.  When I coach at youth camps or instruct at youth clinics I make wrapping up and shooting with the head up to the outside of the offensive player a major point of emphasis. If the game is going to remain relevant we need to focus on tackling well over making big hits.  It's going to be a big change in the way we all look at the game.

It will also be more fun to watch.  I don't know about others but to me the tackling in todays college and pro games is pretty gotdamawful, nobody wraps up anymore.  Maybe then we will see tackling like this

And like Butkus said (paraphrase; I can't locate the quote): I never tried to hurt anyone unless it was important, you know like a league game!

Not sure Butkus was my all-time favorite player, but certainly top 5.

[emma17]

In my opinion,  the hit looked when seeing it  live and the video confirms it.    Only reason it was called is because receiver 's helmet popped off.

Which was a problem all game long for ONU players.    Someone needs to teach them how to tighten a chin strap.

The play appears to be legal and fundamentally sound. The defenders head was up and to the outside shoulder of the receiver. I would like to have seen the defender attempt to wrap up the receiver, but that wouldn't have kept the helmet on his head. 
With the emphasis on reducing head injuries the way the game is played will have to change, or it will die.  When I coach at youth camps or instruct at youth clinics I make wrapping up and shooting with the head up to the outside of the offensive player a major point of emphasis.  If the game is going to remain relevant we need to focus on tackling well over making big hits.  It's going to be a big change in the way we all look at the game.

Well said ETP and Small but Slow.
Some posters are making arguements against a position that we aren't holding.  I think we agree that the hit, per the rules today, is probably legal.  So let's put that part of this discussion to bed, the flag probably should not have been thrown.
The bigger question we're posing is, "is this a tackling technique that should be encouraged or discouraged"? 
For the long term good of the game, this technique should be discouraged.
And Wally, there are exceptions to every rule.  It's unfortunate the Wabash player was injured during a perfectly executed tackle, and that's all there is to your story. 
Let's encourage coachs every where to be sticklers in teaching the absolute best and safest tackling techniques possible- for the well being of the players and the future of the game.