Watch Pete Carroll's video on Seahawks tackling techniques. He is on to something. I've coached both sports and rugby has distinct biomechanical performance plusses that football does not have. This will save the sport as football is still a great game.
2
Now let’s do the full switch and have the kids play rugby instead, a sport without helmets, shoulder pads and tights.
5
When I played football in high school as an offensive linemen, we were taught to “lead with the screws”; the two screws in the forehead that kept the face mask attached to the helmet. We were taught a method of blocking and tackling that emphasized the head as the leading point of contact. It seems crazy to me now that the method we were taught was most likely to result in concussions, but nobody ever questioned it. This new approach to tackling sounds like an interesting innovation and shows that coaches are aware of the threat to the game that the danger of concussions represents. But they need to develop new methods for blocking, too. Linemen get hit on every single play. The hits aren’t as intense in severity but they are consistent throughout a game.
It's a positive trend, yet, amazingly we glory in boxing and mixed martial arts where the goal is to impose a concussion (knock out) on the opponent. Dementia pugilistica, the punch drunk former boxer, seems to be casually accepted.
1
Never played football, but played rugby through college. Agree with many of the comments here. There are many difference between football and rugby that can account for differences in injury rates, including, but not limited to concussions. No blocking, no forward pass and, of course, no helmets. Rarely in rugby do you get a hard hit when you are completely vulnerable.
People,
Here in Australia, the predominant "rugby" code is rugby league, a spinoff from rugby union, much the same as gridiron. It is the closest cousin to NFL in the football family. League as it is called here does not use the ruck, so generally tackling is a one on one or two on one, and at the completion of a tackle play restarts (sound familiar?).
League tacklers are much more effective than union in one on one tackles. Union tackles concentrate on the ball; league more so on the man. Both use tackles around the legs in the classic style, but league tacklers have developed effective and sometimes brutal tackles using the shoulders on the chest of the runner. Both codes have outlawed head high tackles and shoulder charges where the tackler uses only their shoulders and makes no attempt to use their arms.
I watch the NFL and am continually amazed at the poor technique, particularly when the tackler gets their head underneath the runners body. Getting your head into the right position is a basic technique that is drilled into junior rugby league and union players from the start. Also, the way tacklers do not wrap their arms around the runner to hold them is another basic fault.
So coaches, do yourselves a favour. Get on to Youtube or the NRL.com site and observe how rugby league players tackle. Most times being tackled by a rugby union back is like being flogged with a warm lettuce.
3
My three sons all played rugby , football and basketball in high school . One son went on to play football and rugby in college ( he captained both squads) and men's club and coached high school football and youth rugby. My second son played only rugby in college after he refused to be red shirted as a freshman when the coach would not allow him to play spring rugby.My third son played college basketball . My first and third sons played on national championship high school rugby teams. The worst injury any of them received was while playing basketball. That floor is hard when you come down .They were all taught fundamental rugby style tackling , and the only injuries they received were dislocated shoulders , not great but not not brain damaging.
4
As I've mentioned in a couple of replies, the type of tackling referenced in this article can literally save football. It is just as exciting to watch, and I would like to challenge any good editor out there, who loves football, to create a reel of NFL & NCAA rugby inspired tackles and sacks, juxtaposed with the type of "hits" that announcers and some fans seem to prefer, where the ball carriers just bounce off the "hits" to gain more yards and even score, ending with the pathetic Minnesota Miracle as referenced by Stuart M. If I was an editor I would do this but I'm not. This type of tackling is Win Win for football. It's too bad the NFL doesn't have a leader with enough moral fortitude and foresight to make this happen immediately. It would quickly cascade down to the college, high school, and youth football programs.
1
I absolutely agree. It's the only way to go. Watch Pete Carroll's Hawks Tackling videos....awesome!
Though I never played football (but I had many friends who did), it makes sense that this specific aspect of the game is being re-evaluated and can benefit from the tackling techniques taught in rugby.
Having played the game for 25+ years, and recognizing that there are obvious differences with continuity of possession, flow etc between the two sports, I happy to see this evolution in football that speaks to player safety without diluting the end product. I am glad to see that some football coaches are open minded enough to explore the possibility that football can preserve aspects of physicality by adopting a different approach.
1
I have coached both youth football and rugby and have made a point of teaching the classic rugby tackle. Not only is it a safer tackle, it is more effective. The Minnesota Miracle would never have happened had a rugby tackle been used in that spot.
4
Very interesting. I have played (and loved) rugby for 15 years and certainly think that football can profitably borrow tackling technique- it might be safer but it's certainly more sure. At some point however we all are going to have to face the reality that there is no safe way to play a collision sport. There's a ways to go on the road to safe play in football until that time perhaps. I know that I am an adult of (semi-) sound mind, so there's no one else to blame when I risk my future health.
1
The goal of knocking the ball carrier backwards is not central to rugby. Often pulling the ball carrier to you so that the ball can be ripped away is a preferred technique.
The continuous flow and requirement to place the ball under control in the "end zone" make it a very different game. Anyone who has played both sports for any length of time understands this.
Just adapting a tackling technique will not help so long as the equipment and rules (constant stoppages and crossing a line especially) encourage collisions.
I played football and loved it, but I would not permit a child of mine to play. Without significant change that would make the game practically unrecognizable, football should die.
1
@Hyde Parker Not sure what you're talking about. I played both sports, we won NY State championship, and the type of tackling being taught by this program is exactly what football needs. I had multiple concussions from my years playing football. We were taught to "hit" as often as possible. As referenced by someone above the Minnesota Miracle would have never happened had the defender tried to tackle the receiver, instead of "hit" him. This type of tackling will make the sport way safer and will simultaneously be much more effective. If you've played the game, and you have a team you root for, you know that there are so many times when you're yelling at your team's defender to "Tackle... Tackle..." when they come in to hit a ball carrier and that ball carrier bounces off the hit to gain more yards or even score. This is Win Win for football.
1
Having played rugby in England as a kid (scrum half), yet lived in the US for many years, it's clear that (i) the chief weapon in American football is, stupidly, the helmet, and (ii) that the players--usually flailing their arms around at shoulder height--haven't a clue how to bring a man down either efficiently or safely. I would propose NO head-to-head contact, deliberate or otherwise; no tackles above the shoulder (as in rugby), and get rid of the ultimate temptation: the crushing helmet. Without the ineffectual American helmet players would think more than twice about head-to-head contact. It's not only dangerous but very painful!
Jo Jesty
10
@Jo, masquerading under Joan's acct I think a helmet with a soft outer coating would be the way to go. They use this type of thing in practice now, and I think it should be used in the game.
1
@gjr22 We use soft headgear here in both rugby codes, but not for concussion protection. They are mainly to stop cuts and lacerations when a head meets another hard object like a boot, elbow, knee or another head. Proven to have no effect in a serious head knock leading to concussion.
1
"Mama didn't want her kids to play" decades ago. In 1961 the mother of a boy in my class who was concussed in a Friday night game came to school that Monday and removed him from the starting lineup. It was Texas, it was a big deal and people have known that tackling using a helmeted head was dangerous for a long time.
1
Like switching to "light" cigarettes.
You're insane if you let your kid play football in 2019.
2
These football coaches need to attend some rugby matches and maybe put in some of their players.
Rugby is brutal. Almost every player in a test match that I watched walked off with bruises and scrapes. With zero body armor, these players were much more in control.
Something for American football teams to think about.
9
"Rex Norris.......knew that some coaches might be suspicious of techniques borrowed from rugby, and consider them an attempt to soften the way football is played, even though rugby is a physical sport played by burly athletes."
Which means the coaches had never watched a rugby match in their lives nor seen what the forwards and even backs looked like after the match.... It isn't a soft sport, but it definitely takes protecting players seriously.
15
@Barton
I have played both rugby and football and loved both sports. I prefer rugby, not because of tackling, etc. but because it emphasizes motion and flow over “playing the man.” Football could be improved by prohibiting tackling above the waist, spearing, etc. Attempting to demolish an opponent is not sport.
5
I have played both football and rugby. I left football after successive concussions and began playing varsity rugby instead. I played for 35 years without suffering another concussion. This is largely because of rugby’s intelligent approach to tackling which puts far less emphasis on the big, spectacular, high-velocity hit and more on grounding an opponent in the swiftest and most efficient way. So I was taught by my college coach (who doubled as the rare books librarian) to tackle with my head behind the ball carrier rather than in front and to tackle low and use the runner’s own weight and forward momentum in bringing him (and increasingly her) to the ground. Both are great games with deep traditions and attributes. One of football’s problems is its emphasis on the violent collision as public spectacle. Television desires this but it’s bad for player health and ultimately undermines the game’s public acceptance. It now poses an ethical dilemma for every high school coach and sports administrator. I would say rugby is more demanding of fitness, overall athleticism and intelligent deployment of resources. Players are far less exposed to catastrophic injury. Rugby offers far greater player participation. It’s far more cost effective and requires minimal equipment outlays. It’s exciting and engaging to play and to watch. School boards with budget issues, concerns about the mandate to protect students and promote health — particularly brain health— should look to rugby.
15
@Stephen Hume I would argue that a good editor could cut together a highlight reel of amazing rugby inspired tackles and sacks in football, both NFL & NCAA, that would be as exciting for the fans as any "hits." And they could simultaneously create a reel of "hits" where the ball carrier bounces off and keeps going to gain more yards and to score. This is a no brainer. This type of tackling is safer and more effective.
I was a football official for 31 years. In all those years I watched a steady decline in the willingness of officials to call spearing - and to assess not only the 15-yard personal foul, but to also call for the 15-yard penalty unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and eject the player. The rules have been in the books for years in response to the creation and use of the hard-shell helmet to "spear" players and inflict physical "punishment" on an opponent. Ah, but now it's called "targeting" - and it's being called in response to the outcry over concussions and neck injuries and continued teaching of tackling by coaches by leading with the head (helmet). Same penalty, same result -- but now everyone's "consciousness" has been raised and it's okay for an official to call. In the meantime, hundreds, if not thousands, of players suffered short- and long-term injuries because coaches whined about spearing and officials stopped calling it. Happy now?
15