Gerry hit

[I am I]

Funny, I started a thread about Bill "Ed" Cunningham whining and moaning about how dangerous football is and how in the world does he have a job commenting if he hates it so much.

I also pointed to pussies like him who have an agenda along with the liberal media and the lawyers who are attacking the sport we love.

Then I got run up and down by a few members here for being "ignorant" and "foolishly old-school" in my rhetoric. If you think lawyers and pussies like Ed Cunningham don't have an affect on a play like Gerry's your being foolish. They set the standards for those replays with a goal of eliminating good, hardnosed, fundamental, violent football.

 

The group I was watching the game with were just sarcastically laughing at the ejection. It's about all you could do.

[4skers89]

 

Ya'll are vicious. How did so many people misread his post?

 

He should have lowered his shoulder for a hit between the pads and the knees and wrap up legs.

That statement is correct. Any contact of helmet to pads is less than ideal. As long as the head is UP (which I think his statement is clearly saying is necessary), ideal contact is head up, leading with a shoulder around the midsection and arms wrapped around.

 

First image when googling "proper tackling form" is this:

 

Look at that. Head is up, tackler leads with his shoulder, not his facemask, and everyone continues to play the game.

 

Those who are suggesting that putting your facemask in someone's chest and driving forward is the proper way to tackle are wrong. Does it get the job done? Yes. Does it have a higher probability of hurting your neck? Yes. Gerry's tackle was a great tackle, don't get me wrong. But, fundamentally, it wasn't the best or "textbook" - the picture above is textbook. Now, I'm not saying that is realistic for every tackle to be made like the picture above. At all - too many moving parts at higher and higher speeds as the level of competition increases. No ball carrier gets hit standing still. But, IDEAL scenario, the tackle looks similar to the picture.

 

So, in turn, if those same people are in charge of teaching youth how to tackle, they should probably learn proper technique or watch a lot of USA Football's Heads Up Tackling videos.

The only difference between the picture you posted and Gerry's tackle is that the kid in your pic is standing straight up and the receiver Gerry tackled is lowering his body to take the hit.

 

Gerry's tackle was very well done.

 

I was going to mention this. I think the only way to salvage the rule is to modify it to take into consideration if the offensive player lowers his helmet/ body into the defender. If I was an offensive player, as the rule is now, I would always try to lower my helmet to make contact with a tackler's helmet. Players probably do this instinctively to brace for the tackle and lower their center of gravity to try and shed the tackle. Except for a QB being tackled while trying to pass, the picture above never happens.

[MichiganDad3]

Their helmets did touch for a moment on the hit. That's the trouble with the rule. If this was a penalty and an ejection then offensive and defensive linemen should be ejected after every play because they're hitting helmets slightly on every play I'm guessing.

This has always been my complaint. Is it only dangerous if the defender initiates contact with the ball carrier? What about lineman beating each other senseless every play? What about the ball carrier that lowers his head and rams a defender?

[Enhance]

Football will always be an inherently violent sport and it's impossible to change that unless you get rid of tackling all together. That said, I'm a proponent of finding ways to make the game safer for players. I like the moves they've made to stop high/low blocks that can hurt players' knees, I like that they're trying to address concussion issues and I think players have no business aiming for someone else's head.

 

This, however, is a staunch example of where safety is going too far, but what do we expect referees to do? They're going to rather be safe than sorry lest they make a mistake, and I think that fear is the biggest reason Gerry was ejected.

 

Gerry's hit was by no means "textbook" and people saying so don't understand what the word 'textbook' means and suggests in this context. However, Gerry's hit was about as good of a hit as you can hope for in this scenario.

[Tech32]

Sorry, last post before a response, but the conversation here has me pretty upset.

 

 

That video is something I've sure you've all seen, as it's been made pretty popular in the football world. Eric LeGrand hit the ball carrier with his face up and into the carrier's back. The only difference in the two scenarios is speed the hits occur at. The receiver hadn't even had a chance to move yet, so momentum and relative velocities were pretty minimal in Nate's collision. Please don't try to defend "putting your face into the guys chest" as being "safe".

 

 

Before you freak out on me, I understand Nate's hit was a good hit where he attempted to turn his head and lead with the shoulder at the last second. That much was clear. This post is addressing the comments made by posters regarding "safe hits", and not drawing parallels to Nate's tackle.

I dissagree here. If you watch closely LeGrande lowers his head at the last second and launches with his head it looks like to me.

Feel sorry for the young man.

[grandpasknee]

 

Look at the replay of Reilly's run at 1:35:30. Will someone please explain how Gerry's hit was targetting and this hit wasn't? The UCLA guy leads with the crown of his head and hits Reilly square in the helmet.

good point

[JJ Husker]

"leading with a shoulder" and "seeing what you hit" are NOT mutually exclusive things.

 

Understood. I think we're pretty much on the same page. As far as possible neck injuries to the tackling player, any force straight on to the face would usually be preferable to any downward or sideways force on the neck. That is all I was trying to get at. Maybe that is also what URSS was trying to say and I may have read it differently.

[huKSer]

Just spit ballin' - IF "we" are so concerned about player safety.

 

No tackling a receiver until they take one step after the catch.

 

The trade off - until that step is taken, two hand touch downs the player.

 

Cunningham would be happy.

 

 

 

 

Or you can re-work the rules.

[Comish]

It would be sweet justice indeed IF the NCAA used the Gerry Hit in their promotional/instructional video for officials before next season as to what constitutes a LEGAL play.

Even sweeter if the narrator was compelled to be the replay official from Saturday night.

[Touchdown Tommie]

Navy vs Pitt game today a targeting penalty was waved off...didn't even go to replay. It is totally unacceptable that these officials can make calls like this and get away with it. The hit today was even on a QB...looked far worse than Gerry's hit!

[Enhance]

Navy vs Pitt game today a targeting penalty was waved off...didn't even go to replay. It is totally unacceptable that these officials can make calls like this and get away with it. The hit today was even on a QB...looked far worse than Gerry's hit!

There's very little consistency which is the problem, and accountability seems even more elusive. There will always be an element of human error in football, but based on examples I've seen this year, even the referees don't know what targeting is/isn't.

[dvdcrr]

Like many of you I have been a football fan for more than 30 years. These rule changes and use of replay in the last few years have been the worst thing to happen to football ever. And that includes the Ray Lewis tunnel walk. We live in a bizarro world now where a player can go into the endzone with the ball in both hands, falling down after a catch, and it still isnt a touchdown, but if its a running back doing the same thing it is a touchdown. Players are ejected for playing and hitting hard.

 

Another thing that was much better 25 years ago: Pizza hut pizza, but thats another (equally painful) discussion.

[dvdcrr]

Also...what the hell happened to NCAAM basketball? It used to be clear cut, that if the defender was moving it was a blocking foul, now they slam into the person driving to the hoop and its charging. . ? Used to be defender had to have feet set. Thats how it should be!

[Mavric]

Also...what the hell happened to NCAAM basketball? It used to be clear cut, that if the defender was moving it was a blocking foul, now they slam into the person driving to the hoop and its charging. . ? Used to be defender had to have feet set. Thats how it should be!

 

No. It's never been that way. That's what many people think the rule says but it's not.

[adc7236]

 

Also...what the hell happened to NCAAM basketball? It used to be clear cut, that if the defender was moving it was a blocking foul, now they slam into the person driving to the hoop and its charging. . ? Used to be defender had to have feet set. Thats how it should be!

 

No. It's never been that way. That's what many people think the rule says but it's not.

 

I don't want to derail the thread, but I would like to hear your explanation of this. Many many years ago when I played ball, it was as dvd described. Of course I don't see many things called in game as they use to....especially at the NBA level.

 

Also, the penalty on Gerry was pure BS!