Could the targeting rule be causing more injuries to CFB?

[TNnative]

Ive played rugby for 10 years now and have not suffered an injury connected to the game (knock on wood). I know people who have for decades and had minimal injury. We have our fair share but most injuries are things that could happen anywhere else. Not trying to prove you wrong but rugby is a safe game if it is played correctly. head injuries are rare believe it or not.

Point is football isn't rugby. Rugby is more continuous play, while football is much more stop, set and explosive start. And from watching some Rugby matches online, Rugby players are generally a heavier and slower type athlete. Part of the reason football has more concussions.

Not knocking rugby, because I love watching it, but between NCAA and NFL, one of the biggest hurdles to change is going to be how it affects the bottom line; ticket sales, viewer interest, and money in coffers. Worldwide, rugby may do well, but it has never pulled in the revenues of football here.

Should that matter? No. Will it? You better believe it. I just wish the changes had never included a targeting rule. Since it was implemented, I have found my personal interest in football has lessened, and my interest in other sports (except soccer of course) is growing. It is hurting the integrity of the game more than protecting players gray matter.

Back in the 70s and 80s, I would have laughed in your face if you said boxing's popularity would ever be replaced by MMA. I feel that changed because of match fixing, an idiot like Don King having control, and then head injury issues.

So, if football doesn't fix it's issues soon, I hope at least you rugby guys step it up faster than the soccer twits. I ain't watchin that crap.

 

[AM64]

Leads with his head behind?

Sounds like Obama surgery - to fundamentally change the human anatomy.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Makes sense to go low. Your head is covered with a hard helmet. Lower legs and knees have no protection. Throw your head at the runners knees and see what happens. You can take a knee to the helmet much better than someone can take a helmet to the knee.

That is the difference from rugby. They can't use their head as a weapon.

 

[AM64]

Seems to me like it could lead to some shoulder injuries. Maybe not on an epidemic level, but could lead to more problems.

The technique to lead with the head in front would be to place more of your body and stopping power in front of the defender while also making your tackle more accurate. If you were approaching the defender from his right, you would be hitting with your left shoulder and placing your head in front of his body. In the same situation, leading with the head behind means the defender would be hitting with his right shoulder and, thus, the head would be behind the runner. Less substantial of a tackle, likely easier to break, and could put the defender at increased risk of shoulder injury I could imagine.

Edit: I agree, could be referring to rugby style. Different philosophy of running through the defender versus pulling him to the ground.

Anytime you extend the arm outward rather than the whole body against the momentum of the runner then you increase the wear and tear on the shoulder and all the attachments. It's just simple physics - like the lever - think of the ratcheting portion of a socket wrench as the shoulder joint - lengthen the handle and you apply more torque to the ratchet/shoulder.

We've got two pretty hefty guys out right now - one with shoulder damage and the other with a torn pectoral tendon - probably more similar injuries, but those two are the most current. Maybe we are just trading off injuries; sure brain damage is worse, but from experience shoulder repair is something you never ever want to experience.

 

[08Vol]

I was at a recent dinner with 2 VFL ledgends and they both expressed concerns over the hitter being at risk and that it will unfortunately take an injury to get anyone's attention to change the current rules. I think they were more concerned about the hitters neck by the way the collisions are now. I feel Common since says not to use the crown of your head as weapon but some of the calls are too much like we need to goto flag football.

Common sense says to not use the crown of your helmet but that hasn't stopped anyone from doing it. The only reason we're seeing a reduction in it is because of the rule change. Every team has to follow the same set of rules and we aren't seeing a huge # of injuries outside of UT. The one constant is that Butch's teams here have all suffered a lot of injuries. I don't know what is causing them but it is something his program is doing. Maybe it's the S&C program. Maybe it's bad rehab. Maybe it's our hurry up offense. Maybe it's not rotating enough guys. Maybe it's our nutrition program. Maybe it's recruiting the wrong players for the SEC.

 

[Omar V Tinko]

Few points to make:
First, the "Rugby tackle" is safer. Head behind cuts down on neck and head injuries by taking it away from contact. That's only part of it though.
Second, The laws of rugby dictate that there must be an attempt by the tackler to wrap up the runner with their arms during the tackle. A shoulder charge or launch with no attempt to wrap up will result in penalty and likely ejection. This is a major reason this type of tackling is safer and more effective.
Finally, the idea that rugby players at high levels are "heavier" body types is false. At the higher levels are NFL body types. Imagine 13 players ranging from tight end , running back and defensive back types with 2 more like a smaller offensive lineman.

Just trying to bring clarity after 26 years in the game.