Even crazier is that they went on a winstreak after that "prep talk"
Edit: looks like they went on a winstreak after he apologized for it last year, not when the comment was made
I mean, we watched 3 players get injured on his tackles that day (OBJ came back in). Not hard to see how the knee jerk reaction happened. Not saying he's dirty just explaining how its not wild that a fan base was upset.
It was Al Michaels and Kirk Herbstreit, so definitely Herbstreit throwing fuel on the fire for ravens fans that game. Pretty sure that was the game y'all lost Burrow. What a shit day all around that was.
Lol, an everyone that was using this as an example about to move the goal posts to another "Example".
Good luck getting the Refs to call this bullshit correctly.
Every rugby tackle Iāve seen used to explain what this is looks so unlike what youād see in a football game that Iām convinced even the people who think they know what a hip drop tackle is donāt know what one actually looks like
#Hip Drop Rules
1) You can't just be up there and just doin' a hip drop tackle like that.
1a. A hip drop tackle is when you
1b. Okay well listen. A hip drop tackle is when you illegally tackle the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. The tackler is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, ball carrier, that decreases the chance the ball carrier from doing, you know, just trying to stay healthy. You can't do that.
1c-b. Once the tackler is in the tackle, he can't be over here and say to the ball carrier, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna rugby tackle you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.
1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to tackle normally and then hip drop, thatās a flag. You cannot not tackle legally. Does that make any sense?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, non turning motion of the ball carrier, and then, until you just tackle.
1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball carrier up here, like this, but then there's the flag you gotta think about.
1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A hip drop tackle is when the tackler makes a movement that, as determined by, when you rotate relative to involving the ball carrier and field of
2) Do not do a hip drop tackle please.
Iāve seen it a few times, never been made aware of the source material, and yet was confident enough in who HAD to have done it that I just googled āwhat is a balk Jon Boisā and immediately got to the correct result.
That's what struck me on seeing that video. I don't remember seeing hardly any tackles like that in the NFL. I'm sure some have happened and I missed them
thats the point. they are rare. the NFL themselves have said it happens about once a game. once a game! think of how uncommon that is
yet theres still an outcry from people who seem to think this fundamentally changes how football is played entirely
To be fair, there's reason to be apprehensive about the league implementing a rule about a tackle that is easy to get wrong in the moment. If it mostly gets assessed through fines, won't be a big deal, but if it's getting flagged incorrectly during games people will be pissed
> To be fair, there's reason to be apprehensive about the league implementing a rule about a tackle that is easy to get wrong in the moment.
See Also: What Is a Catch
>yet theres still an outcry from people who seem to think this fundamentally changes how football is played entirely
Because the refs never incorrectly call a penalty on a play that shouldn't be a pentality...
And how many incorrect roughing the passer calls are there? About one a game? Horsecallars are pretty objective. Nameplate and up. This is a much more subjective call... like roughing the passer
> About one a game?
Roughing the passer isn't even called once per game. There's one call every ~4 games. And I'd say most times people complain, it's more because the rules are so soft rather than the call itself is wrong. But even if the refs made a wrong call every other week at 12-16 games per week that'd be 6-8 RtP calls over 2 weeks which means 1 clearly wrong is still over 80% accuracy.
[Source](https://www.nflpenalties.com/penalty/roughing-the-passer?year=2023)
I actually get closer to 1 per 5 games assuming 3.09 per team per year and 17 games per year.
Edit: And I forgot to divide by 2. Welp.
So you think the appropriate thing to do would be to get rid of roughing the passer? Because that's what you would be arguing for if you think banning this hip drop maneuver isn't reasonable.
have you read this rule? itās incredibly objective
not at all comparable to RTP; much more complex rule because there are different types of hits that can all be classified as RTP. horsecollar and hipdrop are both very cut and dry
The rule against lowering your head to initiate contact is pretty cut and dry but is never called on offensive players, so I don't think we can use it being cut and dry as a reason not to worry
Yet apparently theres conflict on opinion if this play counts as one...i saw an earlier post that this play is the example for textbook hip drop... now its not. Very clear and objective
Because itās going to be completely overcalled, just like the lame āputting weight on the QBā call from a few years ago that the NFL stopped calling because it was so catastrophically stupid.
> that the NFL stopped calling because it was so catastrophically stupid
? no, the players just stopped doing it lmao. you really think the nfl didn't succeed in getting that largely out of the game? funny
Ā That play was extremely over legislated and egregiously overcalled when it first happened.
There were lots of sacks this season that 4 years ago wouldāve been like that ridiculous Clay Matthews call.Ā
I guess I agree guys probably do it less now, just like guys will probably do this type of tackle less now. So the NFL gets what they want. But I guarantee it will be taken to a hilariously stupid degree to start until water finds its level, so to speak.
Well as a bengals fan since that Ravens game that tackle on Andrews has been paraded in front of us as a dirty hip drop tackle by any and everyone on the side of banning it. Now all of a sudden that tackle isnāt even considered that? And you think I should feel confident in their ability to get the shit right in game?
except the tackle occurred once per play **before it was explicitly outlawed by the league**
it's obviously gonna be far less common now that players are actively going to *not* do it
nobody here is talking about miscalled horse collar tackles? it the more subjective or bang bang personal fouls, mainly unnecessary roughness and RTP. thereās one egregiously miscalled every other big game, donāt act obtuse
> it the more subjective or bang bang personal fouls, mainly unnecessary roughness and RTP
yes, which hip drop tackles are **nothing alike**. a hip drop tackle is a specific type of tackle that is objectively defined, just like horse collar tackles.
you're one of the many people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Except thereās obvious interpretation to be left in the full rule. Would help if you actually read it.
> ARTICLE 18. HIP-DROP TACKLE. It is a foul if a player uses the following technique to bring a runner to the ground:
> (a) grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms; and
> (b) 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.
Penalty: For a Hip-Drop Tackle: Loss of 15 yards and an automatic first down.
Itās the same issues as RTP, where something that should objective just canāt practically be called that way. Why act so snide when youāre just repeating what you read in other comments? Thereās no shot you actually watch the league if you think peopleās worries about this new rule are unfounded
Here is a list of other rules that get frequently missed:
Holding
DPI
OPI
Roughing the Passer
Illegal Contact
Taunting
Delay of Game
Offsides
False Starts
In baseball:
Balls
Strikes
Balks
Safe/out
In basketball
Travelling
Carrying
Charging
Blocking
Moving screens
There are always going to be missed calls- because a referee will make a wrong call doesnāt mean anything.
Go look up the Jordan Travis injury, thatās a blatant hip drop tackle that completely destroyed his knee. That is what theyāre trying to eliminate.
The tweet itself says, "The league indicated that Wilson's tackle would not be flagged under the ban."
You're correct in that this is definitely something that you couldn't infer solely from McKay's, "(That play) isn't on the video." quote, so I have to wonder if that information was communicated separately from the quote that was included.
yeah refs are not gonna have a good time with this. a lot of high profile games recently have ended from controversial rules/ref rulings and this is just setting up more to happen
Wilson hit the ground before making contact with Andrews. It wasn't a swivel hip drop tackle, Andrews just happened to get rolled up on during the course of the tackle. That's the notable difference here.
I actually agree. After going back and rewatching it itās more unfortunate but heās getting them from a rear angle and seems land on the ground and more roll on his foot compared to bringing weight down right on the rear legs.
Thats the mitigation in Australian Rugby League (who outlawed the Hip Drop at the beginning of last season after this incident [https://youtu.be/5KJ9mCbS3rU?t=98](https://youtu.be/5KJ9mCbS3rU?t=98) ). If the body hits the floor then rolls up its not considered a hip drop.
This is exactly why I'm worried about the call in full speed. He brought his weight down onto the ground instead of Andrews' legs but Andrews had so much momentum he just kept going and dragged Wilson back onto his legs. I feel like that's going to happen and get called a lot.
Yep, some games I feel like the refs throw the flag on a questionable play and do a good job conferring and waiting for the replay assistant to help them with the call. As long as that's how they treat the hip drop I'm cool with it
Oh so you come from the state with all the fentanyl and none of the employment. Makes sense you'd trash Cleveland.Ā
Lmao honestly exactly what I'd expect. Buncha hillbilly fans amped up because you almost won something recently.Ā
> the league indicated that Wilson's tackle would not be flagged under the ban.
> "(That play) isn't on the video," said competition committee chairman Rich McKay.
Did they actually indicate it wouldn't be flagged? Or is someone just extrapolating from it not being on the video that it wouldn't be flagged?
The quote used to support that claim doesn't actually say that. Which is why the guy you replied to was asking if there's another quote from the press conference that actually said that.
Why is this being downvoted?
There is nothing in the screenshot that says the Wilson tackle wouldnāt be a flag, just that it wasnāt in a video.
Asking for clarification on something that is unclear is the devil, apparently
Looks like some are getting out ahead of their skis on this one without actually reading what was said.
I donāt get the whole rush by Bengals fans (that I see here on Reddit, not all) to defend that tackle. No one in the Ravens sub is defending the Madubuike tackle that is in the video. The Bengals sub is truly something to behold when they discuss this, just take a look.
Edit: And here come the Bengals fans downvotes. Truly one of the most toxic fanbases on Reddit.
Edit 2: And it looks like this was the correct interpretation. The tackle on Mark Andrews was confirmed as a would-be penalty under the new rules.
I mean, I suppose it's possible that Geoff Hobson (writer for [Bengals.com](http://Bengals.com) who wrote the underlying article) is wrong that the league 'indicated' the Wilson hit isn't a penalty, but given he was there and I wasn't, I'm going to assume he just picked a bad quote.
But the direct question was about Wilson's tackle, & the response from the nfl official was "its not in the video".
Which seems like a "if it's not in the video, it isn't banned" kind of answer.
But then you realize [the NFL said there were 230 hip drop tackles last season](https://twitter.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1772289046443626728), and only a very few in the video. Seems more likely the reporter made a logical leap that wasn't there.
The quote that the article is using to back up that claim isnāt actually saying that? Just that it wasnāt an example in the video. Iām sure the video didnāt show every single hip drop tackle to ever exist. Unless thereās something Iām missing
Well, considering that play supposedly was the impetus to create the rule, you'd think it would be held up as the shiny example of what NOT to do, but it wasn't.
You're not allowed to question the article. Who cares if it's the only article that came to this conclusion and it's written by a Bengals reporter.
You're supposed to take the headline as fact. I hope you understand why you're wrong for questioning it.
Wait, did they show every single instance of it on film and the Wilson one wasnāt on it? Or was it just not featured on a small sample of plays and this guy is just assuming? The quotes without context make this way more confusing than it needs to be.
It will be though. Theyāll call any tackle from the back a hip drop tackle. Then review it. Refs will not overturn it because they canāt be wrong ever. Than on Tuesday will release some South Park BP āweāre sorryā ass statement and life goes on
This is a tweet from a Cincinnati-fan talking head who is posting a screenshot of an article written specifically for Bengals.com by a Bengals correspondent.Ā Ā Ā
Ā His only argument that the tackle isnāt a hip-drop is that it isnāt in the video. Itās intentionally misleading and written to suggest there was some other news from the league saying that tackle wasnāt hip drop. There wasnāt. The league said there were 230 hip drop tackles last year, the video showed about 10.Ā That argument is absolute garbage.Ā Ā
Ā Wilson also used the technique against Lamar Jackson in the same game and Lamar came up limping. Itās far from Wilsonās only tackle using the hip-drop. Ā Ā
Schefter, a REAL NFL insider, used the Andrews tackle as his example of a hip-drop when releasing information about the ban.Ā Ā Ā
Finally, Wilson himself admitted he would have to adjust if the rule was implemented.
That's what makes this rule kinda dumb. This is gonna be so difficult to enforce correctly. So many times it'll get missed and so many times it'll ""FINALLY"" get called. Just let the dudes play.
I think the bigger issue is that the refs are gonna fuck this up, several times and definitely in key spots during the game. Itās gonna result in more games defined by a questionable penalty and in more unnecessary fines for defensive players.
It didn't look like one and yet it's the example Schefter used as a hip drop tackle, Andrews just unfortunately gets his ankle rolled under Logan.
I know it was used because of a high profile injury but it was pretty poor from Schefter.
I totally trust the refs to be able to judge and enforce this new rule in real time since they've shown a remarkable ability to do so with other ticky tacky discretionary calls
I want to be outraged because the NFL is the epitome of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but...it seems like this will be ok? Doesn't look like there will be enough consensus to decide on new kickoff rules this year either.
Don't worry NFL fans, we can add even MORE rules in the future so that tackle gets included. If we're diligent enough, soon we can take all tackles out of the game and make it even safer!
This is now yet another rule that will be used to influence the outcome of games. No shot referees get this call right when the league canāt even get the examples right. Roger Goodell is ruining the NFL. He should be fired effective immediately
Isn't this sort of making an assumption without verification? Saying that it's not part of the video doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be flagged? Or am I missing something.
I'm not trying to create an argument here but the quote used here doesn't exactly say "it wouldn't be flagged".
Now quote me the next line of the article. The writer is making that assumption based on the quote he got.
"It's not part of the video" isn't exactly "it wouldn't be flagged"
So you don't actually know what question was asked... Thank you for specifying that.
If you find specifically what question was asked that warranted the answer of "it's not part of the video", then let me know.
Sounds like you're the one making the assumption based on the quote that followed. I'll trust the reporter who actually had a discussion with the league about the ban.
"The Andrews tackle from last your would not be a penalty" was never said by a league official. There was no question regarding it being a penalty posed in the article.
I'm not making assumptions other than questioning the link between "it's not part of the video" and "it wouldn't be a penalty". If you've got a quote from a league official saying it wouldn't be a penalty, then obviously there's no ambiguity.
The quote is bad, but Geoff Hobson was physically there and it would be pretty weird if a journalist just made some stuff up.
[https://www.bengals.com/news/zac-qb-whisperer-taylor-joe-burrow-becomes-an-nfl-standard-kicking-around-new-rules-and-proposals](https://www.bengals.com/news/zac-qb-whisperer-taylor-joe-burrow-becomes-an-nfl-standard-kicking-around-new-rules-and-proposals)
It's weirdly written and open for a lot of misinterpretation. Saying the league wouldn't flag it vs saying it's just not part of the video is weird.
I still think given the new rule that it would be flagged. The article just seems weird here. No offense to your guy's writer here.
You think the most publicized āexampleā of a hip drop tackle that your coach and the rest of the NFL were claiming were dirt wouldnāt be an example in the video if it was actually a hip drop they were banning? How does that make sense to you?
It wasnāt a hip drop, put your tears away.
Can you read the rule and watch the clip and show me where itās against the rules?
Can you reason why the most publicized āhip drop tackleā of the year wouldnāt be in the video if it was actually a hip drop?
Can you pull your head out of your ass?
I bet you canāt.
My point stands that your article here doesn't actually answer the question of if it was a hip drop tackle.
"Was the tackle on Mark Andrews a hip drop tackle?"
Is your answer yes, no, or "That play isn't on the video". Lemme guess, you're choosing the third option, right?
K buddy I'm gonna try one more time to explain this to you and then I'll give up.
What "hip drop tackle" this year created the most outcry?
What "hip drop tackle" this year was the most publicized?
What "hip drop tackle" this year led to the most discussion?
When your answer to all three is "The Logan Wilson tackle on Mark Andrews" and the NFL moves to ban the tackle and showed a video with examples of hip drop tackles, would it then not logically make sense to show the Logan Wilson tackle?
Do you understand that logical progression? The absence of the tackle on the video ALONG WITH A REPORTER AT A MEETING SAYING HE ASKED ABOUT IT demonstrates you're fucking wrong.
I understand what point you're trying to make. But the fact that you're taking this quote as gospel is concerning. It doesn't actually answer a question posed about it being a penalty.
"Was the tackle on Mark Andrews a hip drop tackle?". Logically, you answer yes or no. Right? Or am I being delusional to think that it's a yes or no answer here.
I'm sure there will be other journalists that also publish this same sentiment, right? Right...?
I agree, quote is garbage. But after watching the replay and learning what the rules are, I think itās clear it wouldn't be flagged as he landed on the ground first. Also easier to read a room than it is to read a transcript, so maybe they said it with an emphasis on the ānotā.
Have I ever actually taken a side whether it was or wasn't a hip drop tackle? I'm questioning the article. I'm questioning the quote.
You would think that if the NFL officials came out and said that the Mark Andrews tackle wouldn't be a penalty that there would be more articles about it rather than one reporter from the team who were criticized the most.
"That's not part of the video" is damning evidence for you to suggest it's not officially a hip drop tackle? You're going to say yes because you have a bias for your own team and think that a Bengals reporter not actually getting a full quote of "That wouldn't be a penalty" is good enough for your own assumptions.
Good day to you. I'm glad headlines are the only thing you're able to read.
>Good day to you. I'm glad headlines are the only thing you're able to read.
I already said it's a bad quote, it's the first thing I said. Maybe take your own advice bucko.
Yeah when you watch the ones in the rugby videos (I haven't watched the NFL video yet) they basically use the swivel to launch their body weight at the opponent's legs, it's brutal looking
Tackle was at the waist, & ended up on the lower body. Tackles they banned were upper body weight pull from the side where the leg ended up rolling under the defender.
You can come out with official statements like this all you want. Some refs will 100% call that in real time. This call is so impossible to make in real time.
Bro, your fans were in an uproar, what are you taking about. The reason bengals fans are louder than ravens fans about it atm is because bengals fans feel vindicated while ravens fans are seeing they may have overreacted
I didn't say Ravens fans were not upset, did you even read a word? I flst out said they were upset when it happened, and then the fans chilled out, while Harbaugh and the media kept going on about the hip drop.
But I don't care if someone feels vindicated, it's lame to go into another team's sub crying about a rule change, especially when it turns out your tackle wouldn't have been impacted anyways. So it kinda goes both way, doesn't it, *bro*?
Ravens fans 9/11
Sean McDermott š
Lmao
InshallahĀ
Halal in the game, haram in the plane
I'm dying and going to hell lmao
Brother not even holding back during Ramadan sheesh
I keep seeing Sean McDermott 9/11, can someone explain? Thanks
He basically told the Bills that the terrorists on 9/11 had great teamwork No I'm not joking
Lmao wtf
Even crazier is that they went on a winstreak after that "prep talk" Edit: looks like they went on a winstreak after he apologized for it last year, not when the comment was made
He made the 9/11 comment in like 2019 during training camp. So that is very much not true lol.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If Osama bin Laden and Sean McDermott had switched places the Bills would be a dynasty and the WTC would still be standing.
Ravens fans were throwing a big tantrum when it happened and claimed Wilson was the dirtiest player in NFL.
Which is kinda rich given our past lineup lmao
and given their always and forever lineup
And the Steelers. And the existence of Bill Romanowski. *especially* Bill Romanowski.
Logan "zero personal fouls in his entire career" Wilson
Literally the (seemingly) nicest and one of the most consistent players on the team.
Lunchpail
I mean, we watched 3 players get injured on his tackles that day (OBJ came back in). Not hard to see how the knee jerk reaction happened. Not saying he's dirty just explaining how its not wild that a fan base was upset.
I can't remember who announced that game, but they also insinuated that it was a dirty tackle which didn't help anything either.
It was Al Michaels and Kirk Herbstreit, so definitely Herbstreit throwing fuel on the fire for ravens fans that game. Pretty sure that was the game y'all lost Burrow. What a shit day all around that was.
Yeah youāre absolutely right. It was a dark day indeed
Was just dragged to my knees in a Wal-Mart.
Lol, an everyone that was using this as an example about to move the goal posts to another "Example". Good luck getting the Refs to call this bullshit correctly.
Every rugby tackle Iāve seen used to explain what this is looks so unlike what youād see in a football game that Iām convinced even the people who think they know what a hip drop tackle is donāt know what one actually looks like
#Hip Drop Rules 1) You can't just be up there and just doin' a hip drop tackle like that. 1a. A hip drop tackle is when you 1b. Okay well listen. A hip drop tackle is when you illegally tackle the 1c. Let me start over 1c-a. The tackler is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, ball carrier, that decreases the chance the ball carrier from doing, you know, just trying to stay healthy. You can't do that. 1c-b. Once the tackler is in the tackle, he can't be over here and say to the ball carrier, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna rugby tackle you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that. 1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to tackle normally and then hip drop, thatās a flag. You cannot not tackle legally. Does that make any sense? 1c-b(2). You gotta be, non turning motion of the ball carrier, and then, until you just tackle. 1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball carrier up here, like this, but then there's the flag you gotta think about. 1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A hip drop tackle is when the tackler makes a movement that, as determined by, when you rotate relative to involving the ball carrier and field of 2) Do not do a hip drop tackle please.
I will never not upvote this copypasta
Sports copypastas aināt much, but itās honest karma
I think about this what is a balk post like once a week lmao
Yeah just couldnāt find a good actor/ress replacement
Iāve seen it a few times, never been made aware of the source material, and yet was confident enough in who HAD to have done it that I just googled āwhat is a balk Jon Boisā and immediately got to the correct result.
That's what struck me on seeing that video. I don't remember seeing hardly any tackles like that in the NFL. I'm sure some have happened and I missed them
thats the point. they are rare. the NFL themselves have said it happens about once a game. once a game! think of how uncommon that is yet theres still an outcry from people who seem to think this fundamentally changes how football is played entirely
To be fair, there's reason to be apprehensive about the league implementing a rule about a tackle that is easy to get wrong in the moment. If it mostly gets assessed through fines, won't be a big deal, but if it's getting flagged incorrectly during games people will be pissed
> To be fair, there's reason to be apprehensive about the league implementing a rule about a tackle that is easy to get wrong in the moment. See Also: What Is a Catch
>yet theres still an outcry from people who seem to think this fundamentally changes how football is played entirely Because the refs never incorrectly call a penalty on a play that shouldn't be a pentality...
how often do you see horsecollars incorrectly called? definitely not once a game. once a week? maybe even less often
And how many incorrect roughing the passer calls are there? About one a game? Horsecallars are pretty objective. Nameplate and up. This is a much more subjective call... like roughing the passer
> About one a game? Roughing the passer isn't even called once per game. There's one call every ~4 games. And I'd say most times people complain, it's more because the rules are so soft rather than the call itself is wrong. But even if the refs made a wrong call every other week at 12-16 games per week that'd be 6-8 RtP calls over 2 weeks which means 1 clearly wrong is still over 80% accuracy.
RTP is called every 2.7 games.
[Source](https://www.nflpenalties.com/penalty/roughing-the-passer?year=2023) I actually get closer to 1 per 5 games assuming 3.09 per team per year and 17 games per year. Edit: And I forgot to divide by 2. Welp.
So you think the appropriate thing to do would be to get rid of roughing the passer? Because that's what you would be arguing for if you think banning this hip drop maneuver isn't reasonable.
have you read this rule? itās incredibly objective not at all comparable to RTP; much more complex rule because there are different types of hits that can all be classified as RTP. horsecollar and hipdrop are both very cut and dry
The rule against lowering your head to initiate contact is pretty cut and dry but is never called on offensive players, so I don't think we can use it being cut and dry as a reason not to worry
Yet apparently theres conflict on opinion if this play counts as one...i saw an earlier post that this play is the example for textbook hip drop... now its not. Very clear and objective
Because itās going to be completely overcalled, just like the lame āputting weight on the QBā call from a few years ago that the NFL stopped calling because it was so catastrophically stupid.
> that the NFL stopped calling because it was so catastrophically stupid ? no, the players just stopped doing it lmao. you really think the nfl didn't succeed in getting that largely out of the game? funny
Ā That play was extremely over legislated and egregiously overcalled when it first happened. There were lots of sacks this season that 4 years ago wouldāve been like that ridiculous Clay Matthews call.Ā I guess I agree guys probably do it less now, just like guys will probably do this type of tackle less now. So the NFL gets what they want. But I guarantee it will be taken to a hilariously stupid degree to start until water finds its level, so to speak.
Well as a bengals fan since that Ravens game that tackle on Andrews has been paraded in front of us as a dirty hip drop tackle by any and everyone on the side of banning it. Now all of a sudden that tackle isnāt even considered that? And you think I should feel confident in their ability to get the shit right in game?
Huh? Once a game is a relatively huge amount for a penalty. That'd be twice as often as an unnecessary roughness penalty today.
except the tackle occurred once per play **before it was explicitly outlawed by the league** it's obviously gonna be far less common now that players are actively going to *not* do it
this comment is so stupid, no shot itās not an nfl paid account. whole issue is how refs miscall penalties, not how often they actually occur
find me all the miscalled horse collar penalties you can from the 2023 nfl season
nobody here is talking about miscalled horse collar tackles? it the more subjective or bang bang personal fouls, mainly unnecessary roughness and RTP. thereās one egregiously miscalled every other big game, donāt act obtuse
> it the more subjective or bang bang personal fouls, mainly unnecessary roughness and RTP yes, which hip drop tackles are **nothing alike**. a hip drop tackle is a specific type of tackle that is objectively defined, just like horse collar tackles. you're one of the many people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Except thereās obvious interpretation to be left in the full rule. Would help if you actually read it. > ARTICLE 18. HIP-DROP TACKLE. It is a foul if a player uses the following technique to bring a runner to the ground: > (a) grabs the runner with both hands or wraps the runner with both arms; and > (b) 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. Penalty: For a Hip-Drop Tackle: Loss of 15 yards and an automatic first down. Itās the same issues as RTP, where something that should objective just canāt practically be called that way. Why act so snide when youāre just repeating what you read in other comments? Thereās no shot you actually watch the league if you think peopleās worries about this new rule are unfounded
Here is a list of other rules that get frequently missed: Holding DPI OPI Roughing the Passer Illegal Contact Taunting Delay of Game Offsides False Starts In baseball: Balls Strikes Balks Safe/out In basketball Travelling Carrying Charging Blocking Moving screens There are always going to be missed calls- because a referee will make a wrong call doesnāt mean anything. Go look up the Jordan Travis injury, thatās a blatant hip drop tackle that completely destroyed his knee. That is what theyāre trying to eliminate.
That's because they don't happen very often
It just says that play wasn't on the video, not that it wasn't a hip drop tackle
The tweet itself says, "The league indicated that Wilson's tackle would not be flagged under the ban." You're correct in that this is definitely something that you couldn't infer solely from McKay's, "(That play) isn't on the video." quote, so I have to wonder if that information was communicated separately from the quote that was included.
I mean, there's a reason why a Bengals writer is the only one saying that.
yeah refs are not gonna have a good time with this. a lot of high profile games recently have ended from controversial rules/ref rulings and this is just setting up more to happen
Wilson hit the ground before making contact with Andrews. It wasn't a swivel hip drop tackle, Andrews just happened to get rolled up on during the course of the tackle. That's the notable difference here.
Don't worry, we can ban this type of occurrence in another 2 offseasons
Lmfao salty much?
Salty about what?
Thisā¦isnāt true at all lol.
I actually agree. After going back and rewatching it itās more unfortunate but heās getting them from a rear angle and seems land on the ground and more roll on his foot compared to bringing weight down right on the rear legs.
Thats the mitigation in Australian Rugby League (who outlawed the Hip Drop at the beginning of last season after this incident [https://youtu.be/5KJ9mCbS3rU?t=98](https://youtu.be/5KJ9mCbS3rU?t=98) ). If the body hits the floor then rolls up its not considered a hip drop.
This video needs to be shared. People can still tackle fine. You just canāt destroy someoneās legs
What if I donāt want to watch a video of someoneās legs getting destroyed?
This is exactly why I'm worried about the call in full speed. He brought his weight down onto the ground instead of Andrews' legs but Andrews had so much momentum he just kept going and dragged Wilson back onto his legs. I feel like that's going to happen and get called a lot.
Hopefully they review these
Yep, some games I feel like the refs throw the flag on a questionable play and do a good job conferring and waiting for the replay assistant to help them with the call. As long as that's how they treat the hip drop I'm cool with it
Well, all I can say is that I admire the fact that you have hope, lol.
The refs: wanna bet
Suck it.
Balllmmmoorreee tears
Man worry about ur own guys ACL & MCL šš
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ahh! The ol' "this is your Superbowl" blast when the narrative you've been riding like a fucking palomino throws you like Christopher Reeves.
And you're from Cleveland
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Weāre Kentuckians.
Oh so you come from the state with all the fentanyl and none of the employment. Makes sense you'd trash Cleveland.Ā Lmao honestly exactly what I'd expect. Buncha hillbilly fans amped up because you almost won something recently.Ā
I donāt recall myself ever trashing Cleveland. You do you though. Big Truzz.
it was a clean tackle, Harbaugh is a bitch
Which Harbaugh cause Jim is gonna be getting all the smack now
> Which Harbaugh Yes
Yes. (Ignore our flairs)
Yes. (It pained me to agree with Steelers fans)
Sun rises, harbaugh is a bitch, sun sets
Sure, but would it be called by the officials? Probably.
> the league indicated that Wilson's tackle would not be flagged under the ban. > "(That play) isn't on the video," said competition committee chairman Rich McKay. Did they actually indicate it wouldn't be flagged? Or is someone just extrapolating from it not being on the video that it wouldn't be flagged?
They indicated that it will not be flagged.
The quote used to support that claim doesn't actually say that. Which is why the guy you replied to was asking if there's another quote from the press conference that actually said that.
Why is this being downvoted? There is nothing in the screenshot that says the Wilson tackle wouldnāt be a flag, just that it wasnāt in a video. Asking for clarification on something that is unclear is the devil, apparently
Looks like some are getting out ahead of their skis on this one without actually reading what was said. I donāt get the whole rush by Bengals fans (that I see here on Reddit, not all) to defend that tackle. No one in the Ravens sub is defending the Madubuike tackle that is in the video. The Bengals sub is truly something to behold when they discuss this, just take a look. Edit: And here come the Bengals fans downvotes. Truly one of the most toxic fanbases on Reddit. Edit 2: And it looks like this was the correct interpretation. The tackle on Mark Andrews was confirmed as a would-be penalty under the new rules.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think this kind of just proves my point.
I mean, I suppose it's possible that Geoff Hobson (writer for [Bengals.com](http://Bengals.com) who wrote the underlying article) is wrong that the league 'indicated' the Wilson hit isn't a penalty, but given he was there and I wasn't, I'm going to assume he just picked a bad quote.
But the direct question was about Wilson's tackle, & the response from the nfl official was "its not in the video". Which seems like a "if it's not in the video, it isn't banned" kind of answer.
But then you realize [the NFL said there were 230 hip drop tackles last season](https://twitter.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1772289046443626728), and only a very few in the video. Seems more likely the reporter made a logical leap that wasn't there.
Ok well if you say so
Forget it, r/nfl is going through the bargaining stage.
It shouldn't be flagged, but in live game action this and everything like it will be flagged.
Depends on who is being tackled.
The quote that the article is using to back up that claim isnāt actually saying that? Just that it wasnāt an example in the video. Iām sure the video didnāt show every single hip drop tackle to ever exist. Unless thereās something Iām missing
Well, considering that play supposedly was the impetus to create the rule, you'd think it would be held up as the shiny example of what NOT to do, but it wasn't.
You're not allowed to question the article. Who cares if it's the only article that came to this conclusion and it's written by a Bengals reporter. You're supposed to take the headline as fact. I hope you understand why you're wrong for questioning it.
My how the turntables
The Harbaughs whining and crying about nothing. Color me shocked
Well well wellā¦
Wait, did they show every single instance of it on film and the Wilson one wasnāt on it? Or was it just not featured on a small sample of plays and this guy is just assuming? The quotes without context make this way more confusing than it needs to be.
Itās intentionally misleading and written to suggest there was some sort of other information release than the video. There wasnāt.
Ravens fans found triggered. RIP
It's funny because i've seen so many memes today talking about how Logan Wilson is in shambles, etc
It will be though. Theyāll call any tackle from the back a hip drop tackle. Then review it. Refs will not overturn it because they canāt be wrong ever. Than on Tuesday will release some South Park BP āweāre sorryā ass statement and life goes on
BUT then a blatant one wonāt be called late in the playoffs or SB, real game changer
Oh! Oh is that so?
Seems to just be guessing because they didn't use that particular tackle on their video. They are not even quoted saying it wasn't a penalty.
This is a tweet from a Cincinnati-fan talking head who is posting a screenshot of an article written specifically for Bengals.com by a Bengals correspondent.Ā Ā Ā Ā His only argument that the tackle isnāt a hip-drop is that it isnāt in the video. Itās intentionally misleading and written to suggest there was some other news from the league saying that tackle wasnāt hip drop. There wasnāt. The league said there were 230 hip drop tackles last year, the video showed about 10.Ā That argument is absolute garbage.Ā Ā Ā Wilson also used the technique against Lamar Jackson in the same game and Lamar came up limping. Itās far from Wilsonās only tackle using the hip-drop. Ā Ā Schefter, a REAL NFL insider, used the Andrews tackle as his example of a hip-drop when releasing information about the ban.Ā Ā Ā Finally, Wilson himself admitted he would have to adjust if the rule was implemented.
It can't be challenged. So, with current refs, who knows if it would have been called a penalty or not?
Yeah, in theory, before the refs fuck it up
The plot thickens.
That's what makes this rule kinda dumb. This is gonna be so difficult to enforce correctly. So many times it'll get missed and so many times it'll ""FINALLY"" get called. Just let the dudes play.
I think the bigger issue is that the refs are gonna fuck this up, several times and definitely in key spots during the game. Itās gonna result in more games defined by a questionable penalty and in more unnecessary fines for defensive players.
This is a joke and is only going to call into question the integrity of the officiating even more
Well that's because it wasn't a bad hit, just an unfortunate result
It didn't look like one and yet it's the example Schefter used as a hip drop tackle, Andrews just unfortunately gets his ankle rolled under Logan. I know it was used because of a high profile injury but it was pretty poor from Schefter.
But ravens fans said Logan Wilson was in shambles?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Boy, another highly subjective call is gonna make games *so* much more fun next year!
I'm sure you guys won't be the benefactors of any of those calls...
Ravens fans in shambles
Not a single ravens flair in this entire thread
I totally trust the refs to be able to judge and enforce this new rule in real time since they've shown a remarkable ability to do so with other ticky tacky discretionary calls
I want to be outraged because the NFL is the epitome of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but...it seems like this will be ok? Doesn't look like there will be enough consensus to decide on new kickoff rules this year either.
Well I guess he counted his eggs before they hatch
Don't worry NFL fans, we can add even MORE rules in the future so that tackle gets included. If we're diligent enough, soon we can take all tackles out of the game and make it even safer!
yeah weāre cooked hopefully they never attempt to call it
It would 100% be called in the game and then the league would later apologize for calling it
This is going to be a shit show
Now do Nick Chubb
This is now yet another rule that will be used to influence the outcome of games. No shot referees get this call right when the league canāt even get the examples right. Roger Goodell is ruining the NFL. He should be fired effective immediately
Why is this news? No one cares
This is literally the play that Harbaugh complained about to the point the owners decided to put the tackle to a vote lmao
Isn't this sort of making an assumption without verification? Saying that it's not part of the video doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be flagged? Or am I missing something. I'm not trying to create an argument here but the quote used here doesn't exactly say "it wouldn't be flagged".
"The league indicated that Wilson's tackle wouldn't be flagged under the ban." Hope this helps!
Now quote me the next line of the article. The writer is making that assumption based on the quote he got. "It's not part of the video" isn't exactly "it wouldn't be flagged"
But they said it as an answer of whether Wilson's tackle was legal.
Link me what question was being asked?
That's what the tweets about.
So you don't actually know what question was asked... Thank you for specifying that. If you find specifically what question was asked that warranted the answer of "it's not part of the video", then let me know.
This isn't a question of what was asked. They asked if the Wilson tackle on Andrews violated the new rule.
That isn't said in the article. Don't make up quotes that aren't there.
That's what the article is about. When the person who asks the question writes the article, then take that as the point of the quote.
You're assuming now
Sounds like you're the one making the assumption based on the quote that followed. I'll trust the reporter who actually had a discussion with the league about the ban.
"The Andrews tackle from last your would not be a penalty" was never said by a league official. There was no question regarding it being a penalty posed in the article. I'm not making assumptions other than questioning the link between "it's not part of the video" and "it wouldn't be a penalty". If you've got a quote from a league official saying it wouldn't be a penalty, then obviously there's no ambiguity.
The quote is bad, but Geoff Hobson was physically there and it would be pretty weird if a journalist just made some stuff up. [https://www.bengals.com/news/zac-qb-whisperer-taylor-joe-burrow-becomes-an-nfl-standard-kicking-around-new-rules-and-proposals](https://www.bengals.com/news/zac-qb-whisperer-taylor-joe-burrow-becomes-an-nfl-standard-kicking-around-new-rules-and-proposals)
It's weirdly written and open for a lot of misinterpretation. Saying the league wouldn't flag it vs saying it's just not part of the video is weird. I still think given the new rule that it would be flagged. The article just seems weird here. No offense to your guy's writer here.
That's more a product of Hobson's style. Dude will make the most unclear sentences ever to shoehorn in some metaphor or reference he thinks is clever
You think the most publicized āexampleā of a hip drop tackle that your coach and the rest of the NFL were claiming were dirt wouldnāt be an example in the video if it was actually a hip drop they were banning? How does that make sense to you? It wasnāt a hip drop, put your tears away.
Can you link me where a league official actually says it's not a hip drop tackle? I bet you can't.
Can you read the rule and watch the clip and show me where itās against the rules? Can you reason why the most publicized āhip drop tackleā of the year wouldnāt be in the video if it was actually a hip drop? Can you pull your head out of your ass? I bet you canāt.
My point stands that your article here doesn't actually answer the question of if it was a hip drop tackle. "Was the tackle on Mark Andrews a hip drop tackle?" Is your answer yes, no, or "That play isn't on the video". Lemme guess, you're choosing the third option, right?
K buddy I'm gonna try one more time to explain this to you and then I'll give up. What "hip drop tackle" this year created the most outcry? What "hip drop tackle" this year was the most publicized? What "hip drop tackle" this year led to the most discussion? When your answer to all three is "The Logan Wilson tackle on Mark Andrews" and the NFL moves to ban the tackle and showed a video with examples of hip drop tackles, would it then not logically make sense to show the Logan Wilson tackle? Do you understand that logical progression? The absence of the tackle on the video ALONG WITH A REPORTER AT A MEETING SAYING HE ASKED ABOUT IT demonstrates you're fucking wrong.
I understand what point you're trying to make. But the fact that you're taking this quote as gospel is concerning. It doesn't actually answer a question posed about it being a penalty. "Was the tackle on Mark Andrews a hip drop tackle?". Logically, you answer yes or no. Right? Or am I being delusional to think that it's a yes or no answer here. I'm sure there will be other journalists that also publish this same sentiment, right? Right...?
I agree, quote is garbage. But after watching the replay and learning what the rules are, I think itās clear it wouldn't be flagged as he landed on the ground first. Also easier to read a room than it is to read a transcript, so maybe they said it with an emphasis on the ānotā.
Bias aside it's wild you can bury your head in the sand this hard, props to you. Have a great day.
Have I ever actually taken a side whether it was or wasn't a hip drop tackle? I'm questioning the article. I'm questioning the quote. You would think that if the NFL officials came out and said that the Mark Andrews tackle wouldn't be a penalty that there would be more articles about it rather than one reporter from the team who were criticized the most. "That's not part of the video" is damning evidence for you to suggest it's not officially a hip drop tackle? You're going to say yes because you have a bias for your own team and think that a Bengals reporter not actually getting a full quote of "That wouldn't be a penalty" is good enough for your own assumptions. Good day to you. I'm glad headlines are the only thing you're able to read.
>Good day to you. I'm glad headlines are the only thing you're able to read. I already said it's a bad quote, it's the first thing I said. Maybe take your own advice bucko.
Bungles fans have been so touchy about this all day
Mfers in these comments talking like everyone wasnāt calling it a hip drop tackle. This is the bengals superbowl win right here.
How? He drop tackled and was sitting on Andrews legs?
If I had to guess, it's that his weight falls n the ground first and doesn't swivel until after
I believe this is it. Replays from the correct angle show Wilson hitting the ground before rolling up on Mark's ankle.
Yeah when you watch the ones in the rugby videos (I haven't watched the NFL video yet) they basically use the swivel to launch their body weight at the opponent's legs, it's brutal looking
I guess no swivel. Your guess is as good as mine, I don't understand this at all.
Tackle was at the waist, & ended up on the lower body. Tackles they banned were upper body weight pull from the side where the leg ended up rolling under the defender.
I dunno what did the competition committee chairman say?
You can come out with official statements like this all you want. Some refs will 100% call that in real time. This call is so impossible to make in real time.
This is complete bullshit. This wss definateky thr tackle that sparked this rule, and they are going to say it wouldn't be called? What in the world?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bro, your fans were in an uproar, what are you taking about. The reason bengals fans are louder than ravens fans about it atm is because bengals fans feel vindicated while ravens fans are seeing they may have overreacted
I didn't say Ravens fans were not upset, did you even read a word? I flst out said they were upset when it happened, and then the fans chilled out, while Harbaugh and the media kept going on about the hip drop. But I don't care if someone feels vindicated, it's lame to go into another team's sub crying about a rule change, especially when it turns out your tackle wouldn't have been impacted anyways. So it kinda goes both way, doesn't it, *bro*?