Eh...
While I see the reasoning, these guys need to be in football shape and prepared for game days. Tackling is part of football.
This. While I understand the idea of trying to minimze incidents that could lead to head injury, whether concussion or low speed non-concussive cumulative hits, if there's no tackling in practice, it will be much harder for players to learn to tackle correctly in games, to develop the muscle memory and instincts to tackle correctly, and to generally play at a high level (arguments whether the Ivys are a "high level" notwithstanding). You also lose the benefit to your offense of receivers and backs learning the instincts as to angles to dodge and avoid tackles and to run through tackles, since they won't have to do that in practice. It's a good idea in theory, but I feel like it could actually be worse in the long run, both for quality of play and more importantly for player safety, since if you don't have as much practice and muscle memory tackling "right", they may well end up doing more "bad" tackling in games and hurting themselves or someone else.
Dartmouth's defense leads the country in seven different categories, they've won the league championship for three straight years and are in general, an excellent team.
Also, professional hockey hasn't had contact in practices in years, and I haven't seen a masive degradation in quality there. This argument doesn't hold water.
Colbert answered this with inarguable definitive science last year. By using robotic dummies, they can tackle more often and more safely, improving tackling for defenders and preventing injuries for all players. I think it's really innovative.
I definitely see what they mean about injuries, also. The last few years we've had a lot of very serious injuries occur in practice. Anything that could minimize that would be useful.
we'll read about players getting injured in games because they don't practice proper tackling in practice.
John Gagliardi, of St. John's in Minnesota, decided to eliminate hitting in practice altogether -- and proceeded to win four national titles, and 489 games, the most of any coach, at any level. OK, it's Division III, but Gagliardi's success still surprised the critics, who kept telling him he couldn’t win without practicing tackling.
This is interesting. Obviously this and the Darmouth cases are ancedotal, but there might not be much of a competitive disadvantage to banning tackling.
I watched a bit of one last season, Dartmouth V Yale, IIRC. And while I think they were playing football, they sure as hell weren't very good at it. Removing tackling from their practices won't make one bit of difference. They've all sucked since the 70's, and they will continue to suck forever.
I watched most of the league's games last year. This just isn't true. The upper ecehlons of the league aren't bad. Saying they all are terrible is like saying that Rutgers represents the quality of football at Michigan. There's quite a bit of variation. The ivy league has sent a good number of players to the NFL and their programs aren't bad.
I don't get the argument that somehow, because it's FCS football, it's not worth analyzing and everyone sucks. It's still D1 football. Does it move as fast as a Michigan-Alabama game? Are the athletes as enormous? No. But the same thing is going on and we can glean useful data and insight from Dartmouth's new strategy that could be applicable across P5.
Just get rid of tackling in football entirely. No head gear or pads. Dont even allow players to use their hands. I bet that could be a pretty popular way to play football.
Oh wait...
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
if you forget which team to block....
To me, this is definitely more of a coaching / communication thing - with some people, you have to be very careful how you say certain things. For example, "I want you to do it exactly as we did it in practice" will inevitably be heard by someone who - once he finds the person he blocked in practice - will do exactly what you said....with that very surprised player....in an in-game scenario.
The only explanation I can think of is that they are either color blind or are in a cover 12.
Maybe they should start tackling robots now instead of real people....
Actually, it's already happening.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/09/18/robot-football-players-concussi…
That's exactly the problem - leading with head and shoulders. This guy has his head down too, at contact he can't even see what he is hitting.
A good tackle is either lock arms around waist and roll him or chest to his chest.
Unfortunately, most NCAA / NFL I see tackle like the clip above, by throwing their body at the oncoming player.
Yeah, I am beginning to think removing shoulder pads would help, but then you would have broken collarbones everywhere instead of concussions.
Yeah, this guy clearly needs more time with the tackling robot.
Is that Bobby Boucher?
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/253332…
So they still practice tackling, just not each other. (A lot of hitting bags, too, apparently.) Definite pros/cons vs. the real thing.
Robots can't hear football
Even if they have a sound card and speaker? Someone should make that happen. Robot football could replace the Kitten Bowl at halftime...
What about a microphone?
Dartmouth's coach was on the Dan Patrick show Wednesday. He said they eliminated tackling from practices last year, and their missed tackles went down by a lot. He said they probably tackle more in practice now than most schools they just don't tackle each other. So to those saying that because of no tackling in practice they won't be able to tackle in games this says you are wrong.