Tackling debate compromise idea

Hi all,
At the recent Miggle convention I was chatting with a coach about front-of-base tackling versus any-part-of-the-base tackling. It spurred an idea I had that I wanted to throw out there for debate.

First of all, let me be clear, maybe somebody has long since thought of this and I'm just unaware of it, so I'm not trying to take credit for anyone's idea and if this has already been discussed then just disregard this post.

That said, my idea is simple: for any-touch base coaches who don't agree with the front-of-base concept, how about a compromise where any touch constitutes a tackle, but if it's done with the side or back of a base, the player is awarded two extra yards on the play. Why two extra yards? Because men average about 6 feet high, which is equivalent of two yards, and that's the distance they would be likely to fall forward, if they were brought down by just an arm tackle or a "shoe-string" tackle.

Thus, a front of base tackle would constitute the kind of tackle that stops a runner dead in his tracks, and any other part of the base would constitute the kind of tackle where the guy is brought down by a shoe string and falls forward for an extra gain.

By adding only two yards, it alleviates the feeling by any-touch coaches that they are not getting credit for a tackle with the front-of-base rule and it also alleviates the front of base coaches concern that their runner is being brought down in an unrealistic manner, short of the gain a real player would make by breaking through an "arm tackle" or shoe string tackle.

Those added two yards could make the difference between getting a first down or even a touchdown, or not getting it. It would reward good blocking while still acknowledging that sometimes guys do get tripped up by an otherwise poor tackle, especially between the hash marks where linemen are clashing in chaos with one another.

Again, if this is not my original idea, no offense to anyone who already thought of it. But, if it is something that folks might want to experiment with, it might be a good compromise when coaches from divergent styles get together and play. Comments?

[FrankB]

I play front of base tackling however, if i was playing any part of the base tackling, that would sound fairly reasonable. Good idea

[NEW CASTLE HiTMEN]

I would prefer front and side base tackles. No back of base tackling. I have never seen a player tackle another with their back to the ball carrier.

[Steel Town Tough]

It is great you guys are trying to add realism.Reminds me of MPFL--all about realism--keep it up--STT

[Coach K-LO]

Originally Posted by NEW CASTLE HiTMEN

I would prefer front and side base tackles. No back of base tackling. I have never seen a player tackle another with their back to the ball carrier.

i saw this in the playoffs by a Stiller......but I never liked the back of the base tackles

[Coach K-LO]

Originally Posted by Ben Neuhauser

Hi all,
At the recent Miggle convention I was chatting with a coach about front-of-base tackling versus any-part-of-the-base tackling. It spurred an idea I had that I wanted to throw out there for debate.

First of all, let me be clear, maybe somebody has long since thought of this and I'm just unaware of it, so I'm not trying to take credit for anyone's idea and if this has already been discussed then just disregard this post.

That said, my idea is simple: for any-touch base coaches who don't agree with the front-of-base concept, how about a compromise where any touch constitutes a tackle, but if it's done with the side or back of a base, the player is awarded two extra yards on the play. Why two extra yards? Because men average about 6 feet high, which is equivalent of two yards, and that's the distance they would be likely to fall forward, if they were brought down by just an arm tackle or a "shoe-string" tackle.

Thus, a front of base tackle would constitute the kind of tackle that stops a runner dead in his tracks, and any other part of the base would constitute the kind of tackle where the guy is brought down by a shoe string and falls forward for an extra gain.

By adding only two yards, it alleviates the feeling by any-touch coaches that they are not getting credit for a tackle with the front-of-base rule and it also alleviates the front of base coaches concern that their runner is being brought down in an unrealistic manner, short of the gain a real player would make by breaking through an "arm tackle" or shoe string tackle.

Those added two yards could make the difference between getting a first down or even a touchdown, or not getting it. It would reward good blocking while still acknowledging that sometimes guys do get tripped up by an otherwise poor tackle, especially between the hash marks where linemen are clashing in chaos with one another.

Again, if this is not my original idea, no offense to anyone who already thought of it. But, if it is something that folks might want to experiment with, it might be a good compromise when coaches from divergent styles get together and play. Comments?

Well, I must say, it's the first time I ever heard of such a notion. I play both FOB and ATT and I like the concept. Still could be tricky, but worth more study.

Throw out the back-of-base tackles and you might get more support. I like it and will put it to the "lab test".

[WEIRDWOLF]

That's a new one on me. I like the concept. I do think that at the goalline the guy has to cross regardless of tackle position. Just doesn't seem right awarding a TD by adding 2 yards. Eliminating back of the base tackles may be the easiest to referee.

We play any touch which stinks in my opinion in regards to the run game. Do FOB leagues have any issues with the "He tackled him with the front. No he didn't" arguement. I can see that happening and just wondered how FOB leagues deal with that or if it happens much

[mozeek]

ANYTIME THERE IS COMPETITION THERE WILL BE ARGUEMENTS AND PLAYING THE FRONT OF THE BASE WITH SOME COACHES CAN BE A HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE

[detroitchild]

I play front of base in my solitaire league and the arguments between me and myself can get down right ugly!

[Coach K-LO]

Originally Posted by WEIRDWOLF

That's a new one on me. I like the concept. I do think that at the goalline the guy has to cross regardless of tackle position. Just doesn't seem right awarding a TD by adding 2 yards. Eliminating back of the base tackles may be the easiest to referee.

We play any touch which stinks in my opinion in regards to the run game. Do FOB leagues have any issues with the "He tackled him with the front. No he didn't" arguement. I can see that happening and just wondered how FOB leagues deal with that or if it happens much

the way we deal with it is "if it is unclear, it ain't a tackle" ...but sometimes that won't satisfy both so the last resort - coin flip.......

k-lo