High hits which this is. Don't split hairs on whether the shoulders contact a split second prior to the helmets. This was not a tackle. This was an attempt by a player to blow up another player and deliver a message. One of the new defenseless definitions is a runner being held up and contact by another player or something to that effect. Not sure if that would also apply in this case but it's something to consider.

I disagree that it was not a tackle. It was a tackle. You do not have to wrap people to complete a tackle. Defenders do it all the time. If the claim is the runner got hit in the head fine. But I would not call it a foul for any other reason then a high hit where something hit the player specifically in the head. If this was just shoulders, then it was legal IMO. And the runner IMO was not being held up. The guys were falling off of him.

We are just doing to have to disagree on this one.

Peace

Since the player with the ball was already stood up and held on to by opponents who were mostly behind him, I don't think a lower hit would've been as effective in toppling him. A low hit can be effective in the open field where the runner can be taken off his feet, but when he's more or less supported by both feet and has bodies behind him that would prevent his own feet from being knocked out or his hips from being driven back, a high hit, far from his fulcrum, has more leverage.

In fact, I advocate just such a technique in a kind of combination block I call the horse-fly. One blocker (the "horse") jacks the opponent up from below, and then a lighter crackback blocker comes fly-ing in at high speed from the side hits him shoulder-to-shoulder.

Would it have been better if he'd have went after his knees ??? Not in my opinion !!! This was a perfectly legal play, assuming the contact wasn't helmet to helmet (which the official on the play ruled it wasn't).

My last comment on the subject is if you plan on working at the college level this is very clearly the kind of contact they want to get out of the game. If we don't we may not have a game to work much longer. And there is a lot of space to target between the knees and shoulders when a runner is upright. We may not like it or agree but it's the way it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

If they wanted to get that out of the game, they could easily legislate a narrower strike zone. Or some charging rule that'd say that if you take so many steps in a straight line, then you can hit only a narrow strike zone. Or they could change the rule on forward progress to say that if a runner is in an opponent's grasp and fails to break it before the ball becomes dead, the spot is where that condition was established. Lots of ways they could do it and be clear.

Those aren't any clearer. Just because someone takes a straight line run at someone doesn't mean they are going to foul. There's a difference between these "blow-up" hits and a tackle. Tackles can be violent as well but they usually involve wrapping someone up and bringing them to the ground.

I don't understand your forward progress comment unless you mean a defender wraps up a runner at the A25 and he never breaks it but goes down at the A27 we're bringing the ball back to the A25? I don't agree with that at all.

TV highlights (Sportscenter gets the brunt of it but they all do it) feature these hits so guys do it. They are dangerous for both the hitter and hittee and they often lead to ineffective tackling. The fact they usually hit high around the head make it even worse.

They're at least clearly stated. All you have so far is "blow-up", which isn't clear at all.
Well, the criteria for making the ball dead could be changed, that's another possibility. The current provision calling the runner down for having some part of the body other than hands or feet touch the ground irrespective of how they got there (other than for an ostensible place kick) was adopted in the 1930s as a safety measure. The previous rule required the runner to be "so held" that he was brought to the ground or (as now) had his progress stopped. However, it was not illegal to block the runner or contact him in other ways that might slow his progress or knock him down. If they wanted to, they could adopt rugby's code that specifies more or less the old type of tackle but in addition has it illegal to knock him over otherwise.
Yes, that's what I mean. It would be to take away the motivation of players of the defense to stop the runner's progress under circumstances when they could be sure he'd be brought down.
When a runner has good contact with the ground and is being held by an opponent as was the case in the video, the best way to stop his progress is with a high hit. Consider him to be a lever with its fulcrum on the ground. You get the most torque on him -- the best leverage -- by hitting him as far away as possible from the fulcrum. Since head and neck hits are illegal (and would not be as effective anyway, considering the neck's ability to bend), next farthest would be shoulder high. The player delivering the "blow-up" hit did just that, maximizing his leverage and counteracting whatever weight disadvantage he might've had.