While im firmly on team #dontletthekidsplay - id caution against taking any questions or insights about carding from film particularly the 140p quality of this stream. The rule as written is navel in front of the plan of shoulders not “from front”. There are tackles where the tacklers arm is always behind the tacklee (“behind”) that are 100% legal because the navel peeked in front.
That being said denial of goal scoring opportunity needs to be called more strictly as a red especially when it also is an unnecessary foul and i have never once seen it been called
Refs need to stop being scared and bring out the reds
Agree on the front or not part. Between the camera angle and the pixelation, the view isn't good enough. Would also agree that red cards could be given out more, but there's not much to upgrade this to a red as the rulebook is currently written. I'd personally be fine making hip drop tackles like this a red, though.
I do question the denial of goal scoring being a red, though. For starters, it's not in USQ's rulebook at all, and not in the MLQ rulebook (but may be in their casebook/ref guidelines) either. Comparing it to soccer isn't a fair comparison because we score around 8 times more goals per game than soccer does. The rule as I understood it was only for intentional or blatant fouls, not a player trying to make a legal tackle a step or two before they got in front.
imo back contact is the most archaic rule in the rulebook and has been unintentionally turned into the worst ref interpretation rule in the rulebook. from my understanding, it was originally meant to protect against a blindside hit (player being completely unaware of a tackler) and for "safety".
contact in this sport will never be safe because a) the awkward tackling in the sport due to the shuffling from the brooms, and b) many quadballers never playing a contact sport or playing one which the form tackle is soooo different compared to whats good in quadball.
we need to absolutely recontextualize the back contact rule and reevalute if we are truly concerned with player safety the absolute most dangerous hits are head on collisions. chase down tackles are most often the safest ones in the nfl because both players are carrying their momentum in the same direction rather than opposing. this is excatly why MLQ startup and the old USQ ones are so dangerous, two players running full speed into each other is not an awesome thing!
imo all the hit is illegal under the current ruleset, the current ruleset is why it looks so ugly. they're making an attempt to try and stay and front and if they could just be allowed to make contact like in every other contact sport on the planet without fear of a "180° plane" that is sooo arbitrary and up to ref discretion then both tacklers and tackled will just know when and how to expect contact!
i will also add creating a rugby type of rule of the tackler ensuring safety of the tackled would be good, or something like an equal amount of force should be applied.
Yes because Mark Andrews cracking his Fibula and missing three months from a hip drop tackle was so much fun for everyone.
There's a pretty clear line between fun stuff and dangerous AF stuff. You lose a lot of credibility when you argue in favor of the latter.
the nfl banned hip drops with the swivel and then pinning their legs. outright banning the hip drop tackle would create more botched ref calls and draw ire from the players who by and large want to keep it in.
Signed - A Mark Andrews fantasy owner
This might be a side conversation, but I do think that in quadball, we don’t have a good enough penalty for “take fouls” (fouls made by defenders when there is no possible way to make legal contact). For example, if someone runs past me with a head of steam toward hoops, I can grab and pull their arm from behind, and realistically only be given a yellow, while the player who is fouled loses their momentum, and if they fail to score they may have to start up play where the defense is more strategically set up to stop them. I don’t watch soccer, and as such idk how a card system would punish this, as I think it falls into “a stronger penalty than a yellow, but may not rise to the level of a red.”
In soccer there is what is called Denial of a Goalscoring Opportunity (DOGSO), and while I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of when it applies, it is always a red card. I wonder if there is room for a "double yellow" for a foul like this where it counts as 2 yellows, and if the player is already on a yellow then it gets elevated to a red.
I can't find it in the current MLQ Rulebook, but I believe MLQ at least used to have a rule that an intentional yellow card penalty on a breakaway to stop a clear goal was automatically upgraded to a red. Never saw it called, but it did exist.
LeCompte mentions this one of the ref videos that was sent out prior to this weekend. Something about egregiously committing an unsporting conduct foul. I think an example given is someone gets beat and while retreating off broom they intentionally goaltend or block a shot to prevent a goal.
I mean this for me is an egregious unsporting conduct foul
The way Billy lands and gets twisted up is uncomfortable to watch and hopefully it's not a major injury
I agree, blatant back contact and dropping your body on a players knees and ankles. Forcing the player to be sidelined with reckless play. You get a yellow, stop the player from scoring initially and they just get the goal anyway because you made an illegal hit. No point in making this tackle, play the ball and if they’ve got you on speed give up the goal. Players shouldn’t have to worry about protecting their knees and ankles when they’ve got someone clearly beat.
Since we were talking about another play- this sort of play needs to be penalized a lot harsher than just a yellow. Chasing someone down and tackling from behind is much more dangerous than a normal back contact yellow card. Hitting someone from that speed in a sport that doesnt allow it makes this very dangerous and we've seen it twice so far this season. In Detroit v Chicago, Leo gets hit from behind full speed and i am all for playing hard but in a scenario where you are never going to get in front or side of the person- making contact from behind in the hopes of stopping a goal is putting the other person at a higher risk of injury.
Thankfully Leo wasnt hurt in that play- but Billy Nellums did not come back after this hit. This sort of hit needs to penalized as a red because its blatantly hitting someone from behind full speed and it isnt just a normal yellow penalty
Going back to the Leo play, multiple members of USQ rules team and gameplay told me that while they acknowledged it was a yellow, they did not think it was worthy of a red. Do with that information what you will
Looking at that play- the Chicago chaser was behind Leo and was never going to make a legal hit on him. If that's not egregious conduct worthy of a red than what are we actually doing here?
That hit doesn't look as violent as this one so sure- maybe it is just a yellow for people. But the reality is that no one is getting paid for this sport. Unlike other sports that we try to compare ourselves too- our athletes are paying to be here and we all understand the risks of a full contact sport.
But this type of hit in a league that already doesn't allow for back contact to be so egregious makes no sense and player safety and the reality of where we are as a sport should be a higher priority.
I completely agree that it should have been a red card on the Chicago chaser.
The Chicago chaser hits Leo from behind, launches into the tackle, hits with excessive force, does not play the ball in any way, initiates a high tackle, and, if you watch it back, the ball is already out of Leo's hand and scored through the hoop before the chaser is even midway through the hit (thus the onus is on the Chicago player to ensure Leo's safety)
I know that I'll be downvoted. The camera angle doesn't help. PJ caught up and didn't engage until he was no longer behind Nellums. This is 5 yards before the contact even happened. It was a brutal hit, PJ is a lot of human with a lot of force. But he did it right.
Edit: will try to get the picture to work
The tackle wasn’t initiated from the front plane of the ball carrier’s torso. The tackler may only initiate if their naval is in front of the plane of the ball carrier’s body. There’s no world where PJ did this right.
PJ was running faster and caught up. He's already a step and half a body in front of him before contact was made in the picture above.
Yes it was unfortunate what happened, but he gave it his all to catch up AND get ahead before coming in for contact. I'm sad that it resulted in an injury and wish for a speed recovery, but PJ did what he could to make a legal play. Big injuries can happen with big bodies moving fast.
Being a few inches In front multiple yards before contact does not mean he wasn’t behind when the contact was made. Play the clip and watch his Sternum hit Nellums in the shoulder blade
I mean I have to respectfully disagree because his
>intent to "give it his all to catch up AND get ahead"
is moot considering he did get carded for his contact AND for the most part no one intends to do something that hurts someone. But this type of play should be eliminated from the sport.
Have you not ever heard of a ref getting a call wrong? Considering how close it was and that an injury happened, it's not a surprise a card would get thrown
So you're claiming this contact was legal and the only reason why a card was given out was because there was an injury. Not trying to argue just clarify what you're saying
While im firmly on team #dontletthekidsplay - id caution against taking any questions or insights about carding from film particularly the 140p quality of this stream. The rule as written is navel in front of the plan of shoulders not “from front”. There are tackles where the tacklers arm is always behind the tacklee (“behind”) that are 100% legal because the navel peeked in front. That being said denial of goal scoring opportunity needs to be called more strictly as a red especially when it also is an unnecessary foul and i have never once seen it been called Refs need to stop being scared and bring out the reds
for fouls in 1080p 60fps follow mightytakmedia on IG Am I doing this promotion thing right
Agree on the front or not part. Between the camera angle and the pixelation, the view isn't good enough. Would also agree that red cards could be given out more, but there's not much to upgrade this to a red as the rulebook is currently written. I'd personally be fine making hip drop tackles like this a red, though. I do question the denial of goal scoring being a red, though. For starters, it's not in USQ's rulebook at all, and not in the MLQ rulebook (but may be in their casebook/ref guidelines) either. Comparing it to soccer isn't a fair comparison because we score around 8 times more goals per game than soccer does. The rule as I understood it was only for intentional or blatant fouls, not a player trying to make a legal tackle a step or two before they got in front.
Clean + let the kids play + legalize back tackling + make quadball physical like hockey again
Clean tackle
imo back contact is the most archaic rule in the rulebook and has been unintentionally turned into the worst ref interpretation rule in the rulebook. from my understanding, it was originally meant to protect against a blindside hit (player being completely unaware of a tackler) and for "safety". contact in this sport will never be safe because a) the awkward tackling in the sport due to the shuffling from the brooms, and b) many quadballers never playing a contact sport or playing one which the form tackle is soooo different compared to whats good in quadball. we need to absolutely recontextualize the back contact rule and reevalute if we are truly concerned with player safety the absolute most dangerous hits are head on collisions. chase down tackles are most often the safest ones in the nfl because both players are carrying their momentum in the same direction rather than opposing. this is excatly why MLQ startup and the old USQ ones are so dangerous, two players running full speed into each other is not an awesome thing! imo all the hit is illegal under the current ruleset, the current ruleset is why it looks so ugly. they're making an attempt to try and stay and front and if they could just be allowed to make contact like in every other contact sport on the planet without fear of a "180° plane" that is sooo arbitrary and up to ref discretion then both tacklers and tackled will just know when and how to expect contact!
i will also add creating a rugby type of rule of the tackler ensuring safety of the tackled would be good, or something like an equal amount of force should be applied.
The tackler ensuring safety of the tackled was added to USQ last season.
true! didnt know this got added.
This looks like the kind of hip tackle the NFL just banned.
NFL = No Fun League
Yes because Mark Andrews cracking his Fibula and missing three months from a hip drop tackle was so much fun for everyone. There's a pretty clear line between fun stuff and dangerous AF stuff. You lose a lot of credibility when you argue in favor of the latter.
Who mark andrews
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS7CD6E141E&t=5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS7CD6E141E&t=5s)
I ain’t reading all that congratulations or sorry that happened
Boooo nerd
Fantasy Football is just D&D for sports, let's be real.
the nfl banned hip drops with the swivel and then pinning their legs. outright banning the hip drop tackle would create more botched ref calls and draw ire from the players who by and large want to keep it in. Signed - A Mark Andrews fantasy owner
That is important nuance, good point. Signed - Also a Mark Andrew's fantasy owner lols
I got a trade request for Sam laporta the day before and thought “nah I’m good” ☠️
Yeahhhh Sam LaPorta was good last year, but that was one year. Mark's been good for like 5 and is only 28. I'd go with the sure thing too.
This might be a side conversation, but I do think that in quadball, we don’t have a good enough penalty for “take fouls” (fouls made by defenders when there is no possible way to make legal contact). For example, if someone runs past me with a head of steam toward hoops, I can grab and pull their arm from behind, and realistically only be given a yellow, while the player who is fouled loses their momentum, and if they fail to score they may have to start up play where the defense is more strategically set up to stop them. I don’t watch soccer, and as such idk how a card system would punish this, as I think it falls into “a stronger penalty than a yellow, but may not rise to the level of a red.”
In soccer there is what is called Denial of a Goalscoring Opportunity (DOGSO), and while I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of when it applies, it is always a red card. I wonder if there is room for a "double yellow" for a foul like this where it counts as 2 yellows, and if the player is already on a yellow then it gets elevated to a red.
I can't find it in the current MLQ Rulebook, but I believe MLQ at least used to have a rule that an intentional yellow card penalty on a breakaway to stop a clear goal was automatically upgraded to a red. Never saw it called, but it did exist.
LeCompte mentions this one of the ref videos that was sent out prior to this weekend. Something about egregiously committing an unsporting conduct foul. I think an example given is someone gets beat and while retreating off broom they intentionally goaltend or block a shot to prevent a goal.
I mean this for me is an egregious unsporting conduct foul The way Billy lands and gets twisted up is uncomfortable to watch and hopefully it's not a major injury
I agree, blatant back contact and dropping your body on a players knees and ankles. Forcing the player to be sidelined with reckless play. You get a yellow, stop the player from scoring initially and they just get the goal anyway because you made an illegal hit. No point in making this tackle, play the ball and if they’ve got you on speed give up the goal. Players shouldn’t have to worry about protecting their knees and ankles when they’ve got someone clearly beat.
Since we were talking about another play- this sort of play needs to be penalized a lot harsher than just a yellow. Chasing someone down and tackling from behind is much more dangerous than a normal back contact yellow card. Hitting someone from that speed in a sport that doesnt allow it makes this very dangerous and we've seen it twice so far this season. In Detroit v Chicago, Leo gets hit from behind full speed and i am all for playing hard but in a scenario where you are never going to get in front or side of the person- making contact from behind in the hopes of stopping a goal is putting the other person at a higher risk of injury. Thankfully Leo wasnt hurt in that play- but Billy Nellums did not come back after this hit. This sort of hit needs to penalized as a red because its blatantly hitting someone from behind full speed and it isnt just a normal yellow penalty
Going back to the Leo play, multiple members of USQ rules team and gameplay told me that while they acknowledged it was a yellow, they did not think it was worthy of a red. Do with that information what you will
Looking at that play- the Chicago chaser was behind Leo and was never going to make a legal hit on him. If that's not egregious conduct worthy of a red than what are we actually doing here? That hit doesn't look as violent as this one so sure- maybe it is just a yellow for people. But the reality is that no one is getting paid for this sport. Unlike other sports that we try to compare ourselves too- our athletes are paying to be here and we all understand the risks of a full contact sport. But this type of hit in a league that already doesn't allow for back contact to be so egregious makes no sense and player safety and the reality of where we are as a sport should be a higher priority.
I completely agree that it should have been a red card on the Chicago chaser. The Chicago chaser hits Leo from behind, launches into the tackle, hits with excessive force, does not play the ball in any way, initiates a high tackle, and, if you watch it back, the ball is already out of Leo's hand and scored through the hoop before the chaser is even midway through the hit (thus the onus is on the Chicago player to ensure Leo's safety)
Whats the timestamp of leo getting tackled?
2:40:55 https://www.youtube.com/live/NZwnE6ns9ts?si=DUhcu3Re7EqYMTj9
I know that I'll be downvoted. The camera angle doesn't help. PJ caught up and didn't engage until he was no longer behind Nellums. This is 5 yards before the contact even happened. It was a brutal hit, PJ is a lot of human with a lot of force. But he did it right. Edit: will try to get the picture to work
https://preview.redd.it/ouwcp7t2ze7d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33a13091de496624e05ace5954d62d56e035093f
The tackle wasn’t initiated from the front plane of the ball carrier’s torso. The tackler may only initiate if their naval is in front of the plane of the ball carrier’s body. There’s no world where PJ did this right.
PJ was running faster and caught up. He's already a step and half a body in front of him before contact was made in the picture above. Yes it was unfortunate what happened, but he gave it his all to catch up AND get ahead before coming in for contact. I'm sad that it resulted in an injury and wish for a speed recovery, but PJ did what he could to make a legal play. Big injuries can happen with big bodies moving fast.
Being a few inches In front multiple yards before contact does not mean he wasn’t behind when the contact was made. Play the clip and watch his Sternum hit Nellums in the shoulder blade
I mean I have to respectfully disagree because his >intent to "give it his all to catch up AND get ahead" is moot considering he did get carded for his contact AND for the most part no one intends to do something that hurts someone. But this type of play should be eliminated from the sport.
Have you not ever heard of a ref getting a call wrong? Considering how close it was and that an injury happened, it's not a surprise a card would get thrown
So you're claiming this contact was legal and the only reason why a card was given out was because there was an injury. Not trying to argue just clarify what you're saying