Over the past few weeks… sandwiched between transcendent posts noted for their profundity, mandatory sessions of self-breema and frequent trips to the urologist… we’ve been conducting a scientific study here at EdHoncho.com headquarters, complete with Bunsen burners, beakers, lab coats, control groups, placebos and a genetically enhanced orangutan (Ulysses, if you must know, but it’s best not to get attached). In short, we’ve spared no expense. As the fruits of our research ripen and the nuts of our labor descend, they reveal some disturbing, uh, vegetables for us to digest (just roll with it people… it worked so well ’til that last part).

And so it’s time we pull back the veil and unleash our vile, ugly results to the world… we hope you’re sitting down, dear readers, or at least leaning against a wall, because we can only come to this conclusion: tackling, in the NFL, has gone to shit.

Gasp! Shock! Inappropriate guffaw! I know, I know. Scandalous, right? We couldn’t believe it either. We’ll give you a moment to compose yourselves.

Better? No? Just a minute more, then.

Now? What? OK, your distress is quickly becoming embarrassing. I’m moving forward. Catch up when you get ahold of yourselves.

Like any good study, we started with a question… namely; would football pants make my ass look fat? From there, we developed our hypothesis: my ass would look great in football pants. To test our hypothesis, we dipped into the EdHoncho.com budget, bought some football pants, and I put them on. We were all in accord… my ass looks great in football pants.

Then we did some other stuff and arrived at this whole bad tackling thing. It’s not important how we got there. Frankly, I don’t even remember. What’s important, is that my ass looks great in football pants.

Your instinctual response, of course, is to shower me with requests/demands for my phone number. I’m flattered, really, but my phone number is something you earn, not something I just throw around to anyone impressed by my incredibly impressive ass (I’m listed).  But it’s your ensuing question, once you’ve overcome the feelings of rejection, that’s more pertinent to our current conversation… specifically, why, Mr. Honcho, is tackling so bad in the NFL? (Never forget my powers of clairvoyance).

Naturally, we have the answers.

1) The Jacked-Up Effect. Remember this segment on ESPN’s NFL Primetime? It was a countdown montage of the best hits of the day. Some vicious shit. Let’s face it (because turning away from it is is infinitely more terrifying), form-tackling doesn’t get anyone in the highlight shows. It’s not called “Wrapped-Up!” It’s called “Jacked-Up!” And if you didn’t leave your opponent suitably jacked-up, and possibly horribly injured, you weren’t making the cut. You may have been helping your team, but you weren’t helping the network. Shame on you.

Now, there’s an art to this. Jarring hits have occurred in the NFL for a long time, and, when performed with the proper technique, should result in the ball-carrier hitting the ground, maybe considering how much he really loves the game. Ray Lewis is a master of this. He runs through people and wraps his arms around them in a collision that can best and most often be described as “Holy Shit!” Observe:

Notice the arms wrapped around the ball carrier? This is a key component of tackling someone in the NFL. Now take a look at this one:

A hard hit? You bet. Jacked-up? Most def. But it’s indicative of tackling in today’s NFL. Notice the arms at the side, protecting the ribcage. Notice the head down, not looking at the target. This approach to tackling allows for ball-carriers, appropriately balanced, to stay on their feet and potentially continue the play. There’s no better example of this than Reggie Nelson’s attempted tackle on Dallas Clark in last night’s Indianapolis-Jacksonville game (seen here beginning at the 2:08 mark), a piss-poor effort where he tried to pop him, but instead re-directed him so that he could easily run into the end zone. Embarrassing, but imminently predictable.

2) Turnover-overemphasis. Sure, turnovers are important. There are pages and pages of statistics that correlate turnover-margin and victory. But there’s a time and a place. And we hate to keep picking on poor Reggie Nelson, but, well, he needs to give us a reason to stop. Again, last night’s Indianapolis-Jacksonville game… Reggie Wayne catches a long pass. Nelson had the angle to at least push him out of bounds, and maybe even tackle him in the field of play. Instead, he allows Wayne to run past him, so that he can get an angle to punch the ball out from behind (as Wayne was smartly carrying the ball in his outside hand, away from the defender). Needless to say, he whiffs, allowing Wayne to walk in for a long touchdown and ruining/making fantasy seasons nationwide (watch it here, starting at the 2:45 mark). It’s an appalling display of incompetence which I’m sure was rationalized with “hey, I was just trying to make a play”. Instead, what you did, Reggie, was the opposite.

3) Me-Itis. Epidemic across the game, of course, but one of the few times a defensive back/linebacker gets to show off for the camera is following a big hit. It’s become commonplace to flex and pose, talk trash and admonish your opponent for having the audacity to, you know, advance with the football. The nerve! It doesn’t matter if the offense just gained 25 yards, or just gashed your defense for a first down… the context of the play means nothing. What matters is how it finished… that I just crushed yo ass!

It goes something like this: QB drops back to pass, scanning the field; DB guesses that he’s throwing it to this guy coming across the middle; lightbulb actually displays over head of DB… “I can knock his ass out!”; DB guesses right, pass is thrown; DB arrives same time as ball, arms at his side, crushing receiver just as he receives the ball; DB stands over receiver, probably asking him how his day has been… something to that effect; DB flexes muscles; DB’s teammates excitedly approach him and slap him on his helmet and shoulder pads as the receiver pops up as if nothing’s happened; chain gang moves the chains to signify the beginning of a new set of downs. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

Laron Landry is a highly visible proponent of this approach… nevermind that he gives up long touchdowns on a regular basis. He lights guys up! And he lets everyone know about it. Which is good for us, since we’ll know who he is when he gets cut. Keep it up Laron!

How to solve this conundrum? Sadly, we don’t yet know. We’ve got a working hypothesis, and I’ve got my football pants on, so we’re clearly making progress. But to date, the results have been mixed. Yes, my ass looks great in football pants, but what does this helmet do for me? And are these shoulder pads necessary? We could be at this for awhile.

Efter en serie tacklingar mot huvudet med därefter följande hjärnskakningar är frågan om hårt spel och tacklingar mot huvudet åter aktuell i USA och Kanada. Speciellt efter att Kitchener Rangers 16-årige Ben Fanelli ådrog sig livshotande skador med ett sprucket skallben efter en våldsam tackling av Lake Eeries Michael Liambas. Liambas har stängts av för resten av säsongen och ligans talesman David Branch säger att spelarna skall vara medvetna om att de är ansvariga för sina handlingar.

NHL klubbarnas General Managers diskuterar frågan på sitt möte i Toronto idag. Erfarna hockeyskribenter väntar sig dock inga konkreta förslag från klubbarnas General Managers. Dessa är nästa samtliga från den gamla skolan och tycker att hockey skall vara hårt och tufft. De vet att “red ice sells hockey tickets” och verkar mer bry sig om biljettintäkterna än sina spelares hälsa. En av dessa är Mike Milbury som förra veckan okänsligt konstaterade att “folk dör varje dag”. Krönikören Ken Campbell på The Hockey News tror att det finns en risk att GM mötet inte leder till någon förändring alls. Hans kollega Adam Proteau konstaterar att det faktum att NHL skall reglera sig själva är lika effektivt som att polisen själva skall utreda polisbrutalitet.

Gamle Don Cherry är själv en förespråkare för hårt spel för han vill inte se något förbud mot våldsamma tacklingar utan har följande tips till spelarna:

1. Var smart i kampen om pucken. Gå inte in ensam först utan jämsides med moståndaren.
2. Låt målvakterna spela pucken fritt och inte bara inom den lilla zonen bakom mål. Målvakten är inte tacklingsbar och hinner till pucken först.
3. Ta bort regeln om touch-icing
4. Kolla vilka motståndarna har på isen (är det Jämtin, Ward eller Kåberg typer gäller det att vara vaken)
5. Vänd inte ryggen till när du går in mot pucken vid sargen.

Cherrys andra förslag, att slopa den trapezod zon bakom mål där målvakten får spela pucken, förkastades vid GM mötet redan igår. Man är rädda för ett tråkigare spel där lagen dumpar in pucken och målvakten skickar ut den i mittzonen igen

I TV studion på Versus konstaterade Keith Jones att alldeles många bra spelare missar alldeles för många matcher och han fick medhåll av självaste Mike Keenan. Publiken vill se spelare som Jonathan Toews, Viktor Hedman, Petr Sykora, Chris Drury mfl på isen. När man med nuvarande domarbedömning i det närmaste eliminerat hakningar och fasthållningar har farten ökat vilket ger ett ökat “krockvåld”. Tidigare vågade också den andra backen göra en lät interference på den forecheckande forwarden vilket dels sänkte hans fart och dels gav backkollegan någon sekund extra. Nashville Predators GM David Poile konstaterar att med de hårdare bedömningsreglerna för spelförstörande moment har man gjort sporten bättre men att man nu måste ta itu med den ökade skaderisken som detta har medfört.

Samtidigt kanske man måste förbättra hjälmarna. Bättre hjälmar i amerikansk fotboll (NFL) har medfört ett minskat antal hjärnskakningar och idag är hjärnskakningar fem gånger vanligare i NHL än i NFL trots att spelarna i den senare ligan ofta tacklar våldsamt rakt framifrån. Ett problem med nuvarande stoppning i hjälmarna sägs vara att den inte hinner återta sin form innan den andra smällen när huvudet slår i isen. Sedan underlättar det naturligtvis om spelarna visar tillräckligt eget intresse för att spänna fast hakbandet ordentligt. Hjälmarna är trots allt konstruerade för att göra sitt jobb när de sitter kvar på huvudet.

Fast egentligen räcker det med något så enkelt som RESPEKT för andra människors liv och hälsa, och kännbara straff för dem som inte visar denna respekt. Sannolikt vågar NHL klubbarnas representanter inte ställa sådana krav. Det talar gärna om vikten av respekt istället för regeländringar, men så länge den som inte visar någon respekt får betala för det lär det inte bli någon ändring.

Det tog ett tag men var ofrånkomligt. Kommer man till NHL som andraval i draften, är fysiskt stor och får mycket speltid blir man också en spelare som motståndarna vill ge en extra tryckare. Inatt fick Viktor Hedman känna på det genom en hård tackling av Ottawas Chris Neal. Tacklingen såg väl med NHL mått ganska ren ut men jag gillar inte transatlantiska spelares sätt att sätta upp händerna framför sig och hoppa in tacklingen. I Sverige hade Neal sannolikt fått 5 + 20 för Charging och Game Misconduct Penalty. Glädjande nog tog sig Hedman av isen själv utan att ragla som Jonatha Toews och förhoppningsvis är han ok och har sluppit hjärnskakning.

Lite märkligt att han åker på smällen då han tittar upp två gånger på väg mot pucken och bör veta att Neal kommer. Det verkar som om hans egen målvakt Antero Niittymäki lurar honom genom att i sista sekund lyfta klubban och släppa pucken. Det gör att Hedman inte hinner till pucken och när han sträcker sig efter den kommer smällen. Hade Nittymäki bara stoppat pucken hade Hedman hunnit slå undan den först och skyddat sig mot tacklingen sen.

Bättre gick det för Daniel Alfredsson som utsågs till matchen lirare. Hans Ottawa vann matchen med 3-2 efter ett mål och två assists av Jason Spezza. Målet som Spezza gjorde i sudden var hans första för säsongen.

Chicagos Jonathan Toews var tillbaka på isen idag – två veckor att Vancouvers Willie Mitchell släckte ljuset för honom med en klockren och juste open-ice tackling. Toews har efter tacklingen visat klara symptom på hjärnskakning och inte kunnat träna eller åka skridskor.

Brynäs Ove Molin åkte på en rejäl propp av HV’s David Ullström och Brynäs tränarna talade om bedrövlig uppträdade. Gott då att höra Ove Molin själv fälla kommentaren att det är tillåtet att tacklas i hockey och att han inte ser någon direkt ojusthet. Respekt!

Once again this issue of the ‘big hit’ in rugby union has crept up in conversation, and I wanted to make another case for the benefits of the low and quick tackle over the show-boating dump variety.

One example which creeps up time and again was Gavin Henson’s big hits on Mathew Tait in (I think) the  2005 Six Nations.

Everyone raves that Henson embarrassed Tait, and it looks as such in that young Mathew is picked up and handled like the proverbial rag-doll.  But in the first instance he actually laid the ball back perfectly for his teammates.  Where possession is fundamental to winning rugby, I give Tait the most credit there.

In the second, Henson didn’t dislodge the ball or drive him into touch (the only time I can concede a dump tackle as being effective on its own).  The real reason Wales won possession is they got to the breakdown in numbers and drove the mess (Tait was back on his feet by this time) forward and therefore had rights to the put-in when the ball was deemed unplayable.  Arguably, the ’steal’ would have been more easily achieved had Henson taken him down quickly with a low tackle, because Wales were there in numbers and quick to pounce and the English support rushing beyond the point of the tackle.

… it doesn’t have to be.

So this debate is getting good and I’ve been caused to think harder about my stance based on the comment that tackling has become more aggressive than yesteryear.  I’m forced to agree and had this to add about why I don’t believe it needs to be so:

I don’t get why everyone is so hell-bent on making the head-on big hit these days.  I was taught in the 90s by a man who hadn’t played since the late 60s to put a shoulder in the mid section, get your head to the side and pin it to his waist/butt, wrap your arms around his thighs and give a little twist as you let him fall forward so you end up on top and can get up first.  The angle was almost always from the side, destabilising the ball carrier from a relatively easy position rather than trying to impede his forward progress from his opposite direction.

Teams and players seem to want to hit square on these days, hitting low but lifting the leg and driving sideways or backward, or hitting square and high to ’smother’ any chance of an offload.  It’s all very high and takes more time – in relative terms – if done correctly, longer if not.  More often than not, that the ball carrier still has his/her legs free, the ‘tackle’ becomes an awkward ballroom dance which not resembling any textbook maul and then goes crashing down with a thud into what some referees and nostalgic fans call a ‘muck’ rather than a ruck.  Boring and messy at the best of times, and not ideal for youth given the potential for injury.  I get the impression that all of this has come from Rugby League when Union coaches went looking for ways to tighten up Union defensive practices – the hit, the flat line*, the blitz, the two-man tackle**, etc.  I don’t even buy the theory that tacklers are better able to dominate the contact area with these techniques. (Yet another element blindly borrowed from League without thinking that traditional Union technique has no problems?)  For me, defence is about getting the ball back, not playing more defence.  And I don’t think making a bone crushing hit to dislodge the ball is needed to do so!

Looks exciting, but how effective is it?

In the ‘old’ technique I outline above, the ball carrier falls forward and you’re left lying on his side of what’s soon to become the offside line if rucking support is imminent.  This is where George Smith earned his reputation for stealing the ball.  Second man in gets the ball and it’s much easier to do with the ball carrier lying on your side, rather than having to tip toe over a prone body (i.e. a teammate who’s dumped / smashed the ball carrier backward).  In addition, the ball carrier’s support will have to tip toe over your body to immediately ruck / seal the ball.  Furthermore, we’re all teaching players to aggressively get into a position to lay the ball back, and it’s very hard to do so when the person who tackled you is lying in they way.   So why not use traditional technique?

Low tackle, second man in position to steal.

… oh, and don’t get me started on the common tackle where the person grabs the ball carrier up around the shoulders and drags them backward.  Surely this is a high tackle, often uncalled, but also lends itself to having your opponent fall right on top of you.  Comfy.

*flat line – hate that term, and dislike the practice.  For me, it’s to literal.  Yes, dog-legs in a defensive line make great places to attack, but I’d rather see a staggered line which is able to counterattack and doesn’t offer opportunities to kick behind.  Amateurs especially take this too literally and create, for me, great opportunities to kick over the top.  I stress that the only time I really want to see defenders ‘flat’ is three people in front of the ball.

**two-man tackle – love it, BUT only when the first person goes in low and around the legs and the second goes in high to rip the ball.  Most of the time, I see the League style two-man upper body grope.  They’re not even allowed to strip the ball at this point, and it seems many Union players don’t bother either.  This is the perfect situation to do two things right and get the ball back – low tackle to take away leg drive / power, and a simultaneous attempt to steal the ball often makes them focus on it and not so much a continued leg drive.  Win – win – ball.

Today I was directed to this article from the Telegraph where the author declares he won’t let his son play rugby because it’s become too dangerous.  I felt compelled to respond.

I don’t want my son to play rugby union – it’s too violent – Mark Reason

American football of the late 1800s and early 1900s was also quite violent, and it was Roosevelt (I believe) who called for padding.  I’m going to assume this was different than the Rugby game as I think blocking and hitting off the ball were legal as they still are in American football.  So I’m not sure that saying rugby was too violent for 19th C Americans when the game they have grown to love was still pretty violent into the 20th C. (and arguably still is … or at least was until the thin leather pads were replaced by plastic midway though.  But even those are problematic, as they hurt more to be hit by in the soft areas than I’m sure the old leather ones would have.)

As for the article.  Sounds a bit alarmist to me.  I’ve been going over old tapes the last week, converting them to dvd, and I noted that more players seemed to be wearing padding whereas you see less now (or at least thinner).  I’d also argue that reckless and dangerous tackles are down, but I’d caution making such statements (like the author has) without any real statistical support.

Stay tuned at this time next year when Mr Reason (ironic name, maybe?) complains about how a few boys on his son’s football team have strained ankle and knee ligaments and how one or two have broken metatarsals.  Then, the following summer, he’ll be talking about other boys with rotator cuff and a variety of impact related injuries as a result of cricket.

Injuries are part of every sport and even going for a bike ride or jog through the park.   I think rugby union does quite well – when the coaching is adequate – to protect its players with Laws and time honoured technique (such as requiring arm tackles, where gridiron and league don’t!).  Better off that if there’s a lesson to be learned – proper technique, not to be too risky, play within the rules/Laws etc. – then they’re better off learned at a young age when the impact is likely to be less and recovery time is quicker.

There are a few thing in the game which really frustrate me right now. One of those is diving, but I’ve covered that one before. Another is defenders not being penalised for obstruction when they make no effort to play the ball as it rolls out for a goal kick, yet they do everything they can to stop the attacker from playing it. Thirdly is the number of players who aren’t penalised in the box at set pieces, despite their actions belonging in a WWE wrestling ring. But the biggest one by a million miles is players being penalised for slide tackles, despite winning the ball.

There were a few of these over the weekend. Celtic captain ‘Mick’ McManus was penalised on the edge of the box for a tackle where he clearly won the ball, but the worst one this weekend was in the La Liga match between Sportin Gijon and Real Madrid. Sergio Ramos made a fantastic tackle, clearly winning the ball, and not only was he penalised but he was booked too!

Now I appreciate that an effort has been made to protect the more skillfull players, and to outlaw the type of defending we used to see from the Italians and ‘Chopper’ Harris, but now it has gone too far. I don’t know about you, but when I go to games I like to see players showing commitment, fighting for the shirt, and the crowd can get just as excited about a great sliding challenge as they do when their team wins a corner.

However, FIFA’s new requirement to referees to book players for ‘violent intent’ is a nonsense. It makes me wonder if the rule changes are dreamt up while some clown watches the NBA, and is seriously something which needs to be reversed for the good of the game.

I want to see attacking football as much as the next man, but I also want to see a midfield battle and I appreciate ‘the art of defending’. However, the way we are going any type of contact at all is leading to a free kick. This makes an absolute mockery of the sport.

What is particularly annoying is that while fair tackles are being penalised, we also get to see actions like those of River Plate striker Ariel Ortega in yesterday’s River-Boca game. Ortega did his bit to get Boca defender Julio César Cáceres sent off by going down holding his face despite the tiniest amount of contact on his chest. Seriously, it was like Dida and Rivaldo all over again, and there is only word that accurately describes his actions: cheating.

The net result of this is a poorer game (or ‘product’, as some insist on calling it) all round, played by cheats and wimps more concerned with their hair gel than playing for their fans. Is it any wonder that English Rugby players know the Premier League as the ‘Brylcreem Premiership’? Football is supposed to be a contact sport, yet some players would be better off on a diving board, or maybe starring in the ‘Scottish Play’ than being on the football pitch.

I’d humbly suggest that FIFA sit down and reassess their priorities with the way the laws of the game are changing, or they’ll slowly start turning fans away from the ‘beautiful game’.

Still, there’s always basketball eh?

Fast zufrieden.

Die Aufstellung: Weidenfeller – Dede, Hummels, Subotic, Owomoyela – Sahin, Sven Bender – Valdez (84. Feulner), Zidan (72. Rangelov), Kuba (46. Großkreutz) – Barrios. Tor: Barrios.

Jürgen Klopp ließ seinen Worten Taten folgen und trat wirklich mit derselben Formation an wie gegen Bochum. Ohne Zweifel muss er die richtigen Anweisungen gegeben haben, denn die nominell eher offensive Mannschaft machte ihre Sache defensiv sehr gut.

Es war beeindruckend, wie die Schwarz-Gelben nach überstandenen ersten Leverkusener Angriffen bereits in der 8. Minute in Führung gingen. Der Torschütze Lucas Barrios erkämpft sich selber im Mittelfeld den Ball und passt auf Sahin, der mit einem präzisen Pass in den freien Raum Valdez einsetzt. Der flankt beinahe von der Torauslinie in die Mitte. Dort wartet schon wieder Barrios, der allen beweist, wie gut er köpfen kann.

Im Anschluss standen die Schwarz-Gelben defensiv sehr gut. Die Leverkusener Bemühungen blieben weitestgehend harmlos. Bei einer Ecke faustet Weidenfeller mal am Ball vorbei – nun gut. Der BVB hätte bei eigenen Angriffsversuchen etwas präziser sein können – nun gut. Insgesamt konnte man mit der ersten Hälfte sehr zufrieden sein, auch wenn die Gastgeber deutlich mehr Ballbesitz hatten.

Nach dem Seitenwechsel wurden die Gastgeber etwas überzeugender nach vorne, doch meistens nur bis zum Strafraum. So war es eine Standardsituation, die zum Ausgleich führte: Eine Barnetta-Ecke kam bei Manuel Friedrich an, der zu frei stand und den Ball aus größerer Entfernung reinköpfte. Der kurze Pfosten war zu diesem Zeitpunkt leider nicht mehr abgedeckt. Aufs gesamte Spiel gesehen war der Ausgleich verdient, denn Leverkusen war in der zweiten Hälfte offensiv besser, gerade nach dem Tor. Die Chancen blieben jedoch vergleichsweise harmlos; ein Friedrich-Schuss aus aussichtsreicher Position ging weit übers Tor, ansonsten hatten Weidenfeller und die Abwehr wenig Probleme.

Warum zur völligen Zufriedenheit mit diesem Auswärtspunkt etwas fehlt: Gegen diese Leverkusener wäre möglicherweise mehr drin gewesen. Das Fehlen von Rolfes und Renato Augusto manifestierte sich im Fehlen von Inspiration. Mit etwas mehr Cleverness und Mut in der zweiten Hälfte, als die Gastgeber drängten, hätte der BVB womöglich drei Punkte mitnehmen können. Ein fitter Kuba hätte uns da weiterhelfen können, aber der musste zur Halbzeit mit Muskelproblemen draußen bleiben und wurde durch Kevin Großkreutz ersetzt. Bei allem Respekt für das Engagement des “Dortmunder Jungen”: Seine Pässe in die Spitze waren zu unpräzise und überhastet. Gerade über die linke Leverkusener Seite wäre mehr möglich gewesen.

Ich bin aber fast zufrieden mit dem Punkt und wenn das Pokalspiel in Osnabrück und natürlich das Heimspiel gegen Hertha gewonnen werden, kann man getrost von der Trendwende bei Schwarz-Gelb sprechen. Die Sicherheit in der Defensive ist ermutigend. Das perfekte Tackling von Hummels gegen Derdiyok, das einige Zuschauer als elfmeterwürdiges Foul gesehen hatten, ist ein Beispiel. In dieser Szene lag Schiedsrichter Rafati richtig, ansonsten bot er eine durchwachsene Leistung. Er pfiff dem BVB in aussichtsreichster Position einen Vorteil ab und traf einige fragwürdige Freistoßentscheidungen, obwohl er insgesamt das Spiel angenehm laufen ließ.

Drei Tore in den drei letzten Spielen für Lucas Barrios sind natürlich ebenfalls erwähnenswert und erinnern daran, wie vorschnell die Medien-Maschinerie da wieder eine Krise herbeigeschrieben hat.

Zimbabwe female footballers v Aids… From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: championship football. The blog is also related to: football shirt.

Edgar Frick and Marilyn Frack appeared to be wrinkling their brows more than usual. And, in fact, their brows appeared to be more than usual. As I neared the leather-clad duo, who were also looking even more than usually feral – yet still urbane – I discerned that they had Star-Trek-derived rubber prostheses on their heads. And their leather suits had somehow managed to acquire a number of loose socks and other light fabric items, apparently (if unbelievably) held on by static.

Well, what the heck. It was the Order of Logogustation’s pre-Hallowe’en masquerade. If I could come as ogham (in a rather scratchy suit), they could come as…

“Kling-ons,” Edgar said, raising his glass of sparkling wine. He tapped it with Marilyn’s and they simultaneously chimed “Kling!”

“Oh, yes,” Marilyn said, chuckling, “we’re having a crackling good time this evening.” She made a little frisson that caused her fizzy wine to slosh.

“Careful, dear,” said Edgar, “you’re sprinkling.”

“And apparently you’re both pickling,” I observed. “But I see you’re testing the limits of our truckling and stickling, coming as a pseudo-morpheme.”

“Are you heckling?” asked Marilyn, her eyes twinkling.

“Oh, no, no,” I said. “Any word taster with so much as a darkling inkling will pick out the tickling of a good pseudo-morpheme. Of course one most usually uses pseudo-morpheme to mean something that’s a morpheme in one place and appears falsely as one in another, such as car in carpet.”

“But copter in helicopter can be called one,” Edgar pointed out. “And so why not kling, which shows up in so many places?”

“Although sometimes across syllable boundaries, and sometimes with a long or even syllablic /l/,” I reminded him.

“Well,” Marilyn said, “they really all fall into one of two sets: verbs with the frequentative le suffix, with ing added, like tinkling, and nouns ending in k that have the diminutive or relational ling suffix added, like duckling.”

“And they have that stop-liquid movement of the tongue that sets your skin prickling,” Edgar added, running his finger up Marilyn’s spine. Marilyn obliged with another frisson.

“You’re certainly not missing the echoes,” I said, looking at their static cling and their glasses. “But you are missing one word that doesn’t fit either pattern.”

“Well,” Marilyn said, eyebrow arched, “I don’t have an inkling what that would be.”

“You rather do,” I said. “You just said it, in fact.”

“But inkling comes from inkle!” Marilyn protested.

“Inkle is really a backformation,” I said.

Edgar raised an index finger. “It’s you against the OED, old boy.”

I raised an index finger right back at him. “But even the OED gives only two citations that they don’t themselves describe as backformations, and they can’t say where those come from. Whereas the American Heritage Dictionary has a rather anfractuous explanation that follows it from niche through nik, ‘notch’ or ‘tally,’ through nikking, meaning ’slight indication’ or ‘whisper,’ to ningkiling, which, through false splitting, went from a ningkiling to an ingkiling, or an inkling.”

“Well, that’s a bit of linguistic swashbuckling,” Marilyn said, crinkling her nose.

“And we nonetheless have to deal with the ink, which is an indisputable pseudo-morpheme,” Edgar said. “There’s no ink in this word, but who can’t think of an ink spot when saying it? Or perhaps a little pen imp peeking from the inkpot?”

“Ah,” Marilyn purred, “a darkling little darling.”

“And there’s a word that goes both ways,” Edgar said, almost leering. “Darkling, such a nice poetic word, suckling at the teat of Erato.” (Marilyn gave another frisson and tossed back her sparkling.) “Originally dark plus ling, but more recently backformed to darkle.”

“No need to engage in wanton Eraticism while tackling these words, you Greekling,” I said.

Marilyn winked and stroked the back of a fingernail down my cheek. “Oh, don’t be a weakling,” she said, cackling.

“We cling? Oh,” I replied, “I’m glad to let you cling.” Which they were. To each other. But they were closing on me, too.

Marilyn gave me an elevator look, and I don’t think she was reading my ogham. “Edgarrrrr,” she mrowled, “I think someone needs a spankling.”

At which point I made myself scarce in a twinkling.

I honestly have no clue how much this happens to me. I’d say it’s about an average of four times a day with the same guy. I just wish that something would happen; the suspense is killing me.

I mean, nothing could really happen. He’s kind of a senior and I’m kind of a freshman. It would actually be embarrassing for both of us. GASP–Swanktown doesn’t want to date a senior!! Call 911!!

No, I mean he’d probably be embarrassed dating someone so much younger than himself and I’d be embarrassed dating someone who everyone else detests. Gah. So now it’s basically impossible.

The only reason I’m doing this is because so many people can share their innermost thoughts on the Internet. My blog actually isn’t that popular. I’m posting this to let out some of my thoughts.

To continue, the awkward eye contact persists… In a good kind of persisting. But it’s weird knowing that it could never happen. Excuse me, might never happen. *is slapped*

*odd Jeopardy music comes on*

Well, I guess this segment of the blog is over. :’(

Today, during practice, it started raining, which I love, but it was raining on the pit. I remember what my temporary section leader said…

Director: “How nice! It’s sprinkling.”

TSL: “NOT FOR THE PIT!”

So we had to move everything up to the cafeteria only to have it stop raining a few seconds later. The vibes, xylo, and marimba still got wet, though. :’( And the synths and wires.  It reminded me of the time during our rumble when the sprinklers came on. o_O

Let me explain. A rumble is something that the pit and battery combined–percussion for you non-band folks–do after a successful practice. Basically, we run around on the field and run into each other. Yeah, I don’t get the point of it, either. So I just have Meghan tackle me, which hurts enough. But it’s strangely exhilarating. Not having Meghan in particular tackle me, just the whole tackling thing in general. Anyway, the sprinklers came on and almost destroyed our equipment. @_@

Okay, so let’s start the eye contact counter today with four points. I wonder what awaits me tomorrow…

This chick needs to run some additional field rushing drills this week in practice

Everyone needs to stand up as tall and thin as they can. Reason? Because we need some more space on the Cougar Bandwagon. We managed to fill it up before the Tech game. Now it’s bursting at the seams.

UH outlasted the Raiders 29-28 in a gritty, hard fought game. We played rough for most of the encounter. Our run defense looked like the Briles Years team. Our tackling was horrendous for most of the game, possibly due to a lack of tacklin’ fuel. The following video should be required viewing for our D before the next game/ever game (NSFW for language. And from 3:15 to 3:50 is the Theismann leg snappage for those of us that do not like seeing human mutilation. Also, it sort of turns into a USC Reggie Bush highlight reel, and then randomly goes back to bone-crushing hits. This parenthetical has gone on way too long. I’ll stop. Starting now.):

All that being said, I thought our defense played a solid game overall. We held Tech to 28 points, something not a lot of teams can say. We didn’t give up many plays, the only way Tech can beat teams. The goalline stand with 6 minutes to go in the game was epic. Granted, the Pirate should have kicked the field goal, but we will take poor coaching decisions any day. D line played outstanding against a massive offensive line.

(Speaking of the Pirate,  Man the Riggin’s! (nets, not John of Redskins fame). Thar might be a mutiny afoot! Cast the sails!)

Case Keenum was his usual badass self, going 38-58 for 435 yards, but only 1 TD and an INT. He ran for 27 yards with the game winning 4 yard TD with 49 seconds remaining. The 95 yard drive to win the game was the stuff Heisman campaigns are made of. He’s defintely increasing his exposure, on a week in which 2 frontrunners, Jacory Harris and Jahvid Best both shat the bed with off performances in losses.

Keenum tosses to Carrier without moving an inch....

Sumlin his completely changed the mindset of this team. We never crapped our pants when we were behind and kept giving up 6 yard run after 6 yard run. We never crapped our pants when OUR FUCKING KICKER MISSED 2 FIELD GOALS. We simply stuck to our gameplan, made huge play after huge play in the 4th quarter, and come through in a huge game. Some of the plays on the last drive caused me to leave the delicious BBQ from our tailgate in my seat at Robertson. Dear god my heart can’t take this kind of excitement.

As I watched ESPN SportsCenterU this morning (on which we got approximately 15 seconds of game footage coverage, and less than a minute of discussion, by the way), some random talking head brought up a great point: Now comes the hard part. It’s easy to get up for huge games, with the crowd going apeshit, and with an “Us against the world” attitude. Not so much when we visit UTEP and Tulane, or when SMU comes to town. Now, we are their chance at some stardom. Knocking us off would make some of these team’s seasons, and they will be gunning for us.  Hopefully we can keep the train rolling. Hands and feet in, and I better see that many people out at every home game from here on out!

Keenum for Heisman.

- Wanks MacGruber

Images from here and here

A Razorbacks-Red Wolves-Redbirds (St. Louis Cardinals) fan had to make do with the Cardinals’ Saturday night win to clinch the National League Central Division for any sports-based happiness.

The loss to Alabama just shows how far the University of Arkansas has to go in recruiting to compete in the Southeastern Conference. Bobby Petrino is a good coach. He’s not the problem. The Hogs were outmanned on both sides of the ball and have not yet mastered blocking and tackling to the extent that they can be successful in the SEC.

Arkansas State played well against a good Troy team, but couldn’t close the deal in the Sun Belt Conference opener for both teams. The Red Wolves rallied from a 23-10 deficit to take the lead in the fourth quarter, but fumbled a punt late in the game that could have kept the ball from the Trojans when they scored their winning touchdown. Now the Wolves go to Iowa City on Saturday to face the Iowa Hawkeyes, fresh off their upset of Penn State.

St. Louis is now in that strange no-man’s-land of what to do to get ready for the playoffs after a team has clinched its spot. Yes, having the best record would help with home-field advantage, but lately the Cardinals have played better on the road. Do you rest the regulars for a few days to heal bumps and bruises, or do you take Monday’s day off and then play your regulars and their alternates to remain (or become) sharp for the playoffs that start Oct. 7?

Tony LaRussa will surprise fans in some way with his choices for the postseason first-round roster. He always does. But he has the Cardinals back in the playoffs after a two-year absence that followed the surprise 2006 world championship, so we’ll just have to trust him.

Tell me, football fanatics, how many times have you seen this situation:

End up looking like one of these:

Causing you great anguish as you lament over your Corner/Linebacker/Safety’s inadequate open field tackling skills while watching the ball carrier sprint down the sideline for six?  Too often, I say!

For the defensive player, breaking down and making an open-field tackle is one of the more difficult things to do, tenfold if he’s up against a particularly elusive runner.  Matter of fact, only one of these four outcomes is possible:

• Guess right, bury the runner
• React correctly, snag the runner enough to drag him down or to slow him enough that help arrives.
• React correctly, still get beat (and sometimes ingloriously stiff-armed)
• Get left looking like a complete fool with two broken ankles.

That’s already a 50/50 proposition before you account for the fact that you’re guessing and the runner knows what he’s going to do.  Luckily I have the solution, so all you daring Pop Warner and High School coaches (oh! and John Zamberlin) pay attention!

Teach your kids the Flying Cross Body Tackle!

The premise is simple.  When a runner breaks into the secondary, instead of the secondary defender breaking down and hoping for a miracle, instruct him to break down, and once the runner is within range of the defender’s standing broad jump (see, you knew they tested this at the NFL Combine for a reason) launch himself at the ball carrier thusly:

Now, clearly your defenders will not have the benefit of the top rope, but the lack of a high angle is a good thing.  Your defender’s goal would be to have his airborne body’s midsection crash mightily into the midsection of the ball carrier, thus resulting in a successful tackle.  It is likely that the offensive player will have already made his move, but if your defender is flying horizontally toward him at a height of approximately 4 feet, where is he to go?  To the left?  Flying feet and knees.  The right? Elbows and a facemask.  Employing this technique will limit the potential results to:

• Perfectly executed flying cross body.  Effective.  Looks Awesome.
• Partial contact, but enough to ensure other defenders can come over to help.  Partially Effective.  Still Looks Awesome.
• A complete whiff leading to the defender lying in an embarrassed heap.  Ineffective.  Looked Awesome for a moment.

By employing this revolutionary technique, we have already limited the potential negative outcomes from 50% to 30%!  Not to mention the fact that even if he blows it, the defender has a sweet moment of Randy “Macho Man” Savage glory.

I’ll release my series of instructional videos (endorsed by Fred McGriff!) shortly, but in the meantime, here’s how not to execute the move:

Before drawing up coverages, fronts, and blitzes, it is imperative that defensive coordinators develop a philosophy that not only they believe in, but can get their assistants and players to believe in. Getting coaches and players to “buy-in” to a philosophy has nothing to do with X’s and O’s, but has more to do with establishing a belief system that players and coaches can lean on throughout a season. It is proven every year that systems and schemes don’t win championships. Instead it’s how you coach those systems and schemes, and whether or not you can get your coaches and players to believe in what you’re doing, that win championships.

1. Swarm and make sure tackles. We practice pursuit and tackling everyday. Pursuit requires taking proper angles and great effort. But if you can’t tackle when you get there, pursuit drill is useless, so we run a “tackle circuit” every Tuesday. We also do more position specific tackling during Individual sessions everyday throughout the week. We feel that a tackling circuit allows all defensive players, regardless of position, to execute a variety of different tackles throughout the week.

2. Force turnovers and turn those TOs in to TDs. We will always look to make the big, momentum changing plays and our players show it in practice and in games. Everyday, we make time to work on creating turnovers and what to do when that turnover is forced. This is called our “hawking” session. Pursue and rip the ball out of the ball carrier’s hands or intercept a pass and we’re off to the races. In 3 weeks thus far, we have scored two TDs on 8 turnovers. Just like on offense, you have to practice scoring on defense if you want to score in a game.

3. At Heritage, we believe in stopping the run. Despite the number of high school teams running the spread offense to throw the ball, many offensive coordinators still look to establish the running game early to set-up playaction and the down field passing game. We want to make teams one-dimensional.

4. Eliminate big, explosive plays. In our second game of the season, we gave up less than 250 yards of total offense, surrendered 7 first downs, but gave up 27 points in an excruciating loss. Our opponent’s running back rushed for around 125 yards, and 101 of those were on 2 plays. We played with a lot of effort and desire, but breakdowns in our run fits and coverage resulted in big plays and scores. Eliminate explosive plays and you increase your chance of winning. No running plays over 15 yards and no passes over 20.

5. Win first down and you will own 3rd down. This allows us as coaches and players to put our opposing offense into “known” situations. This is where a defensive coordinator can put film study to great use. Do they take shots downfield on 2nd and short or look to just get the 1st down? What does your opponent do on 3rd and short, 3rd and long? We will always strive to win 1st down, so that our players know what to expect on 3rd down. Practicing situations throughout the week will only give your players more confidence on Friday night.

We may tweak our goals week-to-week, but this is our philosophy on defense. We feel that if we can do these 5 things on defense, we will be successful in the long run, regardless of what scheme we employ.

What do we think of this? A rugby tackling aid which might just be something more than a fun roundaround toy.

I need to test one out myself.

For more details contact:

rubetube@rocketmail.com

I have just interviewed Craig Leseberg from the ACT Brumbies. We talked about many aspects of the game and in particular defence. One of the areas he said it was essential to work on was tracking.

Here is a video explaining tracking.

More detail on the interview including some excellent insights in individual and team defence coming soon in the International Rugby Technical Journal.