Competition Committee (1 Viewer)

[captain_amazing]

Didn't see this posted anywhere, did a search too, so sorry if this is a honda.

Here a link to the story: Comp committee talks touch on hits, making changes to kickoff

I'm not sure what I think about the kickoff changes just yet. But I certainly think the new definitions for a defenseless player are laughable. Here is the snippet of those specific rules from the article:

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

• A receiver trying to catch a pass;

• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

• A kicker or punter during the kick;

• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

• A player already on the ground.

It sounds like they might as well stick a flag in players' pockets and ban hitting all together. What are others' thoughts?

 

[Steel Dillo]

This would make me more apt to watch an alternative league.

 

[noneother]

Would be nice huh. Tellin ya. Between owners/players/committees. The fan is on the outside.

A competitive league to the NFL should have legs. But they never succeed.

 

[Heatman]

Didn't see this posted anywhere, did a search too, so sorry if this is a honda.

Here a link to the story: Comp committee talks touch on hits, making changes to kickoff

I'm not sure what I think about the kickoff changes just yet. But I certainly think the new definitions for a defenseless player are laughable. Here is the snippet of those specific rules from the article:

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

• A receiver trying to catch a pass;

• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

• A kicker or punter during the kick;

• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

• A player already on the ground.

It sounds like they might as well stick a flag in players' pockets and ban hitting all together. What are others' thoughts?

This seems to be the most common reaction to these ideas. However, the same people constantly complain about how brutal the NFL is and how players are always in such danger. No way they can play an 18 game season because of injuries blah blah blah... But yet don't try to make it safer? You can't have it both ways.

 

[captain_amazing]

Didn't see this posted anywhere, did a search too, so sorry if this is a honda.

Here a link to the story: Comp committee talks touch on hits, making changes to kickoff

I'm not sure what I think about the kickoff changes just yet. But I certainly think the new definitions for a defenseless player are laughable. Here is the snippet of those specific rules from the article:

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

• A receiver trying to catch a pass;

• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

• A kicker or punter during the kick;

• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

• A player already on the ground.

It sounds like they might as well stick a flag in players' pockets and ban hitting all together. What are others' thoughts?

This seems to be the most common reaction to these ideas. However, the same people constantly complain about how brutal the NFL is and how players are always in such danger. No way they can play an 18 game season because of injuries blah blah blah... But yet don't try to make it safer? You can't have it both ways.

I wouldn't say the "same people," but I get what you mean. I certainly agree player safety should be a serious concern for the entire NFL, but I think there are many different paths the committee could take that would result in increased player safety that does not drastically change the way the game is played. For instance, I would be more apt to support some sort of mandatory camps on "proper tackling." I would also support increased enforcement and use of already existing rules, like unnecessary roughness, and possibly either increase the penalties or provide suspensions to players.

Would that solve everything in regards to player safety? No. But I would tend to believe it would be effective in reducing injuries as the result of launches to the neck or head area.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Didn't see this posted anywhere, did a search too, so sorry if this is a honda.

Here a link to the story: Comp committee talks touch on hits, making changes to kickoff

I'm not sure what I think about the kickoff changes just yet. But I certainly think the new definitions for a defenseless player are laughable. Here is the snippet of those specific rules from the article:

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

• A receiver trying to catch a pass;

• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

• A kicker or punter during the kick;

• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

• A player already on the ground.

It sounds like they might as well stick a flag in players' pockets and ban hitting all together. What are others' thoughts?

This seems to be the most common reaction to these ideas. However, the same people constantly complain about how brutal the NFL is and how players are always in such danger. No way they can play an 18 game season because of injuries blah blah blah... But yet don't try to make it safer? You can't have it both ways.

Wrong..QB in the act of throwing?

Can't touch the QB on a change of possession?

This is not the way to make football better. It is merely the Brady rules...

 

[RUSF18]

Didn't see this posted anywhere, did a search too, so sorry if this is a honda.

Here a link to the story: Comp committee talks touch on hits, making changes to kickoff

I'm not sure what I think about the kickoff changes just yet. But I certainly think the new definitions for a defenseless player are laughable. Here is the snippet of those specific rules from the article:

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

• A receiver trying to catch a pass;

• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

• A kicker or punter during the kick;

• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

• A player already on the ground.

It sounds like they might as well stick a flag in players' pockets and ban hitting all together. What are others' thoughts?

This seems to be the most common reaction to these ideas. However, the same people constantly complain about how brutal the NFL is and how players are always in such danger. No way they can play an 18 game season because of injuries blah blah blah... But yet don't try to make it safer? You can't have it both ways.

Wrong..QB in the act of throwing?

Can't touch the QB on a change of possession?

This is not the way to make football better. It is merely the Brady rules...

Yeah I'm all for increased player safety, but I just don't see how those QB rules make any sense. How do you sack a QB if you can't touch him in the act of throwing? LB comes in off the edge unblocked, QB sees he has no shot to avoid/get rid of it, so he starts a protected throwing motion as he's hit...flag? And if you can't touch the QB on a fumble/INT, I assume that means the QB must basically go into the fetal position once it occurs. Because if you can't hit him, he can't attempt to make a tackle or fight through a block. Hopefully these rules get defined/explained better.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

That act of throwing is BS. You cannot ask Defensive players to stop. There will be tons of penalties.

Also on Change of possesions, the QB shouldnt be allowed to tackle then if he cant be blocked

 

[Stinkin Ref]

and once again I ask....

who is it that is putting themselves in a defenseless position..?

if you don't want these players to get hit, then tell them not to put themselves in defenseless positions...

is it the defenders fault the the offense has a crappy line and can't block a pass rush....no...if you can't block anybody don't call passing plays and put your QB back there..

is it the defenders fault that the WR has to extend himself to catch a crappy pass....no...the WR is choosing to attempt to make the catch, thus putting himself in a defenseless position....get a better QB

it drives me nuts....and don't get me wrong, defenders should not lead with the crown of the helmet, etc and those penaties should be called, but we are asking the defense to hold back in many of these situations to account for deficiencies on the offense...

the QB after change of possession is just laughable....every QB in the league knows he is a marked man in these situations so his head should be on a swivel anyway....if they go with this, he has to immediately take a knee or go into the fetal position....that would be kind of fun to see a film breaking down who does the best fetal position and maybe it will become a new measureable at the next combine....

"Luck just completed a perfectly executed transition into the fetal position in a record 2.7 seconds, tremendous upside here, this kid is the total package..."

don't go over the middle, don't drop back to pass, etc if you don't think you and/or your teammates can't protect you from getting lit up....

 

[Mello]

and once again I ask....who is it that is putting themselves in a defenseless position..?if you don't want these players to get hit, then tell them not to put themselves in defenseless positions...is it the defenders fault the the offense has a crappy line and can't block a pass rush....no...if you can't block anybody don't call passing plays and put your QB back there..is it the defenders fault that the WR has to extend himself to catch a crappy pass....no...the WR is choosing to attempt to make the catch, thus putting himself in a defenseless position....get a better QBit drives me nuts....and don't get me wrong, defenders should not lead with the crown of the helmet, etc and those penaties should be called, but we are asking the defense to hold back in many of these situations to account for deficiencies on the offense...the QB after change of possession is just laughable....every QB in the league knows he is a marked man in these situations so his head should be on a swivel anyway....if they go with this, he has to immediately take a knee or go into the fetal position....that would be kind of fun to see a film breaking down who does the best fetal position and maybe it will become a new measureable at the next combine...."Luck just completed a perfectly executed transition into the fetal position in a record 2.7 seconds, tremendous upside here, this kid is the total package..."don't go over the middle, don't drop back to pass, etc if you don't think you and/or your teammates can't protect you from getting lit up....

 

[belljr]

Maybe I'm confused but they are not saying you can't tackle these guys - just the head shots etc.

Rules have been in place for

QB's throwing

they added rules for QB's after an int a couple years ago

same for crack back wr block

etc

the only ones that look like were "added" are the forward progress and player on the ground

 

[BigSteelThrill]

There will be tons of penalties.

On players who hit high-priced marketable QBS that help the NFL earning potential.This crap has nothing to do with football, it never has.I cant fathom why so many people are wiling to accept what the NFL is trying to do the sport of football... and morph it all into the entertainment of football.

 

[smashingsilver]

The part of the proposed rule changes that bothers me is the change to kickoffs.From the article in the OP:

KICKOFF CHANGES? Competition committee will propose moving kickoff to 35-yard line, and bringing touchback out to 25. No changes for touchbacks on any other plays, with ball coming out to 20. No player other than kicker would be allowed to line up more than 5 yards behind ball. Outlawing wedge on kickoffs; all blocking wedges were reduced to two players in 2009.

I'm not sure how they think this change would be a good idea. If kickoffs are so dangerous, than just get rid of them altogether. Why go through the charade of having players run 70 yards and bang into each other if the intent of the rule is to create more touchbacks?Actually, this rule is going to make it so much harder for the kickoff returner. Kickers will practice getting more hang time and less distance, and the coverage team will now be starting from 5 yards closer. And with no wedge of any kind, kickoffs will be more like a punt return. If this change were to go into effect, I would expect to see less returns for TDs and a lot of offensive series beginning from the 15 yard line. So much for one of the most exciting plays in football. I'm all for increased player safety, but I don't see how this improves the situation enough to justify ruining one of the best parts of the game for the fans.

 

[RUSF18]

The part of the proposed rule changes that bothers me is the change to kickoffs.

From the article in the OP:

KICKOFF CHANGES?

• Competition committee will propose moving kickoff to 35-yard line, and bringing touchback out to 25. No changes for touchbacks on any other plays, with ball coming out to 20.

• No player other than kicker would be allowed to line up more than 5 yards behind ball.

• Outlawing wedge on kickoffs; all blocking wedges were reduced to two players in 2009.

I'm not sure how they think this change would be a good idea. If kickoffs are so dangerous, than just get rid of them altogether. Why go through the charade of having players run 70 yards and bang into each other if the intent of the rule is to create more touchbacks?Actually, this rule is going to make it so much harder for the kickoff returner. Kickers will practice getting more hang time and less distance, and the coverage team will now be starting from 5 yards closer. And with no wedge of any kind, kickoffs will be more like a punt return. If this change were to go into effect, I would expect to see less returns for TDs and a lot of offensive series beginning from the 15 yard line. So much for one of the most exciting plays in football. I'm all for increased player safety, but I don't see how this improves the situation enough to justify ruining one of the best parts of the game for the fans.

Why? If I'm a ST coach, my guy is kicking it as far as possible every time. If the average starting field position is the 22, sacrificing those 3 yards for the guarantee of no big return is an easy call.

 

[Insein]

The part of the proposed rule changes that bothers me is the change to kickoffs.

From the article in the OP:

KICKOFF CHANGES?

• Competition committee will propose moving kickoff to 35-yard line, and bringing touchback out to 25. No changes for touchbacks on any other plays, with ball coming out to 20.

• No player other than kicker would be allowed to line up more than 5 yards behind ball.

• Outlawing wedge on kickoffs; all blocking wedges were reduced to two players in 2009.

I'm not sure how they think this change would be a good idea. If kickoffs are so dangerous, than just get rid of them altogether. Why go through the charade of having players run 70 yards and bang into each other if the intent of the rule is to create more touchbacks?Actually, this rule is going to make it so much harder for the kickoff returner. Kickers will practice getting more hang time and less distance, and the coverage team will now be starting from 5 yards closer. And with no wedge of any kind, kickoffs will be more like a punt return. If this change were to go into effect, I would expect to see less returns for TDs and a lot of offensive series beginning from the 15 yard line. So much for one of the most exciting plays in football. I'm all for increased player safety, but I don't see how this improves the situation enough to justify ruining one of the best parts of the game for the fans.

Why? If I'm a ST coach, my guy is kicking it as far as possible every time. If the average starting field position is the 22, sacrificing those 3 yards for the guarantee of no big return is an easy call.

No I agree with the original idea. Kickers will practice "pop-ups" and with the coverage team being 5 yards closer, they can get there faster. It would mean a returner has about a 1-2 seconds less time to catch and react to what is going around them. That would lead to more injuries and worse field position IMO. Its one of those things that sounds good in the minds of a competition committee but will have unintended consequences when implemented. And if they do kick it through the endzone everytime, what is the point? There was a reason they moved it back 5 yards before. It was boring. Say good bye to the Josh Cribbs type specialists and hello to more boring football.

 

[captain_amazing]

The part of the proposed rule changes that bothers me is the change to kickoffs.

From the article in the OP:

KICKOFF CHANGES?

• Competition committee will propose moving kickoff to 35-yard line, and bringing touchback out to 25. No changes for touchbacks on any other plays, with ball coming out to 20.

• No player other than kicker would be allowed to line up more than 5 yards behind ball.

• Outlawing wedge on kickoffs; all blocking wedges were reduced to two players in 2009.

I'm not sure how they think this change would be a good idea. If kickoffs are so dangerous, than just get rid of them altogether. Why go through the charade of having players run 70 yards and bang into each other if the intent of the rule is to create more touchbacks?Actually, this rule is going to make it so much harder for the kickoff returner. Kickers will practice getting more hang time and less distance, and the coverage team will now be starting from 5 yards closer. And with no wedge of any kind, kickoffs will be more like a punt return. If this change were to go into effect, I would expect to see less returns for TDs and a lot of offensive series beginning from the 15 yard line. So much for one of the most exciting plays in football. I'm all for increased player safety, but I don't see how this improves the situation enough to justify ruining one of the best parts of the game for the fans.

Why? If I'm a ST coach, my guy is kicking it as far as possible every time. If the average starting field position is the 22, sacrificing those 3 yards for the guarantee of no big return is an easy call.

No I agree with the original idea. Kickers will practice "pop-ups" and with the coverage team being 5 yards closer, they can get there faster. It would mean a returner has about a 1-2 seconds less time to catch and react to what is going around them. That would lead to more injuries and worse field position IMO. Its one of those things that sounds good in the minds of a competition committee but will have unintended consequences when implemented. And if they do kick it through the endzone everytime, what is the point? There was a reason they moved it back 5 yards before. It was boring. Say good bye to the Josh Cribbs type specialists and hello to more boring football.

I agree with both points.If Team X has a terrible ST but has a great D they will probably instruct their kicker to boot it as far as possible with the hopes of getting as many touchbacks as possible. If Team Y has a great ST but has a terrible D they will probably instruct their kicker to get better hang time with distances from the 10 to -5yd line.

I'm wondering what style will be more common, though.

 

[CalBear]

No I agree with the original idea. Kickers will practice "pop-ups" and with the coverage team being 5 yards closer, they can get there faster. It would mean a returner has about a 1-2 seconds less time to catch and react to what is going around them.

It was only 1994 when the NFL moved the kickoff from the 35 to the 30; in college it's still at the 35. We didn't see this behavior before 1994 and we don't see it in college. I'm not in favor of moving the kickoff to the 35 in the pros, but I seriously doubt there will be a lot of "pop-up" kicks that travel 60 yards in the air.Moving the touchback spot to the 25 would suck.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

The part of the proposed rule changes that bothers me is the change to kickoffs.

From the article in the OP:

KICKOFF CHANGES?

• Competition committee will propose moving kickoff to 35-yard line, and bringing touchback out to 25. No changes for touchbacks on any other plays, with ball coming out to 20.

• No player other than kicker would be allowed to line up more than 5 yards behind ball.

• Outlawing wedge on kickoffs; all blocking wedges were reduced to two players in 2009.

I'm not sure how they think this change would be a good idea. If kickoffs are so dangerous, than just get rid of them altogether. Why go through the charade of having players run 70 yards and bang into each other if the intent of the rule is to create more touchbacks?Actually, this rule is going to make it so much harder for the kickoff returner. Kickers will practice getting more hang time and less distance, and the coverage team will now be starting from 5 yards closer. And with no wedge of any kind, kickoffs will be more like a punt return. If this change were to go into effect, I would expect to see less returns for TDs and a lot of offensive series beginning from the 15 yard line. So much for one of the most exciting plays in football. I'm all for increased player safety, but I don't see how this improves the situation enough to justify ruining one of the best parts of the game for the fans.

Why? If I'm a ST coach, my guy is kicking it as far as possible every time. If the average starting field position is the 22, sacrificing those 3 yards for the guarantee of no big return is an easy call.

No I agree with the original idea. Kickers will practice "pop-ups" and with the coverage team being 5 yards closer, they can get there faster. It would mean a returner has about a 1-2 seconds less time to catch and react to what is going around them. That would lead to more injuries and worse field position IMO. Its one of those things that sounds good in the minds of a competition committee but will have unintended consequences when implemented. And if they do kick it through the endzone everytime, what is the point? There was a reason they moved it back 5 yards before. It was boring. Say good bye to the Josh Cribbs type specialists and hello to more boring football.

this isn't neccessarily true....the kicker will be the only player allowed to start more then 5 yards behind the 35.....so the coverage guys will not be getting a full running start...so they may be closer, but it will take longer for them to get to top speed....probably a wash.....

 

[SmoovySmoov]

This really is the No Fun League. It was really nice to watch you return kicks for TDs, Devin Hester. You will be missed.

 

[CalBear]

This really is the No Fun League. It was really nice to watch you return kicks for TDs, Devin Hester. You will be missed.

Hester has returned a total of 4 kickoffs for TDs in 5 years. He hasn't done it since 2007. I think the league will survive.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

This really is the No Fun League. It was really nice to watch you return kicks for TDs, Devin Hester. You will be missed.

Hester has returned a total of 4 kickoffs for TDs in 5 years. He hasn't done it since 2007. I think the league will survive.

I can't decide which part of your snarky comment sounds the dumbest.

 

[CalBear]

This really is the No Fun League. It was really nice to watch you return kicks for TDs, Devin Hester. You will be missed.

Hester has returned a total of 4 kickoffs for TDs in 5 years. He hasn't done it since 2007. I think the league will survive.

I can't decide which part of your snarky comment sounds the dumbest.

There are no proposed changes to punts. Hester isn't a particularly good kickoff returner. Insulting people who point out flaws in your arguments is dumb.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So no more sacks. No more hits. ####ified blocking. Suspensions. Bigger fines.

What a joke.

The players need two seats on the competition and ruled committee. A seat representing former players for game integrity and an opinion on longterm impacts and a seat representing players who have to abide by the rules/suspensions/fines. Ridiculous that they font have a voice. This should be a demand in new CBA

 

[brettdj]

No I agree with the original idea. Kickers will practice "pop-ups" and with the coverage team being 5 yards closer, they can get there faster. It would mean a returner has about a 1-2 seconds less time to catch and react to what is going around them.

It was only 1994 when the NFL moved the kickoff from the 35 to the 30; in college it's still at the 35. We didn't see this behavior before 1994 and we don't see it in college. I'm not in favor of moving the kickoff to the 35 in the pros, but I seriously doubt there will be a lot of "pop-up" kicks that travel 60 yards in the air.Moving the touchback spot to the 25 would suck.

NCAA will be kicking from the 30 where it has for at least 2 years. I do not have the 2008 rulebook. 2009-2010 is from the 30. NCAA will be kicking from further away than the pros this year.

 

[Mello]

So no more sacks. No more hits. ####ified blocking. Suspensions. Bigger fines. What a joke. The players need two seats on the competition and ruled committee. A seat representing former players for game integrity and an opinion on longterm impacts and a seat representing players who have to abide by the rules/suspensions/fines. Ridiculous that they font have a voice. This should be a demand in new CBA

That will sadly never happen.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So no more sacks. No more hits. ####ified blocking. Suspensions. Bigger fines. What a joke. The players need two seats on the competition and ruled committee. A seat representing former players for game integrity and an opinion on longterm impacts and a seat representing players who have to abide by the rules/suspensions/fines. Ridiculous that they font have a voice. This should be a demand in new CBA

That will sadly never happen.

They should be negotiating this now. Players need to be involved in this process if they don't want fines/suspensions etc. p.s. Sorry for typos of initial post. Damned iPhone autocorrect.