NFL replacing kickoffs (1 Viewer)

[Sinn Fein]

Interesting when you really think about who has the advantage. The defense could really put their team in terrific field position but I don't really like a team automatically getting possession of the ball after a score.

Are there really that many injuries on kick offs with all the touchbacks nowadays? This liability issue for the NFL is getting ridiculous. At some point there has to be personal accountability for making a choice to play a contact sport. No one forces these guys to play and they choose to sacrifice their bodies to make their way in the world. If this kind of change in the game does happen it is a result of the players union forcing the NFL's hand, not the commissioners fault.

I am not sure I follow. Under the proposal the team that scored would have the ball - but it would be 4th and 15, on your own 30. In most cases, you are punting, and the team receiving will get the ball around the 30 (assuming a net-40 yd punt). But, if the team needs the ball back, and would otherwise have tried an on-side kick, they can line up and attempt to complete the 4th and 15 play - and have the ball at the 45ish yard line if successful.

The play also opens up the possibility for a bad snap, blocked punt, great punt return, fake punt (for a surprise on-side kick)

Precisely his point. This change gives possession to the scoring team again, albeit a back against the wall scenario, but possession all the same.

They technically have possession now - with about as much a chance of keeping possession after the first play.

 

[Maelstrom]

I am intrigued cause I like new ideas, but I voted Nay on this one. Kinda thinking 15 yards isn't quite enough maybe, although the stats seem to indicate it is. Also might move it back up to the 35 to keep relative field position the same. Althought, at the 35, 15 yards crosses mid-field, that is kind of a nice symbolic line. Like I said, like thinking about it, but don't want them to implement it.

 

[Premier]

Greg Schiano is credited with giving the idea to Goddell. So, Greg is now concerned about player safety? That's rich coming from a guy who instructs his team to dive at the knees and ankles of the opposition when they are completing kneel downs.

That's still a live play in a one possession game, genius. Schiano had a player paralyzed in college due to a kickoff.

 

[CrazyFox]

Sucks

I hate it

 

[Bankerguy]

Greg Schiano is credited with giving the idea to Goddell. So, Greg is now concerned about player safety? That's rich coming from a guy who instructs his team to dive at the knees and ankles of the opposition when they are completing kneel downs.

That's still a live play in a one possession game, genius. Schiano had a player paralyzed in college due to a kickoff.

Oh OK so that makes it better. Gotcha.

 

[belljr]

At first i thought it was the dumbest suggestion ever created, then thinking about it, I think it could actually be pretty good. I would need to see some more things hashed out to really have an opinion on it, like if they come out in a kick formation can they still fake, is it a free kick like a safety or a live punt play

 

[Da Guru]

I also read an article the other day about the idea of getting rid of the extra point kick. Teams instead would either take a free point or run a play to go for 2...

Gronkowski likes this idea

I would like to see them narrow the goalposts to about half what they are right now. Make it a true and difficult skill. The FG from inside the 40 has turned into a PAT.

 

[delusional]

F U Goodell.

 

[Hang 10]

F U Goodell.

I'm just not sure why jokers like Goodell and Schiano think they're entitled to fundamentally change the sport. Actually, I know why...they're trying to remove league liability vs. future lawsuits.(Which won't work BTW) But stupid changes aren't going to make an inherently dangerous game any safer...they're just going to eff it up.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

F U Goodell.

I'm just not sure why jokers like Goodell and Schiano think they're entitled to fundamentally change the sport. Actually, I know why...they're trying to remove league liability vs. future lawsuits.(Which won't work BTW) But stupid changes aren't going to make an inherently dangerous game any safer...they're just going to eff it up.

Sometimes they just want to look like they are trying to make things safer for those same liability reasons. Whether it does or not is a different question.

 

[tdmills]

Some points that others haven't brought up(from what I can see):

1) This promotes scoring. Starting field position would improve by 10 yards, huge.

2) This helps eliminate injuries on onside kicks. The main purpose of the initial players on the kicking team is to hit the opposing players with no interest in obtaining the football. It's a violent collision and part of the intent of this new rule.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I also read an article the other day about the idea of getting rid of the extra point kick. Teams instead would either take a free point or run a play to go for 2...

Gronkowski likes this idea

I would like to see them narrow the goalposts to about half what they are right now. Make it a true and difficult skill. The FG from inside the 40 has turned into a PAT.

1n 2012 - there is one 50-yard attempt every 3 games - connecting at 61%

In 2002 - there was one 50-yard attempt every 6 games - connecting at 52%

I am not sure there is any position that has improved as much in the last 10 years.

 

[Annyong]

i'd watch a lot less football if this is the direction the league is going in.

 

[Hang 10]

I'd like to see some actual statistics on the amount of players injured(concussions etc) on kickoffs compared to other plays.

 

[larry_boy_44]

What's Next getting rid of all tackling and make all the players wear flags!! Come on this is football people are going to get hurt.

yes, people will get hurt...But if we do cost/benefit analysis of this, is the kickoff really worth fighting?I am 100% with you, if they try making it two-hand touch on any level, I'm done watching. But are kickoffs really worth the ridiculous rate of injury on those plays?I'm not so sure anymore.

 

[Joe Summer]

They technically have possession now - with about as much a chance of keeping possession after the first play.

I don't think that's the case. The rulebook defines "possession" as "firm grip and control of the ball inbounds".

 

[Sinn Fein]

They technically have possession now - with about as much a chance of keeping possession after the first play.

I don't think that's the case. The rulebook defines "possession" as "firm grip and control of the ball inbounds".

Watch the kicker next time there is a kick-off. He definitely takes a firm grip of the ball, squeezes it, and has control inbounds before kicking.

 

[Joe Summer]

4th-and-15 is easier to convert than recovering an onside kick.

edit: actually they are pretty close:

18% chance of converting 4th-and-15

20% chance of recovering EXPECTED onside kick

I suspect he didn't remove kneel downs and bad snaps on punts and FGs. Using PFR I came up with over 27% when I removed plays that didn't look like they were an attempt to pick up a first down. If I add those back in, then the percentage is down around what he's showing.

Also, I would think that the new rule would be more beneficial to teams with good quarterbacks. There is a greater disparity between the best and worst quarterbacks, than there is between the best and worst kickers. Onside kicks are pretty much a crapshoot no matter who is doing the kicking.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I don't understand why people equate "physical" with "violent".

Football can, and should, be a physical game, but it does not have to be violent. The violence is just gratuitous.

The players are simply too big and fast, and getting bigger/faster to think that these violent collisions can continue. Rules will be enacted that will limit the violent collisions that are not a necessary part of the game. You can sack a QB without pile driving him into the ground. You can tackle a WR without trying to take his head off. The game is "tackle" football, not "big hit" football.

I think it would be a better game if there was more emphasis on tackling the ball carrier to the ground, and less emphasis on bone-jarring hits. The bone-jarring hits of 20 years ago will kill someone in the next 20 years - and if that happens the sport will accelerate its own death spiral. Making rules that keep the integrity of the sport, but soften some of the rough edges, will help keep the sport around a lot longer.

 

[Joe Summer]

They technically have possession now - with about as much a chance of keeping possession after the first play.

I don't think that's the case. The rulebook defines "possession" as "firm grip and control of the ball inbounds".

Watch the kicker next time there is a kick-off. He definitely takes a firm grip of the ball, squeezes it, and has control inbounds before kicking.

Yeah, and the referee has possession just before the game starts and in between plays. And the fans have possession every time the ball goes into the stands. And the coach has possession just before he hands out the game ball. Oh, and don't forget the ballboys. Ballboy TOP is an underrated stat, ya know.

 

[packseasontix]

One thought on the 4th and 15 rule, Pass interference

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't understand why people equate "physical" with "violent". Football can, and should, be a physical game, but it does not have to be violent. The violence is just gratuitous.The players are simply too big and fast, and getting bigger/faster to think that these violent collisions can continue. Rules will be enacted that will limit the violent collisions that are not a necessary part of the game. You can sack a QB without pile driving him into the ground. You can tackle a WR without trying to take his head off. The game is "tackle" football, not "big hit" football.I think it would be a better game if there was more emphasis on tackling the ball carrier to the ground, and less emphasis on bone-jarring hits. The bone-jarring hits of 20 years ago will kill someone in the next 20 years - and if that happens the sport will accelerate its own death spiral. Making rules that keep the integrity of the sport, but soften some of the rough edges, will help keep the sport around a lot longer.

Weren't there pushes in the 1900s and 1910s to make football illegal and that's one of the reasons that passes were added to the game?

 

[dgreen]

One thought on the 4th and 15 rule, Pass interference

I'd hate to see the league be so harsh with defensive penalties in such a situation.

 

[matttyl]

Will the clock be running on this play?

If this rule proposal were to be presented in a more fleshed out and formal manner I think the answer to your question would be not until the ball is touched by the receiving team or the snap taken by the qb, same as any kickoff or play from scrimmage after any clock stoppage play.

That would eliminate the possibility of the defense making a comeback with ~4 seconds on the clock, because the QB could just take the snap and run around until the clock expired.

Exactly why I asked. Likely even more than 4 seconds as well. Also, what's keeping a punter from running around for a few seconds before booting it (Rugby style)? What's keeping the QB himself from punting it when they are lined up to "go for it" on 4th. He can just run around for 10 or so seconds, and then punt it. There would likely be a penalty for illegal man downfield, but if the receiving team accepts it then it's now 4th and 20 or 25 and they can do it again. If they decline it, they have the ball but with less time on the clock.

 

[treat88]

I don't understand why people equate "physical" with "violent". Football can, and should, be a physical game, but it does not have to be violent. The violence is just gratuitous.The players are simply too big and fast, and getting bigger/faster to think that these violent collisions can continue. Rules will be enacted that will limit the violent collisions that are not a necessary part of the game. You can sack a QB without pile driving him into the ground. You can tackle a WR without trying to take his head off. The game is "tackle" football, not "big hit" football.I think it would be a better game if there was more emphasis on tackling the ball carrier to the ground, and less emphasis on bone-jarring hits. The bone-jarring hits of 20 years ago will kill someone in the next 20 years - and if that happens the sport will accelerate its own death spiral. Making rules that keep the integrity of the sport, but soften some of the rough edges, will help keep the sport around a lot longer.

How do you define "physical" vs "violent"? Where does one end and the other begin?I'm not asking in an argumentative tone, but rather because when I pose that question to myself...I don't come up with a very clear dividing line. I also struggle with the term "necessary" as unless a collision is well away from the play with no potential to impact it's outcome or comes after the whistle, any collision can be considered "necessary".I'm fine with some aspects of the "defenseless" player concept, while I dislike others. I'm also fine with not going to the helmet or knees of a defenseless player. Not using the helmet as a weapon is an obvious call.I guess I am simply not clear on what other changes some would propose to improve the safety of players (who play the sport voluntarily) while still keeping the game football as we know it. Eliminating KO's I guess. What else?Ultimately the responsibility for safety needs to be shifted to the players rather than the league. At some point, the game is what it is and whether someone chooses to participate is their decision. The league should not bear legal liability for the outcome of these guys playing of their own volition at some point. It makes sense to continue to find ways to prevent injury. It doesn't make further sense for the league to be held responsible for those injuries.

 

[Joe Summer]

Will the clock be running on this play?

If this rule proposal were to be presented in a more fleshed out and formal manner I think the answer to your question would be not until the ball is touched by the receiving team or the snap taken by the qb, same as any kickoff or play from scrimmage after any clock stoppage play.

That would eliminate the possibility of the defense making a comeback with ~4 seconds on the clock, because the QB could just take the snap and run around until the clock expired.

Exactly why I asked. Likely even more than 4 seconds as well. Also, what's keeping a punter from running around for a few seconds before booting it (Rugby style)? What's keeping the QB himself from punting it when they are lined up to "go for it" on 4th. He can just run around for 10 or so seconds, and then punt it. There would likely be a penalty for illegal man downfield, but if the receiving team accepts it then it's now 4th and 20 or 25 and they can do it again. If they decline it, they have the ball but with less time on the clock.

If they kept the existing clock rules (i.e., don't start the clock until the defense touches the ball), then it would create a situation where a team could score an unlimited number of points without any time coming off the clock.(Note: this situation also technically exists under current rules, although it is almost impossible for the kicking team to score a touchdown on an onside kick that is not first touched by the receiving team.)

 

[Sinn Fein]

I don't understand why people equate "physical" with "violent".

Football can, and should, be a physical game, but it does not have to be violent. The violence is just gratuitous.

The players are simply too big and fast, and getting bigger/faster to think that these violent collisions can continue. Rules will be enacted that will limit the violent collisions that are not a necessary part of the game. You can sack a QB without pile driving him into the ground. You can tackle a WR without trying to take his head off. The game is "tackle" football, not "big hit" football.

I think it would be a better game if there was more emphasis on tackling the ball carrier to the ground, and less emphasis on bone-jarring hits. The bone-jarring hits of 20 years ago will kill someone in the next 20 years - and if that happens the sport will accelerate its own death spiral. Making rules that keep the integrity of the sport, but soften some of the rough edges, will help keep the sport around a lot longer.

How do you define "physical" vs "violent"? Where does one end and the other begin?I'm not asking in an argumentative tone, but rather because when I pose that question to myself...I don't come up with a very clear dividing line. I also struggle with the term "necessary" as unless a collision is well away from the play with no potential to impact it's outcome or comes after the whistle, any collision can be considered "necessary".

I'm fine with some aspects of the "defenseless" player concept, while I dislike others. I'm also fine with not going to the helmet or knees of a defenseless player. Not using the helmet as a weapon is an obvious call.

I guess I am simply not clear on what other changes some would propose to improve the safety of players (who play the sport voluntarily) while still keeping the game football as we know it. Eliminating KO's I guess. What else?



Ultimately the responsibility for safety needs to be shifted to the players rather than the league. At some point, the game is what it is and whether someone chooses to participate is their decision. The league should not bear legal liability for the outcome of these guys playing of their own volition at some point. It makes sense to continue to find ways to prevent injury. It doesn't make further sense for the league to be held responsible for those injuries.

I think you are 100% wrong here. The NFL is a business that offers a product. If consumers stop wanting the product, it loses value. When the majority of people think the NFL is closer to the roman coliseum, and less a true sport, then the NFL will cease to be a billion dollar business.

The NFL is not there, by any stretch, now - but, they have to be worried about trending that way. They have to be worried about alienating mainstream viewers (not hardcore viewers - are you going to watch baseball instead?), and they have to be concerned about developing the next generation of talent - and if you have a product where it is becoming too dangerous to play - the premiere athletes will be choosing other ways to show off their talent. Parents will steer kids to other sports. Its not going to happen overnight, but if you wait until you see it happening, it will be too late.

The NFL has operated this way for years - making rule changes to appease the masses. This is really no different - and when they eliminate the kick-off (and I think they will), they would rather keep some semblance of an onside kick, and also make it a football play. This process accomplishes both - but I am sure there are others.

 

[goldenchild]

I also read an article the other day about the idea of getting rid of the extra point kick. Teams instead would either take a free point or run a play to go for 2...

Gronkowski likes this idea

I would like to see them narrow the goalposts to about half what they are right now. Make it a true and difficult skill. The FG from inside the 40 has turned into a PAT.

David Akers begs to differ

 

[daveR]

I think the current system would work if a kickoff into the endzone, in the air, came out to the thirty. That would eliminate the returns from in the endzone and allow the onside kick to remain in play.

 

[RBM]

Anyone know the odds of converting a 4th and 15? Seems like it would be higher than an onside recovery.Also, worth noting, this rule would be yet another to really favor passing teams.

Hate this. Imagine some genius offensive coach coming up with a few plays to convert that....the other team would never get the ball after a score? So bad

 

[RBM]

One thought on the 4th and 15 rule, Pass interference

Yup, awful

 

[jim k]

The league is looking to reduce unneeded contact. Especially when both players are running at each other at full speed. Part of the reason is liability and risk of lawsuits in the future.

Another option on kickoffs is that first contact with anyone (other than the returner) must be made with outstretched arms. This technique allows the arms to act as shock absorbers and minimizes the collision effect.

I can see a rule like this in the future.

I can also see a time when helmets are made of gel and the helmet cage encorporates a bumper or shocks to also absorb collision effect.

 

[General Tso]

The gel in helmets thing has already been done - 1970's. There is nothing you can do to absorb head shots. The concussion occurs inside the head - with the brain squishing against the inside of the skull. The only way to limit this is to reduce the speed of the impact.

 

[treat88]

I don't understand why people equate "physical" with "violent".

Football can, and should, be a physical game, but it does not have to be violent. The violence is just gratuitous.

The players are simply too big and fast, and getting bigger/faster to think that these violent collisions can continue. Rules will be enacted that will limit the violent collisions that are not a necessary part of the game. You can sack a QB without pile driving him into the ground. You can tackle a WR without trying to take his head off. The game is "tackle" football, not "big hit" football.

I think it would be a better game if there was more emphasis on tackling the ball carrier to the ground, and less emphasis on bone-jarring hits. The bone-jarring hits of 20 years ago will kill someone in the next 20 years - and if that happens the sport will accelerate its own death spiral. Making rules that keep the integrity of the sport, but soften some of the rough edges, will help keep the sport around a lot longer.

How do you define "physical" vs "violent"? Where does one end and the other begin?I'm not asking in an argumentative tone, but rather because when I pose that question to myself...I don't come up with a very clear dividing line. I also struggle with the term "necessary" as unless a collision is well away from the play with no potential to impact it's outcome or comes after the whistle, any collision can be considered "necessary".

I'm fine with some aspects of the "defenseless" player concept, while I dislike others. I'm also fine with not going to the helmet or knees of a defenseless player. Not using the helmet as a weapon is an obvious call.

I guess I am simply not clear on what other changes some would propose to improve the safety of players (who play the sport voluntarily) while still keeping the game football as we know it. Eliminating KO's I guess. What else?



Ultimately the responsibility for safety needs to be shifted to the players rather than the league. At some point, the game is what it is and whether someone chooses to participate is their decision. The league should not bear legal liability for the outcome of these guys playing of their own volition at some point. It makes sense to continue to find ways to prevent injury. It doesn't make further sense for the league to be held responsible for those injuries.

I think you are 100% wrong here. The NFL is a business that offers a product. If consumers stop wanting the product, it loses value. When the majority of people think the NFL is closer to the roman coliseum, and less a true sport, then the NFL will cease to be a billion dollar business.

The NFL is not there, by any stretch, now - but, they have to be worried about trending that way. They have to be worried about alienating mainstream viewers (not hardcore viewers - are you going to watch baseball instead?), and they have to be concerned about developing the next generation of talent - and if you have a product where it is becoming too dangerous to play - the premiere athletes will be choosing other ways to show off their talent. Parents will steer kids to other sports. Its not going to happen overnight, but if you wait until you see it happening, it will be too late.

The NFL has operated this way for years - making rule changes to appease the masses. This is really no different - and when they eliminate the kick-off (and I think they will), they would rather keep some semblance of an onside kick, and also make it a football play. This process accomplishes both - but I am sure there are others.

I think you may have misunderstood my intent. I am talking more generally than just the KO change topic.At some point in time, from a legal liability perspective, if players want to play the sport than the risk involved needs to be the players responsibility, not the league's.

I understand the complexities involved in that simple statement, and in no way am I saying that steps should not be taken to reduce injuries.

But, with no drama intended, where is the line between making football safer and making football no longer football? Without fundamentally altering the sport, the basic premise of the game will always involve an inherent amount of risk.

I don't think the league should be legally liable for that risk any further.

 

[lod01]

So let's see. You score and then you get the ball back. How stupid. I bet the 2007 New England Patriots would have closed out a lot of their games by halftime. THey would have gone for it on 4th and 15 since they pretty much scored at will.

 

[lod01]

Also, if I'm down a couple scores with only a few minutes left and we have the ball 4th & 15, I'm sending out the backup QB, telling someone on the line to let a DL-man thru and then telling my backup QB to duck right when he gets there so we get a helmet to helmet penalty.

This thing is flawed in so many ways.

 

[pizzatyme]

I hate kickoffs. Boring 98% of the time. Penalties much of the time. But this is a stupid rule.

Why not just give the team the ball at the 15 or 20 and away they go? Why does there need to be a kick?

 

[Insein]

This idea is assinine. The punt is no safer than the kickoff. IF anything, the punt returner has a greater chance of getting jacked up than the kick returner. All this idea would do is take about 5-10 guys on each roster and make them irrelevant. You could shorten the rosters to 45 and not miss a beat without a kickoff or K-coverage team. I'm sure the players association wouldn't see that end of it. Just keep pushing the ridiculous lawsuit.

 

[Warrior]

So let's see. You score and then you get the ball back. How stupid. I bet the 2007 New England Patriots would have closed out a lot of their games by halftime. THey would have gone for it on 4th and 15 since they pretty much scored at will.

Ever watch football before? 4th and 15 isn't even close to a slam dunk for ANY team.

 

[Warrior]

This idea is assinine. The punt is no safer than the kickoff. IF anything, the punt returner has a greater chance of getting jacked up than the kick returner. All this idea would do is take about 5-10 guys on each roster and make them irrelevant. You could shorten the rosters to 45 and not miss a beat without a kickoff or K-coverage team. I'm sure the players association wouldn't see that end of it. Just keep pushing the ridiculous lawsuit.

Not true...not even close.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I hate kickoffs. Boring 98% of the time. Penalties much of the time. But this is a stupid rule. Why not just give the team the ball at the 15 or 20 and away they go? Why does there need to be a kick?

I think the nfl like the idea of an onside kick - the ability for the kicking to recover the ball. It adds drama to a few games that would otherwise be over. Unless you want them rolling dice to determine possession, I think there will be a football play following a score. The other options I saw under consideration include moving the kickoff to the 40 - would eliminate almost all returns, and imposing a weight limit on kickoff teams. The bottom line is the NFL is going to do something on kickoffs - what provides the best entertainment?

 

[Insein]

So let's see. You score and then you get the ball back. How stupid. I bet the 2007 New England Patriots would have closed out a lot of their games by halftime. THey would have gone for it on 4th and 15 since they pretty much scored at will.

Ever watch football before? 4th and 15 isn't even close to a slam dunk for ANY team.

The mere fact that they are getting the ball back at all is the ridiculous part. Hardly a slam dunk but way better odds of converting than an onside kick. I'd take my chances on 4th and 15 with Tom Brady or Peyton Manning throwing than a kicker popping a ball up for 10 yards and trying to recover. This whole idea is a ridiculous, knee jerk reaction to a lawsuit. the kickoff has been part of the game from the beginning and to just eliminate that play in the name of concussions is ludicrous. They only account for 5-10% of a games plays to begin with. Lawyers have ruined everything else in this country. why not ruin our favorite sport too.

 

[Insein]

This idea is assinine. The punt is no safer than the kickoff. IF anything, the punt returner has a greater chance of getting jacked up than the kick returner. All this idea would do is take about 5-10 guys on each roster and make them irrelevant. You could shorten the rosters to 45 and not miss a beat without a kickoff or K-coverage team. I'm sure the players association wouldn't see that end of it. Just keep pushing the ridiculous lawsuit.

Not true...not even close.

How so? You still have a bunch of guys running full speed down the field to tackle a guy. The only difference is that the guy isn't as far down and unless he calls for a fair catch, he's completely vulnerable. Plus the punter is vulnerable to being hit as his leg is in an awkward position. But then again if it's impact you're worried about, how bout eliminating offensive and defensive lines. They hit each other full bore every single play. OL rarely leave the field unless for injury and they have anywhere from 30-50 high impact hits every game. Lets just have 1 defender count out to 4 mississippi before he's allowed to 2 hand touch the Qb. Where does it end? Why play the game at all?

 

[kerntuber]

If the punts are much "safer", why couldn't they just change the rules and force the receiving team on kick-offs to start with everyone up on the line, except the kick returner, to simulate the punt mechanics of both teams running back instead of the full force collisions?

 

[GregR]

and imposing a weight limit on kickoff teams.

Someone else has been pushing the idea of a weight limit in general, and I don't think it will ever happen. Too many negatives.You would have to do a weigh in before the game. Which means you are going to have players dehydrating so they can be as muscular as possible but still make weight, then take an IV after. It's just a bad idea from the health aspects for the players. It would turn it into what boxers and wrestlers go through.And edit to add: The biggest problem with injuries on kickoffs is not weight of the players, it's that you have players running at full speed before collisions. Making the players be smaller and faster would probably just make the matter worse. If you wanted to limit kickoff injuries, put an over 300 pound weight limit in place and you'd see far fewer injuries. Not to mention watching the returner huffing and puffing up the field would be hilarious.

 

[Tau837]

I don't understand the need to make such a radical change. Here are two alternative ideas:

1. Change the touchback so it moves the ball to the 30. This would lead to fewer returns.

2. Allow the ball to be kicked out of bounds. Either leave it at that, or add a rule that if the ball is kicked out of bounds inside the 10/20, it is placed at the 10/20.

Changes like this would keep the kickoff (and the onsides kick) as an integral part of the game, as it should be. And it would add a stronger strategic element to it.

 

[GregR]

I don't understand the need to make such a radical change. Here are two alternative ideas:1. Change the touchback so it moves the ball to the 30. This would lead to fewer returns.2. Allow the ball to be kicked out of bounds. Either leave it at that, or add a rule that if the ball is kicked out of bounds inside the 10/20, it is placed at the 10/20.Changes like this would keep the kickoff (and the onsides kick) as an integral part of the game, as it should be. And it would add a stronger strategic element to it.

I like the thought behind it (especially the going out of bounds stuff, great addition), but onside kicks are right up there with kickoffs that are returned for plays most likely to cause injuries. Actually I think onside kicks might even be worse in that regard.So replacing onside kicks with "something else" is probably a big part their goal.

 

[Tau837]

I don't understand the need to make such a radical change. Here are two alternative ideas:1. Change the touchback so it moves the ball to the 30. This would lead to fewer returns.2. Allow the ball to be kicked out of bounds. Either leave it at that, or add a rule that if the ball is kicked out of bounds inside the 10/20, it is placed at the 10/20.Changes like this would keep the kickoff (and the onsides kick) as an integral part of the game, as it should be. And it would add a stronger strategic element to it.

I like the thought behind it (especially the going out of bounds stuff, great addition), but onside kicks are right up there with kickoffs that are returned for plays most likely to cause injuries. Actually I think onside kicks might even be worse in that regard.So replacing onside kicks with "something else" is probably a big part their goal.

At some point, though, frequency should come into play. Let's say a player is injured on 10% of onside kickoffs and 1% of running plays from scrimmage. There are probably 50-100 times more running plays from scrimmage than onside kickoffs. So more players are hurt on running plays from scrimmage. Should the NFL ban those plays, too?Let's say field goal plays are the plays least likely to lead to an injury. Should we just make NFL games field goal kicking contests in the name of player safety?I made up the numbers above, but you get the point. Some things are integral to football the way it has always been played. Kickoffs are one of them IMO.

 

[GregR]

I don't understand the need to make such a radical change. Here are two alternative ideas:1. Change the touchback so it moves the ball to the 30. This would lead to fewer returns.2. Allow the ball to be kicked out of bounds. Either leave it at that, or add a rule that if the ball is kicked out of bounds inside the 10/20, it is placed at the 10/20.Changes like this would keep the kickoff (and the onsides kick) as an integral part of the game, as it should be. And it would add a stronger strategic element to it.

I like the thought behind it (especially the going out of bounds stuff, great addition), but onside kicks are right up there with kickoffs that are returned for plays most likely to cause injuries. Actually I think onside kicks might even be worse in that regard.So replacing onside kicks with "something else" is probably a big part their goal.

At some point, though, frequency should come into play. Let's say a player is injured on 10% of onside kickoffs and 1% of running plays from scrimmage. There are probably 50-100 times more running plays from scrimmage than onside kickoffs. So more players are hurt on running plays from scrimmage. Should the NFL ban those plays, too?Let's say field goal plays are the plays least likely to lead to an injury. Should we just make NFL games field goal kicking contests in the name of player safety?I made up the numbers above, but you get the point. Some things are integral to football the way it has always been played. Kickoffs are one of them IMO.

I've said I want kickoffs to stay too so we're of a like mind.But that doesn't change that if the NFL's goal is reduce serious injury risk, that onside kicks and kickoffs that result in a return are two of the big plays to change. Even if the 10% and 1% stats are spot on, those stats would support the NFL's course of action meeting their goal. I'm not advocating they go this route. I'm saying your alternative provided, while creative and I like it, won't help meet their goal. At least in terms of the onside kicks. Allowing kicks out of bounds would reduce the number of returns and help there.

 

[Insein]

I don't understand the need to make such a radical change. Here are two alternative ideas:1. Change the touchback so it moves the ball to the 30. This would lead to fewer returns.2. Allow the ball to be kicked out of bounds. Either leave it at that, or add a rule that if the ball is kicked out of bounds inside the 10/20, it is placed at the 10/20.Changes like this would keep the kickoff (and the onsides kick) as an integral part of the game, as it should be. And it would add a stronger strategic element to it.

Good common sense ideas.