new kickoff idea

[shouldakepowens]

Goodell floats novel idea for replacing kickoffs | ProFootballTalk

What you guys think of this?

 

[deep9er]

Goodell floats novel idea for replacing kickoffs | ProFootballTalk

What you guys think of this?

IMO.....not bad an idea. would a punter get 'tired leg' with this additional load?

my first reaction was move it to the 35 yard line, because offenses would start near their 30. but then that wouldn't be too good for the "on side" kick scenario? the team thats behind shouldn't get the 4th and 15 closer to the goal line, cause what if they only need a field goal?

 

[abaskin18]

My initial reaction is I think it's pretty darn interesting and I think I like it. It just might change the game too much at once to implement? (sorry to steal/borrow your ? thing without permission, Deep :p )

 

[CalamityX11]

First reaction is no way.... that sounds terrible, if the team goes for it a fails, the opposing team are inside their 45 on their first possesion...

not too excited with this idea but gimmie time to think about it more....

 

[CalamityX11]

another thing, if they punt it, could the punter really punt it deep enough to inside the 10? at least with KO, kicking out of the endzone limits the opposing team to the 20.

 

[abaskin18]

First reaction is no way.... that sounds terrible, if the team goes for it a fails, the opposing team are inside their 45 on their first possesion...

not too excited with this idea but gimmie time to think about it more....

I believe they'd only be going for it in situations where they would be on-side kicking under the current system. But it does set up better field position than a failed onside attempt by a good amount, regardless of situation.

 

[abaskin18]

another thing, if they punt it, could the punter really punt it deep enough to inside the 10? at least with KO, kicking out of the endzone limits the opposing team to the 20.

That's my beef. Could it be moved up? And how much before we venture into the territory of a successful conversion being too close to a field goal try? Though, a successful on-sides try gets you pretty darn close as it is.

 

[BINGO]

It sounds more like an April fool's joke to me.

 

[deep9er]

another thing, if they punt it, could the punter really punt it deep enough to inside the 10? at least with KO, kicking out of the endzone limits the opposing team to the 20.

correcting myself, in the case of a safety, the punter is standing at his 20 and most cases, the receiving team starts near their 30 following the return.

in this case the punter is at his 30 (not 20), so the receiving team would typically start at his 20.

bottom line is they need to reduce concussions and it isn't hard to argue kick-offs is a most dangerous play. if too many of these concussions occur, it'ill degrade the game even faster.

 

[deep9er]

First reaction is no way.... that sounds terrible, if the team goes for it a fails, the opposing team are inside their 45 on their first possesion...

not too excited with this idea but gimmie time to think about it more....

the team would punt away most times, just like kick-offs. you'd only go for it at your own choosing. so if you choose to attempt the 4th and 15, and don't make it................thats your decision.

 

[Bemular]

the team would punt away most times, just like kick-offs. you'd only go for it at your own choosing. so if you choose to attempt the 4th and 15, and don't make it................thats your decision.

The 4th & 15 is meant to simulate an onside kick attempt. The competition committee will look at the rates for converting onside kicks and the rates for converting long 4th down opportunities and build the rule from there should they choose to implement it.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Stupid. Just stupid. I fucking hate Goodell.

 

[deep9er]

Stupid. Just stupid. I fucking hate Goodell.

it isn't stupid if it can reduce concussions? instead of calling it stupid, go ahead and post better ideas?

don't know how much of these concussions are from kick-offs, but Goodell has to address it and he has to start somewhere. tossing out ideas is better than doing nothing, or taking forever.

 

[clyde_carbon]

it isn't stupid if it can reduce concussions? instead of calling it stupid, go ahead and post better ideas?

don't know how much of these concussions are from kick-offs, but Goodell has to address it and he has to start somewhere. tossing out ideas is better than doing nothing, or taking forever.

They wanna reduce concussions but they wanna add more games? Hilarious.

 

[Bemular]

One problem they will have to solve is the kickoff to the team behind by 2 or 6 with just a handful of seconds on the clock.

Another problem they will have to solve is the field position/touchback issue surely to arise. With what they are trying to do they are setting up a natural conflict between worse field position and fewer touchbacks.

 

[deep9er]

One problem they will have to solve is the kickoff to the team behind by 2 or 6 with just a handful of seconds on the clock.

Another problem they will have to solve is the field position/touchback issue surely to arise. With what they are trying to do they are setting up a natural conflict between worse field position and fewer touchbacks.

you don't have to tinker the rules to accomdate the team thats behind? they don't have to make the rule so that the team behind is given a better chance to tie or go ahead? if a team foresees it as a problem, then don't fall behind.

as the rules are now, if a team is 30 points behind, it still kicks off the same.

not getting your second paragraph? if they implement this rule, there likely won't be any touchbacks? guess the receiving team can just let it bounce to the endzone, and get it at the 20? but what is "worse field position.."?

 

[MHSL82]

you don't have to tinker the rules to accomdate the team thats behind? they don't have to make the rule so that the team behind is given a better chance to tie or go ahead? if a team foresees it as a problem, then don't fall behind.

as the rules are now, if a team is 30 points behind, it still kicks off the same.

not getting your second paragraph? if they implement this rule, there likely won't be any touchbacks? guess the receiving team can just let it bounce to the endzone, and get it at the 20? but what is "worse field position.."?

I think he might mean that in a 2 or 6 point situation with say 30 seconds on the clock, there'd be no incentive to kick it, so they essentially got an onside kick - albeit one down and deep in their own territory. As it is now, you'd have to onside kick it and recover it to even have that chance. Yes, 4th and 15 at the 30 is bad position, but so is not having the ball and having to onside kick it.

But I may be wrong with what he meant, so I assume he'll answer it for you. Just taking a stab at it.

 

[NinerSickness]

It sounds more like an April fool's joke to me.

Word.

 

[Bemular]

you don't have to tinker the rules to accomdate the team thats behind? they don't have to make the rule so that the team behind is given a better chance to tie or go ahead? if a team foresees it as a problem, then don't fall behind.

as the rules are now, if a team is 30 points behind, it still kicks off the same.

not getting your second paragraph? if they implement this rule, there likely won't be any touchbacks? guess the receiving team can just let it bounce to the endzone, and get it at the 20? but what is "worse field position.."?

It is not about providing a better chance - it is about providing the same chance. The rule has to maintain the integrity of the game while reducing the risk of concussion.

As it is now if the 49ers are down by 2 with 6 seconds left and one timeout, the winning team has to at least attempt to give the ball to us for some kind of return.

If the clock starts on the 4th & 15 play as per the rules today what would prevent the winning team from just running around for 6 seconds to kill the clock, thus never giving us an opportunity at a return, or a FC and one play.

As for the TB/FP conflict - begin with the average distances of both a punt & kickoff returns, the average # of TB's, the average FP and build from there - think about it. How do you maintain all of that integrity while minimizing the risk of concussion?

 

[MHSL82]

Wow, I was off. Glad you were available to clarify because that's a good point. Oh well, I do think there are disadvantages to this proposed change, both for the winning and losing team of a close game.

Would limiting the number of kickoffs serve as progress or just unnecessary complications? For example, this proposed change at the start of each half? Not allowing it in the final two or four minutes? I think there's a problem with inconsistent applications of rules based on time. What about always getting the ball at the 20? (I know that's getting rid of kickoffs, but so is this in favor of punts and fake punts.