new kickoff idea

[Bemular]

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.

It's a new idea being lobbed out to get a fan reaction. There are polls on it and I'm sure many of these discussions are being monitored. I know for a fact the ESPN writers troll the ESPN boards to ascertain sentiment on hot topics.

The thing that kind of weirds me out is - I am just not seeing the injuries they are trying to prevent. I am not seeing any more head injuries on kick-offs than I am any other play.

 

[abaskin18]

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

I hear that rebuttal all the time, but it doesn't seem as hypocritical to me. I've always looked at it as they want to reduce concussions SO they can add more games.

I don't think they care about player safety, just public perception and covering themselves from future litigation all in the context of the ultimate bottom line. So if they could reduce concussions enough, maybe they'd feel they could get away with adding more games.

 

[CalamityX11]

BTW knowing us, Harbs would probably run it on 4th n 15 lol....

 

[deep9er]

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?

oh ok, thanks for explaining.

so to me, don't get down by 2 or 6 with 6 seconds to play. if you find yourself in this situation, you deserve to lose.

compare this to current rules....you're down by 2 or 6 with 6 seconds left, if they kick it for a TB you get the ball at your 20. what are the odds you score with 6 seconds left anyway? if they squib it to your 30, what are the odds you score?

doubt you end up with a perfect system matching current rules, how can you? but even if it is a little bit off, you do it to reduce concussions.

 

[deep9er]

It's a new idea being lobbed out to get a fan reaction. There are polls on it and I'm sure many of these discussions are being monitored. I know for a fact the ESPN writers troll the ESPN boards to ascertain sentiment on hot topics.

The thing that kind of weirds me out is - I am just not seeing the injuries they are trying to prevent. I am not seeing any more head injuries on kick-offs than I am any other play.

yep, that is the first thing we're supposed to know.....how many of these concussions are in fact coming from kick-offs?

common sense tells us it will be the highest percentage, being it is the biggest of ollisions. but haven't read anything which provides that data?

 

[deep9er]

I hear that rebuttal all the time, but it doesn't seem as hypocritical to me. I've always looked at it as they want to reduce concussions SO they can add more games.

I don't think they care about player safety, just public perception and covering themselves from future litigation all in the context of the ultimate bottom line. So if they could reduce concussions enough, maybe they'd feel they could get away with adding more games.

good point.

 

[Bemular]

oh ok, thanks for explaining.

so to me, don't get down by 2 or 6 with 6 seconds to play. if you find yourself in this situation, you deserve to lose.

compare this to current rules....you're down by 2 or 6 with 6 seconds left, if they kick it for a TB you get the ball at your 20. what are the odds you score with 6 seconds left anyway? if they squib it to your 30, what are the odds you score?

doubt you end up with a perfect system matching current rules, how can you? but even if it is a little bit off, you do it to reduce concussions.

Of course, that makes perfect sense.

But why stop with KO returns? We should just eliminate all low percentage plays like kickoff returns, long FG's, down and distance of more than 20 yards, punt returns, Hail Mary's, etc.

Hell I think we should just institute the "mercy rule", we'll call it the "21-point rule". Any team that finds itself down by 21 with less than 21 minutes to go and the game is called! That would reduce concussions too!

I mean, like you said, it is the other teams fault for getting behind right? I gotta hand it to you Deep, every now and again you really show what separates you from all the other posters on the board.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

What clyde said.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I hear that rebuttal all the time, but it doesn't seem as hypocritical to me. I've always looked at it as they want to reduce concussions SO they can add more games.

I don't think they care about player safety, just public perception and covering themselves from future litigation all in the context of the ultimate bottom line. So if they could reduce concussions enough, maybe they'd feel they could get away with adding more games.

They wanna limit concussions because they are getting sued up the ass by retired NFL players. No laws suits and the NFL wouldn't give two shits about concussions.

They've already changed the game by hindering what defensive players can go to WRs. Now they wanna get rid of KOs? Pure BS.

Meanwhile, they're concentrating on adding two more NFL games and putting a franchise in London so teams can travel across the Atlantic to play football. Yeah, OK.

 

[abaskin18]

They wanna limit concussions because they are getting sued up the ass by retired NFL players. No laws suits and the NFL wouldn't give two shits about concussions.

They've already changed the game by hindering what defensive players can go to WRs. Now they wanna get rid of KOs? Pure BS.

Meanwhile, they're concentrating on adding two more NFL games and putting a franchise in London so teams can travel across the Atlantic to play football. Yeah, OK.

Completely agree. It's all in the context of their bottom line. Less concussions would be good for their bottom line. More games would also be good for their bottom line.

I think it's too big a change and I like KO's the way they are, but if they are going to get rid of them, I don't hate this idea as the replacement.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Completely agree. It's all in the context of their bottom line. Less concussions would be good for their bottom line. More games would also be good for their bottom line.

I think it's too big a change and I like KO's the way they are, but if they are going to get rid of them, I don't hate this idea as the replacement.

It seem like Goodell just wants to do something just to do it. Just so in case he gets sued again he can say, "See? We tried!"

Meanwhile soon enough he'll be asking his players to play more regular seasons games and travel cross-continents to play football.

He's a fucking idiot. Wanna prevent concussions? Stop talking about adding more games. Scratch the London idea. Hell, end Thursday Night Football. Pump more $$$ into R&D for better equipment and helmets.

 

[imac_21]

This is a Schiano recommendation, and it came shortly after the Eric LaGrande injury.

 

[abaskin18]

It seem like Goodell just wants to do something just to do it. Just so in case he gets sued again he can say, "See? We tried!"

Meanwhile soon enough he'll be asking his players to play more regular seasons games and travel cross-continents to play football.

He's a fucking idiot. Wanna prevent concussions? Stop talking about adding more games. Scratch the London idea. Hell, end Thursday Night Football. Pump more $$$ into R&D for better equipment and helmets.

Everything he does is for the benefit of the league's bottom line. Thursday night football makes money. They seem to think London could make money. More regular season games would certainly make money. Concussions take main attractions off the field. Perceived indifference hurts the league's image and leaves them open to lawsuits.

He may be a prick. He may be an asshole. He may be a line-stepping egomaniac. I just don't see the hypocrisy or the idiocy in trying to increase the green while limiting red (and the risk of more red to come).

 

[MHSL82]

Everything he does is for the benefit of the league's bottom line. Thursday night football makes money. They seem to think London could make money. More regular season games would certainly make money. Concussions take main attractions off the field. Perceived indifference hurts the league's image and leaves them open to lawsuits.

He may be a prick. He may be an asshole. He may be a line-stepping egomaniac. I just don't see the hypocrisy or the idiocy in trying to increase the green while limiting red (and the risk of more red to come).

I wonder how much they get from licensing and all that merely from promoting the idea of a Europe/UK team (not even getting one there). Not a lot by their standards, but by ours; I bet it's more than if they ignored Europe and just say watch us.

 

[hunzworth]

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 hook and lateral and plays of the like will be the most practiced plays in football.

 

[arsenal6106]

So does the returning team get a chance to block the punt?

 

[wartyOne]

Didn't read the thread, so I'm sorry if I'm stepping on somebody's toes, but...

...Goodell is talking to the guy who instructs his team to break NFL protocol and can the snapper trying to get to the QB in victory formation about making the game safer?

What the fuck?

 

[CalamityX11]

end Thursday Night Football

Please do.....

 

[deep9er]

Didn't read the thread, so I'm sorry if I'm stepping on somebody's toes, but...

...Goodell is talking to the guy who instructs his team to break NFL protocol and can the snapper trying to get to the QB in victory formation about making the game safer?

What the fuck?

if it is a good idea doesn't matter where it came from? because we would still evaluate the idea alone, for its merits.

anyways, in return for reducing player concussions, glad their going to make changes. until i read a better idea, it works for me.

 

[BINGO]

oh ok, thanks for explaining.

so to me, don't get down by 2 or 6 with 6 seconds to play. if you find yourself in this situation, you deserve to lose.

compare this to current rules....you're down by 2 or 6 with 6 seconds left, if they kick it for a TB you get the ball at your 20. what are the odds you score with 6 seconds left anyway? if they squib it to your 30, what are the odds you score?

doubt you end up with a perfect system matching current rules, how can you? but even if it is a little bit off, you do it to reduce concussions.

Seriously, Deep?!! Without taking into consideration what got them to that tight game, still they deserved to lose without having any facts...