NFL eliminating Kickoffs?
Frankly, this eliminates one the THE most exciting plays in sports, and I don't want to see it leave. But if its gonna go, just spot the ball on the 20, and get over it.
Quote: MakingBookEliminating kickoffs would eliminate the onside kick. This would fundamentally alter the game. Almost no chance of a late comeback down more than one score. Horrible idea!
The option wouldn't eliminate the desperation play :
Quote:In its place, one idea suggested to the NFL’s Competition Committee by current Tampa Bay and former Rutgers coach Greg Schiano is to have teams start at their own 30-yard line in a fourth-and-15 situation with a choice of (1) punting the ball away or, to replace an onside kick, (2) go for it. If the team converts, they keep the ball. If not, the other team gets great field position as they would if they had recovered an on-side kick.
I don't care how many pads you wear or whether they're made of kevlar (or even Invincibilium), but if you don't want to get hit, may I suggest baseball or perhaps badminton?
Quote: 98ClubsAccording to this article at FORBES , there may be the elimination of kickoffs to further the image of the NFL as being concerned about Concussion Syndrome. The offered plan trial-ballooned does not sound very appealing. I would rather prefer the opposing team get the ball on their own 20 Yd line and be done with it.
Frankly, this eliminates one the THE most exciting plays in sports, and I don't want to see it leave. But if its gonna go, just spot the ball on the 20, and get over it.
I agree with this. How much safer are punt returns vs. KO returns? The 4th & 15 rule for an "onside kick" should be included though if kickoffs were abolished.
Quote: Face... but if you don't want to get hit, may I suggest baseball or perhaps badminton?
I don't know the comparisons for professional sports, but a comment from my high school coach has stuck with me for half a century. He said the extremely serious injuries tended to occur in football -- we had one player who suffered a broken spine. However, he said that other sports had more frequent injuries at the level of broken bones or stitches required. He said that baseball had the highest number of injuries by far. The explanation seemed to lie in the limited amount of protective gear, the frequent collisions involving unpadded parts of the body, and the high speed of dangerous items: balls, bats, spikes. I don't think baseball is a safe selection "if you don't want to get hit."
Quote: 98ClubsI've mulled this over a bit, and the best my litle brain could come up with is to place the ball at the Receiver's 20 and run a play without down as a "return" play. The excitement still exists with a touchdown possibility, or big gain. The clock runs at the snap.
But what about the onside kick possibility? The league should never get rid of that, imo.
And if you want to skate, not brawl, skip the NHl.
Never mind, the NHL has skipped out this season !
Quote: 98ClubsAn interception would actually be better field position.
I don't think you get the onside kick idea.
Under your idea, scoring teams should have these two options:
a) Give other team the ball on their own 20 (or own 30 whatever).
b) Give themselves a 4th and 15 on their own 20 (or 30 whatever) that they have to go for.
And Buzz...that NHL joke hurt me. I miss hockey thanks to that douche Bettman.
Sports fans are such chumps !
Quote: BuzzardNow, now. Not my fault fans put up with this sort of SHIT. After a week or two when teams start playing, all will be forgiven.
Sports fans are such chumps !
Maybe so...but i dunno if I would buy a Blues ticket this year. Probably too expensive. The playoff game last year (vs. the eventual Cup champs Kings) was ridiculous ($90 each).
Quote: BuzzardAt least the NHL lets the home town fans see the Championship games, Te NFL moves the Superbowl game elsewhere to cater to big business, What a joke !
Yeah, if the Blues made the cup final, I was planning to pay 500+ for it. I paid $225/ea to see a Cardinals WS game last year with my g/f. It was barely above face value...yikes.
Quote: DocI don't know the comparisons for professional sports, but a comment from my high school coach has stuck with me for half a century. He said the extremely serious injuries tended to occur in football -- we had one player who suffered a broken spine. However, he said that other sports had more frequent injuries at the level of broken bones or stitches required. He said that baseball had the highest number of injuries by far. The explanation seemed to lie in the limited amount of protective gear, the frequent collisions involving unpadded parts of the body, and the high speed of dangerous items: balls, bats, spikes. I don't think baseball is a safe selection "if you don't want to get hit."
I'd say my "knowledge" of sports injuries comes from maybe 30% documented studies with the rest being personal experience as an athelete of 26 years and counting (full disclosure and all ;))
In the grand scheme of things, baseball "injuries" are a joke. I'm not saying guys don't break legs in sliding collisions or take a 100mph ball off the dome, but a lot of these injuries are self inflicted - tearing a hammy legging out a double, tearing a rotator from too many hard throws, getting a blister from too many sliders. I can't bring myself to include baseball in the group of "tough" sports.
Rugby, Lacrosse, Hockey and Football, these are the tough guy sports according to Face, in ascending order of toughness. Although Rugby has no pads and hockey hits are the hardest thing on the planet after autoracing crashes, nothing has the constant, brutal contact that football does. It's 100% the most dangerous sport. But, does that mean "it must be changed"?
I don't think it does. I'm big on keeping things the way they are and the way they should be, as well as promoting personal responsibility. While PCS and TBI and early onset dementia are terrible things, no one is holding a gun to any of their or my heads to go back on the field or on the ice. If someone told me that 23 concussions were enough and forced me to change what I play, or the way that I play it, or changed the game to "protect me", I'd be livid.
Quote: BuzzardGruelling !
Gruel*ing - adj: extremely tiring.
Synonyms: trying, toilsome, exhausting.
I could not have said it better myself ;)
Quote: BuzzardI put baseball in the toughest of mental games.
Oh, absolutely. It's tough on the mind to keep focused on nothing for hours at a time.
Quote: tringlomaneI don't think you get the onside kick idea.
Under your idea, scoring teams should have these two options:
a) Give other team the ball on their own 20 (or own 30 whatever).
b) Give themselves a 4th and 15 on their own 20 (or 30 whatever) that they have to go for.
I don't like b.) rather just have a free play to make whatever yardage at risk of fumble or interception for that turnover back to the "kicking" team. I favor placing the ball at the 20, and run the free-play from there.
I realize what the onside-kick is, and one could option the free-play or the onside kick. The kicking team makes that call.
Obvious that most times the free-play is better, but at end-of-game the onside option is better. Besides, everyone knows its comin anyway.
kick, AND to accomplish what the Commissioner is
talking about, how about:
c) move the kick-off back to the 40 yard line.
d) pump a few more psi into the kick-off ball only
so more kickers can put it in the back of the
end zone
Quote: JohnnyQWell to avoid eliminating the possibility of the on-side
kick, AND to accomplish what the Commissioner is
talking about, how about:
c) move the kick-off back to the 40 yard line.
d) pump a few more psi into the kick-off ball only
so more kickers can put it in the back of the
end zone
Most kicks are touchbacks now anyway.
Here's an idea...
1) move kickoff back to the 30 where it belongs.
2) grow a pair.
3) play football like a man.
Quote: 98ClubsI don't like b.) rather just have a free play to make whatever yardage at risk of fumble or interception for that turnover back to the "kicking" team. I favor placing the ball at the 20, and run the free-play from there.
I realize what the onside-kick is, and one could option the free-play or the onside kick. The kicking team makes that call.
Obvious that most times the free-play is better, but at end-of-game the onside option is better. Besides, everyone knows its comin anyway.
I've read this several times. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
The suggestion that you were replying to was that, after team A scores, they would have 2 choices:
a. Give team B the ball from their own 20
b. Give themselves (team A) the ball on their own 20 or 30, with a 4th and 15 situation.
I think it's a pretty good idea. It still gets rid of the "surprise" onside kick, though.
I would prefer to get rid of option (a), and just have the ball be 4th and 15 from your own 30 (or maybe 35 or 40). Then the "surprise" onside kick is replaced by a fake punt.
Overall, I hate the idea of getting rid of kickoffs, though. This has nothing to do with player safety. It has to do with the NFL setting themselves up so that they can claim in court that they are extremely proactive in protecting the players when the inevitable billion-dollar lawsuits start. Same with those "player safety" TV commercials (although I do like the one with Brady and Lewis). Basically, the NFL is just creating as much "evidence" as possible so that they can point to it in court.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis has nothing to do with player safety. It has to do with the NFL setting themselves up so that they can claim in court that they are extremely proactive in protecting the players when the inevitable billion-dollar lawsuits start. Same with those "player safety" TV commercials (although I do like the one with Brady and Lewis). Basically, the NFL is just creating as much "evidence" as possible so that they can point to it in court.
You nailed it! It's got NOTHING to do with player safety!
If the NFL was concerned with player safety, why the hell do they want to increase the regular season to 18 games?!?!
Quote: MakingBookYou nailed it! It's got NOTHING to do with player safety!
If the NFL was concerned with player safety, why the hell do they want to increase the regular season to 18 games?!?!
You guys might be on to something. But, if this is truely the reason...
A man knowingly agrees, even aspires, to play the most brutal sport there is.
A man knowingly puts his welfare in danger every snap of the ball.
A man knowingly withholds injuries to keep himself in the game.
Where, exactly, is the lawsuit? Did or does the NFL have any responsibility in this case, or is it just more of "something bad happened, LET'S SUE!"
Quote: FaceDid or does the NFL have any responsibility in this case, or is it just more of "something bad happened, LET'S SUE!"
Is there a difference?
And as far as legal goes, why in the hell is the NFL exempt from anti-trust laws ?
Yeah, like when you are drafting by Pittsburgh but wanna play in Florida ? Or when the team decides to punish you for an imagined grievance by trading you to a losing team .
Read Bill Curry's ' " Ten Men You Meet in the Huddle: Lessons from a Football Life " if you want a real insight into the NFL and it's
wonderful owners.
Yes, I am still pissed at Irsay and the Indianapolis Colts.
Quote: FaceMost kicks are touchbacks now anyway.
Here's an idea...
1) move kickoff back to the 30 where it belongs.
2) grow a pair.
3) play football like a man.
QFT.
Quote: Mission146QFT.
Face is still pissed because the goalie wears a mask !
Quote: Mission146QFT.
Word. A man that knows sense when he sees it ;)
Quote: Mission146The Hell's he need a mask for, he's not supposed to be stopping the puck with his face, anyway.
I'm a defender to the core. Scores have to come through me, and they'll be stopped by any means necessary.
Despite Buzz's jokes, I'm not against safety. I support the NHL's mandatory helmet rule, and I've no problem with the advances in safety in all sports, be it helmet design and contruction, new pad materials, HANS devices, etc. I can even support some changes in the core of sports. For instance, 230mph in NASCAR is an understandble issue to be avoided. But when you completely change the game, I have a problem. The "no head contact" rule was ok, I suppose. But the "defenseless receiver", where you must basically wait and ask permission before breaking up a pass or suffer a 40yd penalty and $XX,000 fine, and the "Tom Brady" rule where even a finger graze to the helmet is 15 and a first, are killing the NFL. Add in the kickoff and you might as well call Time of Death.
But SCORING is what the NFL wants. You will never ever see a Bears '85 defense again. Once the NFL decided to put the Superbowl up for the highest bidder, that was it for me. I watch on tv or cable, but try not to directly give them a penny.
