Possible NFL Rule changes

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
How many more "catch" and fumbles are we likely to see?
It’ll be a one year spike as there will be public outrage when a New England DB recovers an incomplete pass near the goal line at a crucial moment.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
It’ll be a one year spike as there will be public outrage when a New England DB recovers an incomplete pass near the goal line at a crucial moment.
If you really want to see people’s heads explode, have a Dez Bryant catch (for team playing the Pats) just short of the goal line, and he fumbles out of the end zone. Touchback Patriots ball. In the same game, have a Dez Bryant catch by Patriot, but happen past the goal line so it’s a TD.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
If you really want to see people’s heads explode, have a Dez Bryant catch (for team playing the Pats) just short of the goal line, and he fumbles out of the end zone. Touchback Patriots ball. In the same game, have a Dez Bryant catch by Patriot, but happen past the goal line so it’s a TD.
God do I hope this happens. I will get a month’s laughter from the outrage.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Apparently a lot of NFL players are upset with the new "lowering of the head" rule.

 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I think this targeting is simply a liability issue. Shazier’s hit is in focus from a what do we need to do so we don’t get sued again perspective. College targeting has been out a while and the NFL hasn’t seemed in a hurry to adopt anything similar. But this moved quickly and quietly and my guess is it’s because owner’s are getting ahead of a liability issue.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,190
Apparently a lot of NFL players are upset with the new "lowering of the head" rule.

I've been thinking about that rule and it's going to be hard to write it so that you can drop your shoulder to make contact but not your head. We'll have to see what the final language is. My guess is it will mostly apply to ball carriers in space trying to run through DBs. It's the NFL though, so who knows.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Some more discussion of the possible elimination of the kick off, from a high school coach that Belichick invited up to Foxboro for a week to discuss his strategies (no punts, all onside kicks, etc.)

https://sports.yahoo.com/americas-daring-high-school-coach-thoughts-banning-kickoffs-wrong-nfl-225337708.html

Kelley believes, and has data to back it up, that the “opportunity to create a turnover” via an onside kick is greater than the loss of field position from a failed kick. There’s more. His teams also never (or almost never) punt because the chance to run four downs worth of plays is seen as more valuable than field position (especially with high school punters). Pulaski also receives kicks with unusual formations, creating space and limiting penalties and injuries. It blitzes often because “sacks change the game” more than allowing a first down.

It goes on and on. Kelley is a famed outlier in a game known for its aversion to risk. It’s enough that Bill Belichick once brought Kelley to Foxborough for a week to talk football.
The downside of failing to recover is the opponent is given better field position, but Kelley’s numbers show field position is an overrated variable, especially when considering most failed onside kicks wind up in the mid-field area.

“You win games by winning the turnover value, not field position,” Kelley said.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I think BB has proved through that you can win games by field position. Year after year the D is awful in terms of yards per drive and things like that, but because the opposing field position start is so bad the D finishes middle of the pack or better (along with a host of other factors). I think BB's philosophy is that if you make them drive the field eventually they will screw up a 3rd down. Obviously this didn't work in the Super Bowl. And I do agree with that HS coach that sacks are driver killers (except in SB 49 when the Pats faced 3rd and 14 down 24-14 and still converted - thanks GOAT and JE11). It's not like BB is some ultra conservative coach, he was one of the pioneers of going for 4th down. It's an interesting discussion.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
I'm going to guess the chances of recovering an onside kick when the other team knows its coming are significantly higher in high school than in the nfl, especially when it's something that his team practices every week.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
Changing the current rules to where the kickoff coverage team gets no running start and has to line up even with the ball (maybe even down on one knee) might be enough of a change to reduce injuries, and really ought to be tried before moving on to more radical changes.
 
Last edited:

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
Wouldn't this favor kick returners like the newly minted Patriot Cordarelle Patterson?
Hard to predict given there are multiple moving parts in the rumored proposal, according to Peter King:

The final draft of the rule change is still being written but modifications are expected to include no running start for the kicking team; no more wedges; three players deep downfield, at most, on the return team, and at least eight players within 15 yards of where the ball is kicked; no hitting in the 15-yard zone between where the ball is kicked and the front line of the return team; and no motion by the kicking team until the ball is kicked.
No running start for the kicking team helps, but no more wedges and only 2 blockers deep downfield should make things tougher for the return man. Add in no hitting in the 15-yard-zone, and there's a possible greater potential for streaking kick coverage guys to put a big hit on the returner.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Some more discussion of the possible elimination of the kick off, from a high school coach that Belichick invited up to Foxboro for a week to discuss his strategies (no punts, all onside kicks, etc.)

https://sports.yahoo.com/americas-daring-high-school-coach-thoughts-banning-kickoffs-wrong-nfl-225337708.html
Interesting. Let's say the average starting position for a team after a regular kickoff is the 25 yard line. 1st and 10 from the 25 is about 0.7 expected points. Let's say that the average starting position after recovering an onside kick (for the receiving team) is about the kicking team's 45. 1st and 10 from the opponent's 45 is about 2.1 expected points. So every failed onside kick improves the opposing team's expected point value by 1.4 points.

From (http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2009/09/onside-kicks.html), when the receiving team is expecting an onside kick, the odds of a recovery are about 20%.

That same article points out that the expected points for a failed onside kick are -2.1 (i.e., what I said above: that the receiving team now has 2.1 expected points) BUT the expected points for the kicking team recovering an onside kick is 1.2.

Basically, I'm just going to refer the rest to that article. Long story short, you need a success rate of about 42% in order to break even in terms of expected points. It's a losing strategy at the NFL level to onside kick every time, because the more the receiving team expects it, the closer to 20% you get and the further away from 60% you get. If you have a good mix of onside kicks and deep kicks, you can possibly get around 42%. Perhaps a little higher. There has to be an ideal percentage of kickoffs that you choose to kick onside in order to maximize your odds. That percentage has to be enough to make it worth doing, but not enough so that the opposing team expects you to do it.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
@DrewDawg I was thinking about that last night while reading it too. Patterson's return numbers suggest he is potentially elite there. We know he has elite speed. Eliminate the running start and doesn't he have more of an advantage?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
@DrewDawg I was thinking about that last night while reading it too. Patterson's return numbers suggest he is potentially elite there. We know he has elite speed. Eliminate the running start and doesn't he have more of an advantage?
That's the theory....look at the little video embedded in the second tweet. There's going to be A LOT of room for him to get going.
 

tmracht

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
3,070
Wonder if teams will look to just pop the ball 20-25 yards down field over the wall of the return team knowing the return team cant engage the coverage team, as like a chip onside kick.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Wonder if teams will look to just pop the ball 20-25 yards down field over the wall of the return team knowing the return team cant engage the coverage team, as like a chip onside kick.
There are going to be some interesting quirks for a bit till everyone figures it out.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Wonder if teams will look to just pop the ball 20-25 yards down field over the wall of the return team knowing the return team cant engage the coverage team, as like a chip onside kick.
There's going to be 2 guys beyond the first 8 that can no longer wedge block so I imagine some teams will go for handsy guys there.

Gotta think BB is salivating with this stuff because he loves special teams.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
And no blocking until the ball hits the ground will be very interesting if someone can do a short lofted kick, but thinking this through it seems that would just be fair caught.
Which is the idea BB is probably thinking about - landing kickoffs on the 5 yard line every time that result in fair catches, or a tackle at the 10 with a chance for a fumble.

If they can't block before it's caught, can they chip? Because otherwise the return team is just going to be sprinting alongside the kickoff coverage team towards the return man, and (unless it's fair caught) when he catches it all hell is going to break loose, and not in favor of the return team.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
How is this whole "elimate the running start" business supposed to prevent injuries? By reducing the momentum of players when they make contact downfield? If so, this strikes me as something that sounds good until you spend more than 5 seconds thinking about it. Athletes have a maximum speed they can achieve and do not continue accelerating to infinite velocity if given enough distance. Running start or no running start, they will still have more than enough runway to reach their full potential by the time the teams collide. The only difference is now that this meeting will take place closer to the 50 yard line because the kicking team started at 0 mph at t=kickoff, and therefore, will cover less distance.

Am I completely missing the real objective here?

Edit: I must admit that I am going on gut feel here and haven't taken the time to analyze kickoff hang time vs. acceleration of football players, so it's possible that my assumptions are incorrect here.
 
Last edited:

McBride11

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,114
Durham, NC
This new kickoff thing makes the situation even more convoluted. There are going to be penalties all over the place. Onside kicks are just gonna be interesting. Gut feeling says kicking team will do worse unless the kicker really nails that second bounce high technique. Also, like djbayko said, can't most of these guys get up to nearly full speed within 10 yards anyway? Is the point the blockers also don't get running starts and stand in that blocking zone? Don't most blocking schemes all ready have half the blockers run backwards to form the wedge? So they're all just gonna retreat from the blocking zone and not form a wedge and hit guys head on still that are running full speed?

The new helmet rule, while I understand the attempt, seems to make things even more complicated. They should a couple of 'penalties' under the new rule at the gym, and I swear the clip they showed of some LB hitting a Jags WR looked like a shoulder hit the guys WR head as he whipped around from contact.
Also means Gronk better bubble wrap his legs next year, we are going to see all sorts of these attempts to avoid the head area completely.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,104
The new helmet rule, while I understand the attempt, seems to make things even more complicated. They should a couple of 'penalties' under the new rule at the gym, and I swear the clip they showed of some LB hitting a Jags WR looked like a shoulder hit the guys WR head as he whipped around from contact.
Also means Gronk better bubble wrap his legs next year, we are going to see all sorts of these attempts to avoid the head area completely.
Apparently neither the players nor the refs understand the new rules;
PHILADELPHIA -- A presentation this week by NFL referees to the Philadelphia Eagles on the new helmet rule caused frustration among the players, according to team members, and created further confusion for some about what is expected of them.

"We were trying to ask questions to get a better understanding, and yet they couldn't really give us an answer," linebacker Nigel Bradham said. "They couldn't give us what we were looking for."

Under the new rule, a player will be penalized 15 yards and potentially fined or ejected for lowering his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent.

During the presentation, which lasted close to an hour according to Bradham, players were shown clips of what are now considered illegal hits -- some of which appeared to them as routine tackles.

Seeking further clarification during the Q&A that followed, the players showed the presenters a video of safety Malcolm Jenkins' hit on wide receiver Brandin Cooks during Super Bowl LII that knocked Cooks out of the game. The refs were split on whether it would now be considered an illegal hit.
The rule applies to not only tacklers but linemen and ball carriers as well. The concern for running backs is that they are going to have to retrain themselves after years of attacking a certain way.

"It's going to take a different approach to learn as individuals how to keep our head up and see what we're doing," Matt Jones, a 6-foot-2, 239-pound power back said. "But it's going to be kind of hard because we're taught to run through guys and put our helmet where their number is at. It's like if it's a third-and-1 and you have to have it, and you meet in the hole, there's no way possible you're not going to meet head-on-head and helmet-on-helmet."

The meeting between the Eagles and refs was described as spirited, with the players expressing consternation over the new rule.

"[The refs] were kind of like, 'Hey, we didn't make the rules.' Because I think guys were kind of frustrated," running back Wendell Smallwood said. "Most of the defense was like, 'Man, how are we supposed to tackle?' They were frustrated."
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24227602/philadelphia-eagles-players-express-frustration-new-helmet-rule-presentation
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
If this game tonight is any indication. The NFL will be unwatchable.
“What is a catch” has been replaced by

“What is a tackle”
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
Here's the fact sheet on the helmet rule released by the NFL: https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Fact-Sheet---Use-of-the-Helmet.aspx

There were four of these called last night. In 2015 (most recent year of data I could easily find), there were 16.2 flags thrown a game. http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/210663/undefined

I understand the point of the rule but going from 16 to 20 flags a game - and adding 30 or so penalty yards - is going to be tough from an entertainment perspective I would guess. Plus I can't to hear people complain about times when the penalty isn't called.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
We'll see how it unfolds. I would expect more flags in preseason while both refs and players adjust to new rules.
Tough to extrapolate from one game.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
We'll see how it unfolds. I would expect more flags in preseason while both refs and players adjust to new rules.
Tough to extrapolate from one game.
This is the NFL. If officials couldn’t adjust to the catch rule. This is going to be even worse.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
I'd be interested to see the other three. The video above looked like a play that would be a penalty even under the 2017 rules (leading with the head against a defenseless receiver).
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
I'd be interested to see the other three. The video above looked like a play that would be a penalty even under the 2017 rules (leading with the head against a defenseless receiver).
if you search on Twitter for "NFL penalty" you will find a bunch more of videos from this weeks pre-season games..

Players and reporters hate it
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
The NFL is going to become unwatchable if they call these new penalties the same as they are in the pre-season.

It’s making he game very unenjoyable .
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
7,204
The NFL is going to become unwatchable if they call these new penalties the same as they are in the pre-season.

It’s making he game very unenjoyable .
NFL players are going to make the game unwatchable if they refuse adjust to the rule change and play the same as they are in preseason.

NFL players are also going to make the game unwatchable if we see a half dozen committing suicide or murder every year due to CTE.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
NFL players are going to make the game unwatchable if they refuse adjust to the rule change and play the same as they are in preseason.

NFL players are also going to make the game unwatchable if we see a half dozen committing suicide or murder every year due to CTE.
With regard to your first sentence, the players (or at least some of them) are claiming that they don't know what to adjust to.

NFL put out this video to explain. First three are legal hits so are clear. As for the fouls, watching without the sound off, I think I understand the first one but don't really understand the last two but YMMV.

 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Big conference call today--on agenda, possible tweaking of rule and maybe adding a replay element.

GJGE NFL.
 

biff_hardbody

New Member
Apr 27, 2016
317
This is already a disaster. Replay would make that disaster so much worse.

The NFL should just quietly tell officials only to enforce the rule on egregious hits which aren't otherwise penalized under the rules.
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,260
Seacoast NH
I watched the whole week one video here. I took a screen shot of an example given of a foul that looks like a lot of Gronk leg tackles, leading with the helmet to initiate a tackle regardless of where they hit. Either teams are going to rack up a lot of penalty yards or Gronk is going to be getting a ton of yards after contact this year.

tackle.JPG