102 replies to this topic

[Orel Miraculous]

Also, pretty much every sport is a bunch of track and field athletes playing a game with an arbitrary set of gimmicky rules. That the rules can change doesn't mean it's not a sport. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

What I mean is that there's basically a spectrum of sports "purity" (for lack of of a better term), with "pure" sports that really can't be changed in any way shape or form on one end, and "gimmick" sports on the other that can be, and are, changed drastically.

Soccer is probably the most pure team sport there is. It has very few rules to begin with, and even fewer possible rule changes that would result in only a tweak to the game rather than an existential shift. Offsides, the size of the box, pk kicks, the number of players on the field. . . that's basically all you could do to tweak soccer. Any other rule change you could possibly think of for soccer would be so drastic that it would essentially turn it into a different sport.

Football is the complete opposite, and this is evidenced by the fact that it easily has the largest rulebook of any sport and is constantly changing those rules. You can make drastic, gimmicky changes to football while still calling it football, because the rules are completely arbitrary to begin with.

The rules of soccer exist to define what soccer is, and most changes would change the inherent nature of the sport--its very DNA. The rules of football exist to constantly conform the sport to consumer demand. Fans like offense and passing? Tighten the pass interference rules. Quarterbacks are the biggest stars in the sport? Change the rules about how they can be hit. The violence of the game is threatening its future survival? No problem, we can just eliminate something that's been a central aspect of the game for about as long as it's existed.

Baseball, basketball, and hockey are in the middle, with baseball much closer to the soccer end than the other two. There are very few rules you can change in baseball before you start existentially transforming it into a different game. In fact, there's really only been one rule change to baseball in the last 100 years (the DH) and it doesn't even really change how the game is fundamentally played, just alters the strategy a little and changes the personnel. Changing to aluminum bats would be the same thing: there would be more scoring and shifts in strategy, but it wouldn't be eliminating a part of the game as we know it like this proposed NFL rule does. I'm not even sure what the baseball equivalent of this rule would be, we would never contemplate changing baseball so drastically.

I just like thinking about this stuff, but I'll stop hijakcing.

Edited by Orel Miraculous, 06 December 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[collings94]

For starters, the kickoff is the most exciting play in football, and eliminating it will take it away from the game, in addition to putting a lot of players out of a job.

Second, I have a hard time thinking of Goodell as someone that is putting player safety above everything else, as long as he is pushing for an 18 game schedule. How can you claim to be all about player safety when you are pandering to put the players in harms way for two whole games each season?

Lastly, I think it's a dumb idea. We might as well start playing sarcastiball, because once you eliminate kickoffs, everyone will look towards the next thing, like eliminating hits below the knees, or having less players on the field.

Edit: Also, now that the rules favor offense, 4th and 15 is a breeze. Just chuck the ball up there and get the PI, or hold on to the ball too long and take a big hit for the Personal Foul.

Edited by collings94, 06 December 2012 - 06:01 PM.

[Al Zarilla]

In terms of why they are suggesting this, are there more injuries (or more serious injuries) on kickoffs than other plays? Is there data around this?

Put in terms of total kinetic energy, there is probably more of that than on any other kind of football play since all 11 of the kickoff team are going full speed and quite a few guys on the receiving team, if not all, are also. That probably results in more opportunities for injuries than on any other play. Also, it's the only play where all of the opponents are running at each other in the beginning and for a while (for example, on pass plays, the defenders are running with, instead of at the receivers, so less violent collisions). I know when I played it was the one kind of play when I was wondering Jesus Christ, am I going to get killed here.

[tims4wins]

For starters, the kickoff is the most exciting play in football, and eliminating it will take it away from the game, in addition to putting a lot of players out of a job.

Really? It is exciting maybe a couple times a Sunday, but at least 90% of kickoffs are pretty boring. To begin with, I think over 30% of all kickoffs are touchbacks. How many kicks are returned past the 30 yard line any more? I'd venture to say it's a very low percentage.

Edit: I haven't found touchback stats yet, but of the 1,021 kick returns to date, there have been only 70 for 40+ yards (6.9%) and 10 for TDs (1.0%). Assuming that there have been 600 touchbacks (which would mean a touchback percentage of under 40%), then these percentages drop to 4.4% for returns over 40 yards, and 0.6% for TDs. When a play is exciting less than 5% of the time, I wouldn't exactly call it the most exciting play in football. Punt returns, for instance, have a higher TD%.

On a per game basis, there have been 192 games to date in the NFL (32 teams x 12 games per team divided by 2). There have been 70 "exciting" returns. So it happens like once every 2.7 games.

Edited by tims4wins, 06 December 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[m0ckduck]

4th and 15 doesn't seem nearly long enough to me. Personally I hate this idea but to make it viable you'd have to make the number of yards "to go" long enough so that it would be roughly equal to the odds of recovering an onsides kick when the other team knows it is coming.

It feels wrong in part because the odds of a team converting a 4th-and-15 would be so much connected to the dynamics that are already on display in the game: how good the QB is, how tired the defense is, how much of an offensive free-for-all the game has become by that point. The beauty of the onside kick is that it's completely oddball and has no relationship to the rest of the game. To create the same kind of odds in Schiano's scenario, you'd have to have some crazy rule that says only the punter can throw the ball, etc

[dbn]

Not only shouldn't there be less kicking/returning in the NFL, there should be more! Eliminate all of those boring handoffs and forward passes. If a team fails to return the kick off for a TD, they can either attempt a FG or punt. If the punt isn't returned for a TD, same options. It's time to put the foot back in football.


edit to add something that isn't pure flippancy. I respect the attempts (if sincere) to make the game safer, but I just can't see eliminating the kick off play. Keep with the small tweaks, like limiting the wedge, moving the kick-line, etc. If the data shows that the play is still too dangerous, consider more, such as having the l.o.s. 10 yards beyond the kick-line, so there is less time to build up momentum before hitting the blockers.

Edited by dbn, 06 December 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[Orel Miraculous]

Put in terms of total kinetic energy, there is probably more of that than on any other kind of football play since all 11 of the kickoff team are going full speed and quite a few guys on the receiving team, if not all, are also. That probably results in more opportunities for injuries than on any other play. Also, it's the only play where all of the opponents are running at each other in the beginning and for a while (for example, on pass plays, the defenders are running with, instead of at the receivers, so less violent collisions). I know when I played it was the one kind of play when I was wondering Jesus Christ, am I going to get killed here.

I don't think there's any question it's the most dangerous play. The problem with this rule, though, is that a brain injury doesn't only result from a single really bad hit on any single play. These brain injuries are the result of the countless smaller head-to-head collisions that every football player experiences over years of playing. It's inherent in the game. In that sense this is nothing more than lipstick on a pig.

[maufman]

Iirc, I floated something like the 4th-and-15 idea in another thread a while back, except from the 35-yard line instead of the 30.

Basically, the odds of recovering an onside kick are about the same as converting a 4th-and-15 (somewhere around 20% before the rules changed last year), and a punt play starting from the 35 will result in average field position somewhere around the other 27-yard line, which happens to be the average starting field position following a kickoff prior to last year's rules change. If the NFL decides kickoffs need to be eliminated for safety reasons, this proposal changes the game less than the alternatives.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I don't think there's any question it's the most dangerous play. The problem with this rule, though, is that a brain injury doesn't only result from a single really bad hit on any single play. These brain injuries are the result of the countless smaller head-to-head collisions that every football player experiences over years of playing. It's inherent in the game. In that sense this is nothing more than lipstick on a pig.

There's a lot of truth to this, but we really don't know exactly how the brain responds to any of these injuries. I think it's common sense that the higher-velocity impacts may affect the brain worse than a single (or multiple) low level impacts. The kickoff is a marginal play that results in field position between the 15-30 yard line 90% of the time. I'm completely OK with getting rid of it if it removes the largest impacts a player receives in his career.

[Dehere]

Basically, the odds of recovering an onside kick are about the same as converting a 4th-and-15 (somewhere around 20% before the rules changed last year),

That seems kinda high. Does that exclude surprise onside tries?

[Reverend]

What I mean is that there's basically a spectrum of sports "purity" (for lack of of a better term), with "pure" sports that really can't be changed in any way shape or form on one end, and "gimmick" sports on the other that can be, and are, changed drastically.

Soccer is probably the most pure team sport there is. It has very few rules to begin with, and even fewer possible rule changes that would result in only a tweak to the game rather than an existential shift. Offsides, the size of the box, pk kicks, the number of players on the field. . . that's basically all you could do to tweak soccer. Any other rule change you could possibly think of for soccer would be so drastic that it would essentially turn it into a different sport.

Football is the complete opposite, and this is evidenced by the fact that it easily has the largest rulebook of any sport and is constantly changing those rules. You can make drastic, gimmicky changes to football while still calling it football, because the rules are completely arbitrary to begin with.

The rules of soccer exist to define what soccer is, and most changes would change the inherent nature of the sport--its very DNA. The rules of football exist to constantly conform the sport to consumer demand. Fans like offense and passing? Tighten the pass interference rules. Quarterbacks are the biggest stars in the sport? Change the rules about how they can be hit. The violence of the game is threatening its future survival? No problem, we can just eliminate something that's been a central aspect of the game for about as long as it's existed.

Baseball, basketball, and hockey are in the middle, with baseball much closer to the soccer end than the other two. There are very few rules you can change in baseball before you start existentially transforming it into a different game. In fact, there's really only been one rule change to baseball in the last 100 years (the DH) and it doesn't even really change how the game is fundamentally played, just alters the strategy a little and changes the personnel. Changing to aluminum bats would be the same thing: there would be more scoring and shifts in strategy, but it wouldn't be eliminating a part of the game as we know it like this proposed NFL rule does. I'm not even sure what the baseball equivalent of this rule would be, we would never contemplate changing baseball so drastically.

I just like thinking about this stuff, but I'll stop hijakcing.

I like thinking about stuff too.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're not much a history of war buff, yeah?

[MarcSullivaFan]

This just proves my theory that football isn't even a real sport. It's just a bunch of track and field athletes playing a game with an arbitrary set of gimmicky rules that are constantly changed. It's an athletic spectacle, not a sport. There's no other sport that could change it's rules so drastically without existentially changing the sport itself.

On any given play, half of the guys on the field are between 250 and 370 pounds. Track and field athletes?

[The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa]

This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

They should make the football round.

They should make the football field into a 100+ yard circle.

They should forbid the players from wearing helmets.

Just imagine if David Stern were the commissioner of the NFL.

[knucklecup]

In Madden, I would go for it on fourth and fifteen every time.

[Jettisoned]

On any given play, half of the guys on the field are between 250 and 370 pounds. Track and field athletes?

The linemen could do shot put, although the mental image of Kyle Love pole vaulting is pretty funny.

[steeplechase3k]

Make kickoffs be from the 40, and give the kicking team 3 points if the kick goes through the uprights. It's only returnable if it somehow lands in the endzone/field of play, either directly or after bouncing off the uprights, without first going OOB. Otherwise (regardless of whether the kick is missed or made) the receiving team starts at the 20.

If they have to change it, I like something like this.

Or maybe if you don't want to mess with the scoring, if the ball goes through the uprights the receiving team starts at the 5 or 10, otherwise the 20.

If the ball is going to be kicked through the end zone, make the goalposts worth SOMETHING.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The most exciting play is the onside kick, so they should incentivize the onside kick.

So here's what I would do. Eliminate the tee; move the kick-off to the 50 (that is subject to tweaking) and perhaps eliminate any run-up; any kick that goes out of bounds or out of the end zone is spotted at the 40; any kick that does not go out of the end zone but is downed in the end zone is spotted at the 20.

I think the end result would be more onsides kicks and more ground balls, which are also fun.

[Mugsys Jock]

What if instead of a free kick, it was a kick snapped from center and spotted by a holder?

Still could leave the onside kick rule in place, and also opens the door for fake kickoff and blocked kickoff.

Plus the collision should be less violent.

[glennhoffmania]

I disagree, I think it has to be the normal 4th-down punt formation rather than the Free Kick situation - mostly to avoid the first issue you speak about. That way, an onsides is performed just the way a fake punt is today. And if you don't even want to surprise them, because you're down 7 points with 1:15 to go and hold no timeouts, then just send the offense out on the field so teams can see a visually interesting offensive football play. The "hands team" they send out right now for onside kicks really doesn't put the best foot forward aesthetically, not to mention athletically.

The only reason I said it has to be the safety style is because Goodell said it would be the 30 yard line. To equalize things if you used regular punt formation it would have to be the 45. So now you'd have fake punt "onside kicks" almost at mid field. That seems pretty ridiculous. If the team converts, they're at least at the opponent's 40 to start the drive instead of around they're own 40 after a normal onside kick.

Also, if you try a fake onside kick out of punt formation, and it's 4th and 15, what the hell are you supposed to go? Put your QB in as the punt protector? Or hope that some special teams guy can gain 15 yards on a run?

The whole idea isn't workable. Instead of coming up with new gimmicks maybe Goodell should worry about the state of the officiating, the challenge system, the overly protective unnecessary roughness calls, or the nonsensical overtime rules.

Edited by glennhoffmania, 07 December 2012 - 10:06 AM.

[Gunfighter 09]

One problem I have is that recovering onside kicks is essentially random, the variance between team's ability to recover onside kicks is pretty low. Converting 4-15 is not random, it clearly favors passing teams with better passing attacks. Teams that focus on running the ball, for example, the 49ers, are at a clear disadvantage in this circumstance to a team like the Broncos or Falcons, even though, in a normal, 60 minute football game, the two teams are equal. This is just increasing the value of quarterbacks and pass rushers even greater than their current value.

If kickoffs are dangerous and need to be eliminated, and therefore punts are only slightly less dangerous, why isnt the NFL switching to College style overtime right now?

Edited by Gunfighter 09, 07 December 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[glennhoffmania]

Great point, GF. Maybe Goodell is trying to stick it to those sissy run-oriented teams.

[Gunfighter 09]

I suspect that if the focus is really on reducing concussions, the NFL would want to promote running the ball rather than throwing. I think it is reasonable to assume running plays produce significantly fewer concussions that passing plays. I suspect running the ball is more "tiring" or "bruising" than likely to produce concussions.

On passing plays, you see the most dramatic hits, where either two guys are hitting each other at full speed (DB on WR), or one guy is near full speed hitting a stationary target (pass rusher on QB.) Also, on passing plays, you have hits where guys are unable to protect themselves because they are surprised by the hit or distracted as it is being delivered. The best examples are either QBs looking downfield and getting "blindsided" by pass rushers or receivers who have to concentrate on catching the ball and ignore the impending collision.

On running plays, usually no one has enough space to get up to full speed prior to a collision and there are very few opportunities for "surprise" hits on unsuspecting players (though blind side blocks do happen occasionally) as everyone is focused on the ball carrier or player executing a fake.

I know passing = points and points = eyeballs on TVs and butts in seats, but perhaps engineering rules that encourage passing in the name of reducing concussions is counter productive.

[McBride11]

This will sound callous and maybe should go in a different thread, but this one seems to be trending towards concussions in general...

But at what point does this just become a "risk of the job" in order to potentially make millions of dollars. Other people work in dangerous jobs and usually receive some level of compensation to make the risk more palatable. (eg coal miners make 70k with a HS degree, welders on ocean oil rigs make more than those on land).

[maufman]

I don't think the concern with kickoffs is concussions or sub-concussive hits -- it's the risk of a catastrophic injury (not "career-ending" catastrophic, but "die on the field" catastrophic).

If there was compelling data from high-school or college ball showing a higher incidence of catastrophic injuries on kickoffs than on other plays, we probably would have seen reform already at the lower levels. I guess the concern is that NFL athletes violently colliding with one another at top speed creates risks that are markedly different from, say, second-string FBS players doing the same thing.

Edited by maufman, 07 December 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[Sausage in Section 17]

Of course the 4th and 15 thing really only comes into play when a team would be likely to try an onside kick. I'm guessing the prevalence of injuries on onside kicks is WAY lower than on a regular, sprint the length of the field and crash into someone kickoff. So providing that option doesn't really accompish much in the way of safety.

[Shelterdog]

If kickoffs are dangerous and need to be eliminated, and therefore punts are only slightly less dangerous, why isnt the NFL switching to College style overtime right now?

That doesn't follow. There are a lot more high speed collissions in a kickoff return than in a punt return--in a KOR there are a half dozen or more collissions between two guys going full speed straight into each other; that ususally only happens in a punt return if the returner gets a good head of speed going.

[lexrageorge]

I suspect that if the focus is really on reducing concussions, the NFL would want to promote running the ball rather than throwing. I think it is reasonable to assume running plays produce significantly fewer concussions that passing plays. I suspect running the ball is more "tiring" or "bruising" than likely to produce concussions.

On passing plays, you see the most dramatic hits, where either two guys are hitting each other at full speed (DB on WR), or one guy is near full speed hitting a stationary target (pass rusher on QB.) Also, on passing plays, you have hits where guys are unable to protect themselves because they are surprised by the hit or distracted as it is being delivered. The best examples are either QBs looking downfield and getting "blindsided" by pass rushers or receivers who have to concentrate on catching the ball and ignore the impending collision.

On running plays, usually no one has enough space to get up to full speed prior to a collision and there are very few opportunities for "surprise" hits on unsuspecting players (though blind side blocks do happen occasionally) as everyone is focused on the ball carrier or player executing a fake.

I know passing = points and points = eyeballs on TVs and butts in seats, but perhaps engineering rules that encourage passing in the name of reducing concussions is counter productive.

Back in the day, when the forward pass was illegal in college football (and pro football was nothing more than a curiosity), the on field death rate was appalling. One of the reforms was to make the forward pass a legal play, which did do a lot to reduce the number of crippling injuries. So did a number of equipment improvements as well. Not sure it's relevant in this discussion, but I thought it an interesting historical point.

[IHit80inthe90s]

How about moving kickoffs back to say, the 15, and making them all a fair catch situation? No returns possible for the receiving team, but still the possibility of the onsides kick. If the receiving team muffs the catch (edit: then recovers), it's a 5 yard penalty from the spot of the muff (now that was fun to type). Wind direction and strength would play a larger role, but what else am I missing here?

Sorry for the self quote, but I would really appreciate SOSH feedback on my idea. I am not in favor of the kicking team (i.e. the team that JUST SCORED) keeping possession, nor would I support any additional scoring changes.

[epraz]

But at what point does this just become a "risk of the job" in order to potentially make millions of dollars. Other people work in dangerous jobs and usually receive some level of compensation to make the risk more palatable. (eg coal miners make 70k with a HS degree, welders on ocean oil rigs make more than those on land).

That's one way to look at it and I'm sure a lot of the players look at it that way. But coal mining and working on ocean oil rigs and fishing are inherently dangerous, to the point that they either cannot be made safe or would be economically infeasible if made safe. Is that true for football? Will more people stop watching if (a) they make football safer or (b) if they continue to have a health crisis?

Edited by epraz, 07 December 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[DrewDawg]

Sorry for the self quote, but I would really appreciate SOSH feedback on my idea. I am not in favor of the kicking team (i.e. the team that JUST SCORED) keeping possession, nor would I support any additional scoring changes.

That could be interesting. This all just seems like such a huge departure from what most of us grew up watching.

I may be forgetting something VERY obvious, but what was the last major rule change in the big 4 sports? Football OT, DH....

[Orel Miraculous]

This will sound callous and maybe should go in a different thread, but this one seems to be trending towards concussions in general...

But at what point does this just become a "risk of the job" in order to potentially make millions of dollars. Other people work in dangerous jobs and usually receive some level of compensation to make the risk more palatable. (eg coal miners make 70k with a HS degree, welders on ocean oil rigs make more than those on land).

You raise a valid philosophical point, but the problem that the NFL facing goes beyond their own players--it extends to collegiate athletes, high schoolers, and Pop Warner players, none of whom get paid at all. The league is staring at a future--a very near future--in which their supply of players has dried up because parents have stopped letting their kids play. Basically, Goodell is fighting tooth and nail to not become boxing.

[Orel Miraculous]

I may be forgetting something VERY obvious, but what was the last major rule change in the big 4 sports? Football OT, DH....

I don't think there ever has been anything this drastic in the last 100 years of professional sports (the 3-pointer comes closest, IMO). As I said before, I believe that football is the only sport that could change itself so drastically and still call itself the same sport.

[IHit80inthe90s]

I don't think there ever has been anything this drastic in the last 100 years of professional sports (the 3-pointer comes closest, IMO).

David Ortiz's agent would happily disagree...

But I think there are ways to make it safer without changing the game drastically. Reduce the speed of collisions by making it a fair catch situation, kicking off from the 15. Get rid of the running start. No possible advance of the ball for the receiving team - muffed catch equals 5 yard penalty from the spot of the drop. This way onsides kicks still have their place. And you still have the kickoff - which is IMHO a damn exciting football play. One could argue they would take on even more significance...plus Gostkowski would become even more valuable

[Orel Miraculous]

David Ortiz's agent would happily disagree...

The DH didn't come close to changing baseball to the degree that this rule would change football. The DH didn't change the rules of play, just the personnel (and only 11% at that). When it comes to the rules of play (i.e. the rules that govern how the game is actually played in between the lines) I don't think baseball has really changed anything since foul balls became strikes at the turn of the 20th century.

Edited by Orel Miraculous, 07 December 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[maufman]

Even the most radical proposals for eliminating kickoffs wouldn't change the NFL half as much as the 1978 rule changes did. This is roughly on par with the 2-point conversation in terms of game-changing (a bigger cosmetic change, for sure, but on par in terms of impact on the game).

Edited by maufman, 07 December 2012 - 08:34 PM.

[epraz]

The DH didn't come close to changing baseball to the degree that this rule would change football. The DH didn't change the rules of play, just the personnel (and only 11% at that). When it comes to the rules of play (i.e. the rules that govern how the game is actually played in between the lines) I don't think baseball has really changed anything since foul balls became strikes at the turn of the 20th century.

You keep talking about how unprecedented and revolutionary this change would be, but what's your point? The fact that this is even being talked about as possibly being on the table shows you how serious the health threat is to football.

[crystalline]

The DH didn't come close to changing baseball to the degree that this rule would change football. The DH didn't change the rules of play, just the personnel (and only 11% at that). When it comes to the rules of play (i.e. the rules that govern how the game is actually played in between the lines) I don't think baseball has really changed anything since foul balls became strikes at the turn of the 20th century.

The 3-point shot was a bigger change than anything in football since the addition of the forward pass. 3 pointers drastically changed how offenses were run and instantly made long-range jump shooters more valuable than all but the best post players. Offense in the post used to be the best shot in the game, by far.

The set of NBA changes that privilege 1 on 1 offense play has been almost as important: eliminating zone D and handchecking and de facto allowing an extra step before a travel. The NBA wants star players to generate iso offense and they have changed the rules to get it.

Baseball isn't so different. They too have changed the game to accentuate offense: new stadiums with closer fences, moving the mound down (twice in the last half century, right?), shrinking the strike zone (numbers to waist). The deadball changes are far older but also dramatic. All of these are equivalent to the changes in DB bump/hold rules and QB protection that have changed football into a passing game.

I can agree that baseball has had fewer single-stroke changes, but football basketball and baseball all have changed their rules to appeal to their audiences.

Edited by crystalline, 08 December 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

The DH didn't come close to changing baseball to the degree that this rule would change football. The DH didn't change the rules of play, just the personnel (and only 11% at that). When it comes to the rules of play (i.e. the rules that govern how the game is actually played in between the lines) I don't think baseball has really changed anything since foul balls became strikes at the turn of the 20th century.

Every football field should have different sizes and shapes based on how the designer chooses to make the field. No other sport has different size fields that result in random variation from outs, homeruns, doubles, flyballs....

[SumnerH]

I don't think there ever has been anything this drastic in the last 100 years of professional sports (the 3-pointer comes closest, IMO).

In 1933, football legalized the forward pass from behind the line of scrimmage. Up until the 1950, the substitution rules were tinkered with a lot but in many years you couldn't have separate offense and defense--people had to play both sides of the ball. The 2 point conversion first shows up in the AFL in1960.

In basketball, until 1915 you couldn't both dribble and shoot--if you dribbled, you had to pass. There was a jump ball after every made basket until the 1930s. There was no shot clock until 1954; the 19-18 Pistons-Lakers game in 1950 was nothing like modern basketball even though many people consider Mikan the start of the "modern" era.

In the NHL, forward passing wasn't legal until 1929. You could score multiple goals on a power play until the 1950s.

Baseball obviously introduced the DH in 1973.

All of those seem to me to be obviously more significant changes than this, without even getting into things like the 3 point shot, zone defense, NHL red line rules, mound height, etc.

[Orel Miraculous]

Real quick because I'm tired and a little drunk and I'm not sure why this really relevant anymore but I just saw Lincoln so I feel particularly empowered to say what I believe:

Baseball Field Dimensions

• While I agree that it is a bizarre idiosyncrasy that baseball has never had a standard field size, that has little to do with changing the way the game is played, as baseball has always had unstandardized field sizes. Further, the idea that the fences have been moved in in the modern era is a myth. The closest foul poles in history were at the Polo Grounds. The centerfield fence at Braves field was only 370 feet from homeplate. Hell, the closest foul pole in the game today is the one in right field at that 100 year old ballpark in the Fens, and the one in left is pretty damn close too. There has never been a concerted effort on behalf of baseball to shrink the field. There was a time in the 70s when a disproportionate number of ballparks were bigger because municipalities were building multipurpose facilities, but that was not a concerted effort to change the way the game is played, nor was the retro ballpark movement of the 90s. Those were trends in ballpark design--not changes to the rules of play.

Pitchers Mound/Strike Zone

• I'm pretty sure that both the height of the mound and the size of the strike zone have each only been changed once in the modern era. Regardless, such changes are far more comparable to tweaking the pass interference rule than eliminating kickoffs, in that they simply altered how the game was judged, they didn't eliminate an entire facet of the game. Think about how radical that is for a moment. There have been hundreds of kickoffs returned for touchdowns in NFL history. With this rule change, that will never happen again. No matter how much you change the strike zone or the height of the mound, it wouldn't result in eliminating an entire series of plays from the game of baseball.

Three Point Shot/Forward Pass/Hockey Stuff

• As I was the first one to bring up the three-point shot, I obviously agree that it was a radical change. I feel the same way about the forward pass in football, but I didn't realize that didn't come about until 1933. Hockey's my weak spot, but forward passing seems like a pretty big deal there too, so I'm comfortable calling that 1929 rule change radical as well. Nevertheless, while that wasn't quite 100 years ago, that was still a long fucking time ago.

What's my point?

• I don't know, football sucks I guess. I watch it and I follow it and I'm entertained by it and I always have been, but the more they keep changing the rules the more I can't help but think about how contrived the whole game is. For chrissakes, two years ago there was a national debate about whether or not Calvin Johnson scored a touchdown. Note, this discussion was about more than whether the call was made correctly--like whether the ump blew the Jeffrey Maier homerun or like whether every NBA ref blew every other call in every NBA playoff game--at it's core it was a discussion about what a touchdown should be. We've been playing football for a century and we still haven't decided what a touchdown should be. And they don't even publish the whole rulebook! The public only gets to see an abridged version. The whole thing is starting to seem like a manufactured TV show to me, and the fact that we're now discussing radically changing the game again only reinforces it. All sports are manufactured and arbitrary to some extent, but football seems to be the king of that. It's an athletics-based TV show that they constantly change to make us happy, and there's something cheap about that to me. I can easily see a lot of people finding something attractive about that: that the game evolves with the times. But it seems less of a pure sport to me when the game we watched in 1950 is different than the game we watch now, not just because the players are bigger, faster, and stronger, but because the rules of play have been almost perpetually changed since then.

Should this rule change be implemented?

• Doesn't matter. There are only two paths for the future of football: death by litigation and player attrition, or salvation by rugbyfication (i.e. removal of pads and transformation of tackling technique). Anything else (this rule included) is a cosmetic response to an internal wound.

Edited by Orel Miraculous, 08 December 2012 - 02:30 AM.

[crystalline]

Baseball Field Dimensions

• Pitchers Mound/Strike Zone[list]
  Three Point Shot/Forward Pass/Hockey Stuff[list]
  What's my point?[list]
  
  gets to see an abridged version. The whole thing is starting to seem like a manufactured TV show to me, and the fact that we're now discussing radically changing the game again only reinforces it. All sports are manufactured and arbitrary to some extent, but football seems to be the king of that. It's an athletics-based TV show that they constantly change to make us happy, and there's something cheap about that to me.
  Should this rule change be implemented?[list]
• Doesn't matter. There are only two paths for the future of football: death by litigation and player attrition, or salvation by rugbyfication (i.e. removal of pads and transformation of tackling technique). Anything else (this rule included) is a cosmetic response to an internal wound.

This is a great post. Yes, football is exactly that: an athletics-based TV show. Baseball has adjusted its rules less for TV; the current sport doesn't broadcast well (because 90% of viewers won't care about 90% of pitches) Basketball is somewhere in between and the NBA has tried to change the rules to make it more of an individual game for TV.

When you drink does that make you more likely to organize your posts into bulleted lists?

And on the future of football: you put it well-- In 30 years football will become either boxing or rugby. I would not be surprised if in 10 years DBs are not wearing helmets and/or receivers have two flags in their belts.

[geoduck no quahog]

I understand the concept. 90%+ of plays in football are run from the line of scrimmage. Then you have the kickoff, which introduces a different skill set and injury risk. If I had a kid playing football, I'd probably be more amped up during a kickoff then during normal play. Then in college and the NFL the mass and speed of players increases dramatically.

I have no comment on the fix, or even if it's necessary - but you have to agree that kickoff returns are an unusual subset of normal play.

[Ralphwiggum]

You could have saved yourself a lot of words and enjoyed your buzz much more if you had just left it at "football sucks". I don't really agree with you about football's rules being any more arbitrary than any other sport but it doesn't really matter. It is a matter of personal preference and if that bothers you about football fine but you are in the decided minority. The NFL has never been more popular and the other sports are really all battling for 2nd place.

Besides, the proposed rule has nothing to do with aesthetics or making it better to watch on tv, it is for player safety reasons. And honestly the fact that football has the ability to tweak rules (as it already has and as it will continue to do) to allow for safer play for its players and all the while remain the most popular sport in the US is, to me, a point in football's favor, even if I hate this particular proposed rule.

Lastly, I agree that steps have to be taken to make the game safer on all levels to preserve the influx of talent, but if you think we are anywhere close to football becoming boxing or rugby you are nuts. Flags in 10 years? Ridiculous. Football is a fucking religion in large swaths of the country and it is going to take a generation or more for that to change. Even in the librul edumacated northeast where I live pee wee football is alive and well. Football is doing the right thing by dealing with this issue (although one might argue if Goddell is truly serious about this) but we are a ways away from the talent pool drying up even if no changes are made.

Edit: this was in response to Orel.

Edited by Ralphwiggum, 08 December 2012 - 08:54 AM.

[epraz]

What's my point?

• I don't know, football sucks I guess. I watch it and I follow it and I'm entertained by it and I always have been, but the more they keep changing the rules the more I can't help but think about how contrived the whole game is. For chrissakes, two years ago there was a national debate about whether or not Calvin Johnson scored a touchdown. Note, this discussion was about more than whether the call was made correctly--like whether the ump blew the Jeffrey Maier homerun or like whether every NBA ref blew every other call in every NBA playoff game--at it's core it was a discussion about what a touchdown should be. We've been playing football for a century and we still haven't decided what a touchdown should be. And they don't even publish the whole rulebook! The public only gets to see an abridged version. The whole thing is starting to seem like a manufactured TV show to me, and the fact that we're now discussing radically changing the game again only reinforces it. All sports are manufactured and arbitrary to some extent, but football seems to be the king of that. It's an athletics-based TV show that they constantly change to make us happy, and there's something cheap about that to me. I can easily see a lot of people finding something attractive about that: that the game evolves with the times. But it seems less of a pure sport to me when the game we watched in 1950 is different than the game we watch now, not just because the players are bigger, faster, and stronger, but because the rules of play have been almost perpetually changed since then.

Football definitely does not have a particularly elegant set of rules; you're right in that it is basically the opposite of soccer in that respect (and some foreigners I've introduced it to have called it Calvinball). But again, so what? If that bothers you, you've had lots of notice and opportunities to not care about it. Football is not going to get simpler, so if that turns you off, disengage.

[simplyeric]

If they have to change it, I like something like this.

Or maybe if you don't want to mess with the scoring, if the ball goes through the uprights the receiving team starts at the 5 or 10, otherwise the 20.

If the ball is going to be kicked through the end zone, make the goalposts worth SOMETHING.

Through the uprights: 10 yd line
Out of the endZone: 15 yd line
In the endZone: 20 yd line
On field of play: point of catch +15 yds, unless it hits the ground within 10 yds of the tee (so a pooch is penalized but inside isn't).

Or something.

[maufman]

• Doesn't matter. There are only two paths for the future of football: death by litigation and player attrition, or salvation by rugbyfication (i.e. removal of pads and transformation of tackling technique). Anything else (this rule included) is a cosmetic response to an internal wound.

There is ample precedent for inherently dangerous sports to make incremental safety changes and retain or build on their popularity. NASCAR is struggling of late due to its inability to expand the demographics of its fan base, but it didn't skip a beat following Dale Earnhardt's 2001 death. The NHL has mandated helmets and improved safety equipment generally, while cracking down on plays that are especially likely to lead to serious injury. Going back a bit further, baseball enjoyed its golden age after Ray Chapman's death. Yes, safety concerns will change football, but I don't think the NFL is destined to fall from its perch as America's most popular sports league, nor do I think they have to change the sport's intrinsically dangerous character to retain that position.

The likely impact of player-safety litigation is a whole other issue, and is probably worthy of its own thread. Few industries have been brought to ruin by tort litigation -- are there any examples besides the asbestos industry? So I'm skeptical that the courts will kill football, or change it in a fundamental way, but I confess I haven't thought deeply about the issue.

Edited by maufman, 08 December 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

What's my point?

• I don't know, football sucks I guess. I watch it and I follow it and I'm entertained by it and I always have been, but the more they keep changing the rules the more I can't help but think about how contrived the whole game is. For chrissakes, two years ago there was a national debate about whether or not Calvin Johnson scored a touchdown. Note, this discussion was about more than whether the call was made correctly--like whether the ump blew the Jeffrey Maier homerun or like whether every NBA ref blew every other call in every NBA playoff game--at it's core it was a discussion about what a touchdown should be. We've been playing football for a century and we still haven't decided what a touchdown should be.

Bravo.This has been a fantastic trolling ruse. RBYB or SeanBerry could learn something from you. Their attempts at trolling have become obvious, but you...you had people legitimately trying to argue with you about something not even Patriot relate! Your entire presence in this thread can be boiled down to "football sucks I guess."

There is also some irony about the subjective nature of arguing which rules are more game-altering while complaining about the subjective nature of "what is a touchdown?"

That argument, by the way, is also bunk. The Calvin Johnson TD/non TD was the equivalent of "was that a strike?" You could argue that the strikezone is the width of the plate and goes from the knees to the belt buckle. Well, where on the knee? The bottom of the kneecap? The top? Dozens of times a game, we accept that "sure, that's close enough to a strike" when it reality, it may or may not be. Every sport has subjective pieces to it, even one that has a rulebook the width of the bible and that has been around since at least the mid-1700's.

Damnit, I couldn't help myself! Again, well done!

[Romero Romine]

Most of these ideas seem wildly overcomplicated. Getting rid of the kickoff is a terrible, terrible idea. But if you have to change, just give the kicking team an option between a kickoff under normal rules or having the receiving team just start at the 25 yard line. Teams would have the option to onside, but the vast majority of times teams would just opt to have opponent start on the 25. Adding a new scoring structure to this concept is putting hemlock topping on a poop sunhdae.

[canderson]

Serious question: would eliminating helmets be a better way to deal with head trauma?

Rugby is full tackle without helmets and he don't have (publicly at least) any concussion issues.

[bowiac]

Serious question: would eliminating helmets be a better way to deal with head trauma?

Rugby is full tackle without helmets and he don't have (publicly at least) any concussion issues.

Don't they prohibit hits above the waist?