Potential new NFL rules
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
I'm all for rules to make it safer for the players but the kickoff and the hip drop tackle ban both suck.
Of course I'll still watch. But the NFL makes it so hard sometimes to be a consumer of their product.
Of course I'll still watch. But the NFL makes it so hard sometimes to be a consumer of their product.
I just find it nearly impossible to believe that the NFL actually cares about player safety when they (a) sweep under the rug the CTE study, and (b) press hard for more games, which will obviously lead to more contact and more possible injuries.
I think the new kickoff is actually fine and makes sense for player safety. It is also not interesting today when 98% of kicks are just touchbacks. But, I think they should have figured out a way to be able to have surprise onside kicks in some fashion, OR go back to the old rules where more players could line up on one side of the ball that made onside kicks more successful.
I'm willing to see how the kickoff works in practice. I dislike the removal of the surprise onside kick, but that's admittedly not a big deal.
You know what sucks? Seeing 80% of kickoffs not returned.
In the XFL, 90% of kickoffs were returned.
I'm glad they are trying something.
In the XFL, 90% of kickoffs were returned.
I'm glad they are trying something.
I mean, I think the current kickoff really sucks. 78% of kicks were not returned last year. There were only 4 TDs, down from double digits for much of the 2000s. We spend 10 plays a game watching literally nothing happen for 10 seconds. I think this is great for keeping the play in the game, making it actually have a chance of something happening, and honestly, who knows if it's actually safer but the odds of it being worse for safety are pretty low because of the lower speeds and cleaner angles.
So the way the rule is drafted, a kick that hits the end zone on the fly results in a touchback to the 30-yard line, while a kick bouncing in and being downed is a touchback to the 20. If you want to give teams a chance to have some fun with it, make a kick sailing through the uprights on the fly 1 point. You hit an 80-yard kick through there, you get a point, you miss, and the ball is coming out to the 30. I think that could be a fun strategic wrinkle, and also would shift around 2-pt strategy depending on kickers and their leg strength.
If they want to encourage returns, why make a touchback the 30? I guess we will see how it plays out but seems like that's a pretty good outcome for the returning team... but maybe not with this new rule?
I suppose kickers can just try not to kick it as hard with the goal to have the returning team catch it around the 5.
That's exactly what they are trying to do. Right now, touchbacks are too easy for the kickers. If you make it so it comes out to the 30, there is less incentive. You try to land it inside the 5 and encourage a return.
Is the current kickoff still particularly dangerous? If so, is the problem giving dudes a 60 yard head start? Is it concussions? Something else? The NFL is so defensive about the game being “safer than ever” that I honestly haven’t seen much written on the subject of late.
Doesn't it incentivize the kicking team to not boot it into the end zone, thus ensuring a return?
It doesn't. Way better than the current kickoff. Not as good as 1990s NFL kickoffs, but that ship seems to have sailed.
Edit: To me, what just feels wrong about it is the way the players are aligned away from the ball. Just violates a basic tenant of what football is, imo. But that's probably what they said about the forward pass too.
From the ESPN article, kickoffs still have the same % of concussions as before on a per-return basis, but returns are significantly down. So, they are trying to increase the number of returns and reduce the % of concussions on a per return basis.
I mean, it's not that dangerous right now because most kicks aren't returned. But yes, the problem is that everyone is sprinting full speed and collides with each other.
Yes, the incentive is for kickers to not kick it into the end zone, and in doing so, returns are required by the receiving team. I suspect if it isn’t painful enough, the touchback will move to the 35 in subsequent seasons to further incentivize landing in the landing zone.
If you announce an onside kick, but kick it away, is it a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty?
And how will they line up if it's an onside kick? Like they do currently or like they used to, where the kicking team can get a 5-yard run up?
And how will they line up if it's an onside kick? Like they do currently or like they used to, where the kicking team can get a 5-yard run up?
I always thought this would be a great idea. Give an incentive to try something creative that could have a significant impact on strategy. Team down 17-14, kicks a FG with 8 or 9 seconds left, 4 or 5 seconds runs off the clock and go for the win on the kickoff!
Makes sense, though takes away one small benefit of a strong legged kicker.
Obviously you still want a strong leg for long FGs, but one added benefit was the kickoffs. Guys whose full effort gets the ball to the 5-ish consistently are just fine now, maybe even preferable.
You'll note they changes these rules that will cost the players more money via fines.
But the owners having to maintain a grass field for a few million a year so ACLs and achilles won't snap? That would cost money. DENIED. We stay with turd. Fuck your heels.
edit - was going to fix the turd/turf mistake but I'm leaving it.
I think they have to make something work with the onside kick, but otherwise I love the kickoff change. More returns is always better, kickers are way too good now, they couldn't keep it the way it was last year.
Maybe their angle is to make the game "safer" so that injuries go down, and then use the fewer injuries as a lever to go to an 18th game. It is playing a looooong game, but who knows what goes on in these meetings.
Last edited: