Goodell Wants To Eliminate Kickoffs - Floats Novel Idea

[T-RO]

There are a lot of innovations (or perversions, depending on your perspective) that have come into sport that seemed goofy at first, but have enhanced fan enjoyment.

Examples: Overtime, The 3-point play, The NFL adapting the college game's 2-point conversion, instant replay, wild card playoff teams, the dunk.

Our sports aren't based on Scripture, folks.

People who get too stuck in one place...end up buried by 6 feet of sand.

[IAMKING]

Originally Posted by jterrell

goofy plan.

if you want to do away with kickoffs just give the teams the ball at the 30 and be done with it.

thousands of youth leagues do this and it works just fine.

the 4th and 15 nonsense is just that. you don't make up downs.

if you remove kickoffs you remove onsides kick options. that's just part of the deal.

if they want to extend games and make late game play more interesting stop the clock after all first downs in the finals 5 minutes of a game.

Goofy to awful

[IAMKING]

Remove knockoffs the NFL will have

[LeonDixson]

Originally Posted by VietCowboy

I'm not sure I like this idea, because what if the defense commits a penalty that results in an automatic first down, like a hail mary PI call? Especially given the fact that a lot of flags are subjective and cannot be reviewed.

You rock, lady. (IIRC, you are female; if not I sincerely apologize) At any rate, you have put your finger on an aspect of this issue that I haven't seen discussed before, and you are absolutely right. One mistake (or intentional bias) by a ref on a phoney or ticky tack PI call or roughing the passer call could give a game away.

[FLcowboy]

Goodell needs to go. He has cheapened the NFL.

[windward]

Originally Posted by LeonDixson

You rock, lady. (IIRC, you are female; if not I sincerely apologize) At any rate, you have put your finger on an aspect of this issue that I haven't seen discussed before, and you are absolutely right. One mistake (or intentional bias) by a ref on a phoney or ticky tack PI call or roughing the passer call could give a game away.

Maybe the work around could be that a penalty in these situations would not result in a first down but in a new 4th and 15 at with the penalty yardage assesed. Maybe make PI a 15 yarder in these situations as well. If we can start 4th down after a TD, we can also be selective in how we apply the PI rules, right?

[Reality]

Originally Posted by Jongb35

Actually, it's more difficult, and by a wide margin. Since 2000, passes on 3rd or 4th and 15 have been converted only 16.4 percent of the time (sample size of over 1,500). Non-surprise onside kicks get recovered at around a 30 percent rate.

The one thing no one is considering is that most of those 3rd/4th and 15 plays were not in desperation situations. If a team is up by 4-8 points with less than 2 minutes to play, they will play a soft defense giving up the short plays to protect against the big plays. Meaning, 4th and 15 will have a much higher conversion rate in those scenarios. That is even before you consider what VietCowboy said about several penalties negating any down and distance relevance.

#reality

[Shinywalrus]

Originally Posted by T-RO

There are a lot of innovations (or perversions, depending on your perspective) that have come into sport that seemed goofy at first, but have enhanced fan enjoyment.

Examples: Overtime, The 3-point play, The NFL adapting the college game's 2-point conversion, instant replay, wild card playoff teams, the dunk.

Our sports aren't based on Scripture, folks.

People who get too stuck in one place...end up buried by 6 feet of sand.

Every example you gave was motivated by a desire to make the game more interesting, make the game more competitive, increase the variety of potential outcomes, etc.

This one is different. It takes an exciting, traditional play and removes it not because there's any real concern for player safety but because the NFL is motivated by nothing more than cultivating the perception that it is concerned for player safety.

If a dictator stepped out of the mists and said, "The NFL, owners and management cannot be sued for players' injuries caused by the game, past or present" we wouldn't be discussing this rule. That's why it's different.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by HoosierCowboy

a bunch of crap--why eliminate them? safety? then get rid of punts and get rid of tackling and blocking

Kickoffs are the plays that consistently produce multiple blows to the head. The NFL has to reduce the numbers of hits guys absorb and this is one way to do it (as is reducing padded practices as was done in the last CBA).

The science regarding brain injury is pretty clear. More hits to the head = more brain injury. The NFL knows it can't ignore this.

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is a terrible idea.

So many issue here. Part of the game is using an onsides kick at times when the receiving team isn't expecting it. That's out the window with this.

What about the players who actually have spots on the team because they are on the Kick Off team or Return team? Those guys are just out of a job I guess.

They should just move the kick offs back up to the 40 yard line and be done with it.

This is stupid. This is going to get to a point where this game is no longer interesting to watch. Americans don't want to lose the NFL and anybody who killed that sport would be ruined as a result. It's a mistake to allow fear of litigation ruin the game IMO.

[AbeBeta]

So I initially thought the plan was goofy. But I've come to like it. This may not be the plan you end up with but I do like the that league is looking at ideas to make the game safer that bring something new and potentially exciting. It is a real shift from all the previous efforts. For example, the league tried to solve the collision problem on kickoffs by first eliminating the wedge play and then moving the spot for kickoffs up. Yes, there are fewer collisions and fewer concussions as a result. But also, now kickoffs are deadly boring.

Punt returns are much more exciting to watch because someone actually gets the ball and runs with it on many plays. There also is usually a greater chance for a turnover. You can also run a fake from that formation.

The other piece here is the 4th and 15 deal. That is arbitrary but I do like it. Here instead of an onside kick, which is pretty much just a play based on the luck of the bounce of the ball, you get offense vs. defense. I'd rather see teams win or lose based on whether their offense can beat the other teams defense rather than whether a kicker can bounce the ball in a way that allows a 5th string WR to recover it.

Good for the NFL for thinking differently.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

This is a terrible idea.

So many issue here. Part of the game is using an onsides kick at times when the receiving team isn't expecting it. That's out the window with this.

You can run a fake punt when the receiving team isn't expecting it. So really that element isn't out the window.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

It's a mistake to allow fear of litigation ruin the game IMO.

No, it is a mistake to ignore that science that makes clear that certain types of plays are causing serious brain damage to large numbers of players. The league does have a responsibility here.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

You can run a fake punt when the receiving team isn't expecting it. So really that element isn't out the window.

Running a fake punt is only extending a drive. Kicking an onsides kick is what you do when you need the ball back after you have just scored.

Really, you can't grasp the difference here?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

No, it is a mistake to ignore that science that makes clear that certain types of plays are causing serious brain damage to large numbers of players. The league does have a responsibility here.

That is your opinion. It is not mine. The league has no responsibility accept by those who would try to sue them. Nobody is forced to play the game. You don't want to take the chance, don't play the game.