Possible new kickoff rule

Donate To GopherHole

CentralGopher said:
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/ncaa-propose-significant-change-kickoff-2018/
Click to expand...

Per the link:

The kickoff play could look significantly different in the very near future.

The NCAA football rules committee proposed a change to the kickoff that would allow for fair catches between the receiving team’s goal line and 25-yard line to be considered touchbacks.

The strategic play is to sometimes try and pin teams deep in their own territory with a shorter kickoff. Those kicks involve a bit more hang time, and thus, create a higher probability of a big hit.

This rule would allow for that play to all but vanish from the sport. It would also save the receiving team the option of time. A fair catch late in the game would certainly be a valuable option of the 25-yard line was guaranteed.

This could be an alternative to the previously desired motion by some to rid of the kickoff in the sport altogether. The NCAA was reportedly considering that option as recently as 2 years ago.

By modifying the rule, it would leave the possibility for potential onside kicks in play. It would also allow kickoff return specialists to still showcase their skills before the NFL.

Go Gophers!!
 

I feel like this is solving a problem that mostly doesn't exist.... I don't see many big hits on receivers of kicksoffs because of excessive hang time...
 

Huh. I think what they must mean is avoiding those guys that field it at the 1-5 yard line and while attempting to try to get back to the 25+ risk the big hit. Most kick returns run out of the end zone end up near the twenty five anyway so I’m not sure how many coaches will have their guys fair catch it. There is always the possibility of breaking a big play and I can’t see too many teams just refusing to take a shot. Maybe something was lost in translation.
 



A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I feel like this is solving a problem that mostly doesn't exist.... I don't see many big hits on receivers of kicksoffs because of excessive hang time...
Click to expand...

I believe there was some study that analyzed frequency of injuries or something that showed the kickoff was the most injury prone part of the game or something.
 

Face The Facts said:
I think this is a great rule and makes the game safer.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the recent 25 yard line touchback did not really reduce big hits. Some college kickers still can’t kick touchbacks. So if a receiver fields it at the 3, he actually has more pressure to get it to the 25 instead of the 20 to “break even” on the kickoff. I still see plenty of big hits on those kickoffs between the 5 and the 25.
 

I think penalizing helmet to helmet on kickoffs would do more to avoid those possible concussions, even if the carrier isn’t “defenseless”. Call it the Joey Julius rule. If they can call the slightest touch on a sliding QB targeting surely the big hit in the middle of all that traffic on a kickoff qualifies.
 

Why have the kickoff at all? Think how many injuries that would reduce.
 



Or no tackling at all? Think how many injuries that would save ughhh
 

Doc1001 said:
Or no tackling at all? Think how many injuries that would save ughhh
Click to expand...

Exactly. Every year, they try to further and further reduce the number of kickoff returns in a game. Why just not play the game at all?
 

Taji34 said:
I believe there was some study that analyzed frequency of injuries or something that showed the kickoff was the most injury prone part of the game or something.
Click to expand...

You can believe it, I just have never seen it. Someone find it, because I can't. You see more injuries on the average running play...
 

highwayman said:
You can believe it, I just have never seen it. Someone find it, because I can't. You see more injuries on the average running play...
Click to expand...

Me: (opens browser, types in google.com)

Me: (types Football Injuries @ Kick-off)

Me: (sees the research references in the very first result)

Me: (reads article)

Me: (looks at other articles sees many discussions and input on said article and issue)

Me: wow. The internet is really easy to use.
 



Doc1001 said:
Or no tackling at all? Think how many injuries that would save ughhh
Click to expand...

If you go to that in one year, people wouldn't watch and football fans would be annoyed.

It needs to be a gradual change like the NFL.

QB in the grasp rule.
Ban head to head.
Ban defenseless receiver.
Ban blind side hits
Ban "targeting"

Each step gets us a step closer to two hand touch or flag football.
But it needs to be gradual to not annoy the players and fans.
 

caliGopher said:
Me: (opens browser, types in google.com)

Me: (types Football Injuries @ Kick-off)

Me: (sees the research references in the very first result)

Me: (reads article)

Me: (looks at other articles sees many discussions and input on said article and issue)

Me: wow. The internet is really easy to use.
Click to expand...

For people who don't want to understand the facts, it's easier to:

1. Deny it.
2. Ask someone else to show him articles / studies about it.
3. Deny the article.
4. Claim the article / study was inconclusive or not legit enough.
5. Then start googling articles that might be to the contrary
6. Find article written by some paid-off smuck "brain" specialist who lets his own kid play football who also writes articles about zombies possibly being real
7. Argue that wacko is more legit than all other studies that claim otherwise.
 

Face The Facts said:
For people who don't want to understand the facts, it's easier to:

1. Deny it.
2. Ask someone else to show him articles / studies about it.
3. Deny the article.
4. Claim the article / study was inconclusive or not legit enough.
5. Then start googling articles that might be to the contrary
6. Find article written by some paid-off smuck "brain" specialist who lets his own kid play football who also writes articles about zombies possibly being real
7. Argue that wacko is more legit than all other studies that claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

Most chest-beating internet paladins, or nightly news, or ESPN pseudo-journalists not only stumble to comprehend the most basic of statistics but the oftentimes very significant limitations of studies are totally ignored or glossed over. Poor studies get thrown around as “fact” by political zealots like teenage girls at a pillow fight.

People in scientific communities understand the limitations, the divisiveness, the lack of coherence, the poor designs, and a system riven through with conflicts of interest, funding sources, petty animosities and perverse incentives. Be careful and cynical of your information sources. Is there a possible agenda? Ask questions. Don’t be too quick to form opinions.
 

Face The Facts said:
For people who don't want to understand the facts, it's easier to:

1. Deny it.
2. Ask someone else to show him articles / studies about it.
3. Deny the article.
4. Claim the article / study was inconclusive or not legit enough.
5. Then start googling articles that might be to the contrary
6. Find article written by some paid-off smuck "brain" specialist who lets his own kid play football who also writes articles about zombies possibly being real
7. Argue that wacko is more legit than all other studies that claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm asking for someone to show me the study that indicates evidence that kickoffs are more dangerous. I find a plethora of articles that say it is more dangerous, but yet I have not seen the studies. Back when this first was brought up, there were NO studies. I know how to use the internet. I find article after article, but no links to actual studies.

The one I did find said that concussions on kickoffs dropped from 35 to 20, and that wasn't even recent. That's it?

I just thought there would be dozens of studies, all concluding roughly the same thing. Instead, it's just half-assed new stories with colloquial data.

Enlighten me.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Most chest-beating internet paladins, or nightly news, or ESPN pseudo-journalists not only stumble to comprehend the most basic of statistics but the oftentimes very significant limitations of studies are totally ignored or glossed over. Poor studies get thrown around as “fact” by political zealots like teenage girls at a pillow fight.

People in scientific communities understand the limitations, the divisiveness, the lack of coherence, the poor designs, and a system riven through with conflicts of interest, funding sources, petty animosities and perverse incentives. Be careful and cynical of your information sources. Is there a possible agenda? Ask questions. Don’t be too quick to form opinions.
Click to expand...

IMTHEWALRUS 2.0

Just what we need.
 

Taji34 said:
I believe there was some study that analyzed frequency of injuries or something that showed the kickoff was the most injury prone part of the game or something.
Click to expand...

I've seen that quoted before but does this rule change really address that?

Was it the receiving player catching a crazy kickoff getting injured, or someone else?

Even before a fair catch guys are still running around getting blocked and etc...

A lot of players put a pretty good player back to return, if they were injured at a high rate you'd think that wouldn't be a thing as much.... so I'm not sure this rule protects anyone. Everyone else still plays until the whistle.

Also I really don't expect many fair catches.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I've seen that quoted before but does this rule change really address that?

Was it the receiving player catching a crazy kickoff getting injured, or someone else?

Even before a fair catch guys are still running around getting blocked and etc...

A lot of players put a pretty good player back to return, if they were injured at a high rate you'd think that wouldn't be a thing as much.... so I'm not sure this rule protects anyone. Everyone else still plays until the whistle.

Also I really don't expect many fair catches.
Click to expand...

Who knows, we'll see I guess. Seems to be an attempt to compromise between not doing anything and removing the kickoff all together.
 

Taji34 said:
Who knows, we'll see I guess. Seems to be an attempt to compromise between not doing anything and removing the kickoff all together.
Click to expand...

I feel like it is sort of a weird

Hey guys if you could just do this even more boring thing (that we'll still put commercials on both sides of) ... so we don't have to cut it and take flack. ... that would be great. The end result seems both ineffective and inexplicable.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I've seen that quoted before but does this rule change really address that?

Was it the receiving player catching a crazy kickoff getting injured, or someone else?

Even before a fair catch guys are still running around getting blocked and etc...

A lot of players put a pretty good player back to return, if they were injured at a high rate you'd think that wouldn't be a thing as much.... so I'm not sure this rule protects anyone. Everyone else still plays until the whistle.

Also I really don't expect many fair catches.
Click to expand...

First article I looked at referenced the organization that completed the study. My search turned up a copy. Was it a smoking gun? No, but had some evidence of correlation. Further study needed, but much easier to address the perception than the reality. At least they're "doing something".
 

The fundamental problem with punts and kickoffs is that you have people running full speed at each other which leads to more brutal hits, even when unintentional. Additionally, you have players that don't see the field as regularly, some trying to make an impression and playing too aggressively. I know someone ran the numbers a few years ago, and total injuries (not just concussions) was something like a factor of 10 higher on kicks than a "typical" play (no I don't have a link, just remember seeing it).

Short of eliminating kicks, I'm not sure what the answer is. I don't see this rule getting used a lot personally. If you catch the ball at the 5 or 10, you would think the risk of not making the 25 is worth the potential reward of breaking a big play.

The only way I can think of truly minimizing the risk but still allow kickoffs is:

1. Any kick past the opponents' 30 is spotted at the 30 with a fair catch (or 35 or whatever).
2. Allow "fair catch" on a ball that hits the ground, otherwise teams will start squib kicking.

OR

Any attempt by the receiving team to advance the ball after a kick will count as the first down play.

Not saying those are good rules, but I think they would reduce the number of kickoffs returned.
 

This will take out the high shorter kicks. Seems like a good rule. Eventually the KO will go away. They will need to come up with a make it take it rule in the 2nd half of games to allow comebacks.
 

This is where online arguments start to burn me a bit.

Supposedly, it was deemed that kickoffs were most dangerous play.
We've heard it.

GH poster asks for study as if this isn't true.

But if there was an absence of any studies, and you had to derive what play caused most injuries per play, what would your logic from watching football tell you.

A. A play where half the players make contact with each other after a standing start in which few are able to get up to full speed before contact. Where 4 other players on both sides of the ball maybe don't make any contact at all?

or

B. A play where all players get a large running head start and a player is looking up to the sky just a second or two before starting his run forward with 11 players chasing at him nearly full speed.


It's common sense if you think about it.


If a study had said more players are hurt walking to the locker room or something really odd, I'd get the need to inquire for the scientific report because it would seem highly unusual. This seems perfectly plausible at first glance.
 

Face The Facts said:
This is where online arguments start to burn me a bit.

Supposedly, it was deemed that kickoffs were most dangerous play.
We've heard it.

GH poster asks for study as if this isn't true.

But if there was an absence of any studies, and you had to derive what play caused most injuries per play, what would your logic from watching football tell you.

A. A play where half the players make contact with each other after a standing start in which few are able to get up to full speed before contact. Where 4 other players on both sides of the ball maybe don't make any contact at all?

or

B. A play where all players get a large running head start and a player is looking up to the sky just a second or two before starting his run forward with 11 players chasing at him nearly full speed.


It's common sense if you think about it.


If a study had said more players are hurt walking to the locker room or something really odd, I'd get the need to inquire for the scientific report because it would seem highly unusual. This seems perfectly plausible at first glance.
Click to expand...

I would think a QB throwing high and late to a WR crossing the middle of the field is the most dangerous play (Rhoda specialized in this) in terms of concussion. However, I don’t think anyone has ever broken it down to that granular of a level.

In terms of lower body injuries among linemen and RBs have to be inside runs/particularly second to the scrum that develops/ getting bent back/p and sideways.

I’d also like to see the incidence of injuries on interceptions/turnovers that are run back. The number of blind-side hits put on unwary players has to be as high as on kick returns.

Basically, yeah I’m that guy that likes more data.
 

The rule change I would make is that you have to field the ball in the end zone to get the ball at the 25. If it just sails through, you get the ball at the 20. The rule change was to discourage people from bringing the ball out of the end zone, but if you can't field the ball, you couldn't have brought it out of the end zone anyway.
 

RodentRampage said:
The rule change I would make is that you have to field the ball in the end zone to get the ball at the 25. If it just sails through, you get the ball at the 20. The rule change was to discourage people from bringing the ball out of the end zone, but if you can't field the ball, you couldn't have brought it out of the end zone anyway.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad idea. Reward the kicker for putting it out the back of the end zone.
 

There's a saying, "records are made to be broken", but not in this case. With the rule changes a Gopher will forever hold the record for most career return yards on kickoffs. Here's a toast to the greatness of Troy Stoudermire :clap:
 

MaxyJR1 said:
That's not a bad idea. Reward the kicker for putting it out the back of the end zone.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea.
Kickers might need to kick it flatter to get it out the back of the endzone. In turn, returners able to catch it would be catching is sooner from less hang time, so they have more ability to find a running lane for returns.

But it would get away from the hang-it high at the 1 yard line strategy which special team coaches might be doing to force a return.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom