No more kickoffs. Thoughts?

fmlizard

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
5,845
Reaction score
6,456
Points
113
So this new AAF league starting tonight has no kickoffs. Teams just take the ball at the 25. I think we can all imagine a world where this eventually happens in college and/or pro football.

My first reaction was that sounds fine, we'll adapt. A lot of the time they come back from commercial, we watch it get kicked for a touchback (or increasingly in NCAA, fair caught), then there's another stoppage while things get set up, etc.

Then I considered what would be lost, and it's a biggie. If there were no kickoffs, then there would be no onside kicks. Thus, a whole lot of theoretically close games in the 4th quarter (relying on one or more onside kicks) would no longer be close. That could cause 4th quarters to be a lot less interesting, and the margin "cut line" for a game people keep watching would get moved up by quite a bit.

The AAF apparently thought of this, though. They are going to give a team a 4th-and-10 from their own 35 in lieu of an onside kick. Make it, take it. I like it.
 

If they do away with kickoffs we better not call it football anymore since the feet will no longer be involved in the game
 

It's really odd that they call it football in the first place.

It's like someone had a really bad misunderstanding and no one decided to ever correct it.
 

Watching the Alliance game tonight the lack of a kickoff really takes away from the excitement of the game. Not to mention it takes away opportunities for field position and better opportunity for points. At some point everyone that watches and participates is going to have to accept there’s some risk and move forward.
 

It's really odd that they call it football in the first place.

It's like someone had a really bad misunderstanding and no one decided to ever correct it.

To be fair, the rules are completely different now from when the game started.
Things such as touchdowns being worth 6, forward passes, etc
 


How is this for an idea. After every touchdown, the ball is put on the 50 yard line. Both teams line up their 11 men on the line of scrimmage, arms linked. The team that can move the ball 5 yards gets control of the ball. Play will not end until the ball is moved 5 yards. The clock will not be involved. Once a side is determined for control, play resumes at the 20 yard line of their own side.
 

A dumb idea because it is a major part of the game. But if you think that's bad, wait 'til they let women play (i.e. force women to be allowed to play) and outlaw tackling. If the right people get political power, such dictated changes will become routine.
 

But if you think that's bad, wait 'til they let women play (i.e. force women to be allowed to play) and outlaw tackling. If the right people get political power, such dictated changes will become routine.
What are you talking about...
 

A dumb idea because it is a major part of the game. But if you think that's bad, wait 'til they let women play (i.e. force women to be allowed to play) and outlaw tackling. If the right people get political power, such dictated changes will become routine.

Oh please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



I'm fine with it happening in this league because it definitely does increase the pace of play but I wouldn't want it to happen in the NFL, college or highschool. Need to keep the game pure.
 

It's the correct way the game should evolve. It's basically the Schiano plan, except 4th and 12 instead of 4th and 15 (the yardage is an easy variable to change ... it simply sets the statistical rate over converting the play, like how often teams convert an onside kick).

No extra point kicks either, just 2pt plays. I also agree with this.

They still have regular FG of course, and punts, which will always have to stay part of the game, but are far, far less injury prone.


Kickoffs are easily the worst play in football. Vast majority are just touchbacks. But the risk of injury is just as high because the blockers never know if the guy is going to run it out or not, they still have to slam into each other at full speed.

And the kickoffs that actually do go for touchdowns are very boring, and almost devoid of any strategy.

There's a great Youtube video proving the above facts, using statistics of all Kickoffs over the last 10-15 years I believe.
 

It's the correct way the game should evolve. It's basically the Schiano plan, except 4th and 12 instead of 4th and 15 (the yardage is an easy variable to change ... it simply sets the statistical rate over converting the play, like how often teams convert an onside kick).

No extra point kicks either, just 2pt plays. I also agree with this.

They still have regular FG of course, and punts, which will always have to stay part of the game, but are far, far less injury prone.


Kickoffs are easily the worst play in football. Vast majority are just touchbacks. But the risk of injury is just as high because the blockers never know if the guy is going to run it out or not, they still have to slam into each other at full speed.

And the kickoffs that actually do go for touchdowns are very boring, and almost devoid of any strategy.

There's a great Youtube video proving the above facts, using statistics of all Kickoffs over the last 10-15 years I believe.

Responding to bolded in order

Maybe, but I’ve never seen great evidence that more concussions are suffered on kickoffs, and let’s be real, that’s the injury everyone is (legally) worried about. IMO, if we start taking away key pieces of the game in an effort to eliminate concussions (critics will never be satisfied until this happens) it’s a slippery slope to many changes.

This is when we all realize you’re being a contrarian. Kickoff returns are among the most exciting TDs in football.

Let’s see it.
 

Maybe, but I’ve never seen great evidence that more concussions are suffered on kickoffs, and let’s be real, that’s the injury everyone is (legally) worried about. IMO, if we start taking away key pieces of the game in an effort to eliminate concussions (critics will never be satisfied until this happens) it’s a slippery slope to many changes.

I'm not big on the slippery slope argument. I think it is used far too often to prevent something that would have been good and meaningful, without a shred of evidence that further actions would be taken after that which go "too far".

Kickoff returns are among the most exciting TDs in football.

Let’s see it.

Obviously I can't "disprove" your opinion. You can make up any opinion you want.

So this is just this guy's opinion too, which you're free to argue he's just making up to get clicks/views. There is no objective correct answer on if it is an exciting play.

 



There is no evidence that KO are any more dangerous that any other play.

I'd like to see a study about pass plays over the middle when the QB fails to look off the DBs. Inexperienced QBs should be banned.
 

Responding to bolded in order

Maybe, but I’ve never seen great evidence that more concussions are suffered on kickoffs, and let’s be real, that’s the injury everyone is (legally) worried about. IMO, if we start taking away key pieces of the game in an effort to eliminate concussions (critics will never be satisfied until this happens) it’s a slippery slope to many changes.

This is when we all realize you’re being a contrarian. Kickoff returns are among the most exciting TDs in football.

Let’s see it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3438866/#!po=0.943396

Table 3 of Report
 

The argument revolves around concussions. Eliminating kickoffs - a small fraction of all plays - doesn’t really make a huge dent in the overall number of concussions and particularly the “micro-trauma” activists are concerned about. It’s a window dressing argument. If you buy into the idea we need to eliminate concussions and the micro traumas then the following should occur:

-Eliminate linemen and/or players over 200 pounds.
-Passes to MOF illegal. Keep them outside the hashes.
-Two hand touch tackling or flag pull for linebackers and safeties vs running backs.
-Two hand touch on quarterbacks.
-Cut game times to one half. Running clock.
Change to three instead of four downs to encourage passing
Or best of all: the ball can only be kicked with feet, no tackling, no touching with hands. Touchdowns involve kicking the ball into a large net at each end of the field. No heading allowed. Faking injury is rewarded and encouraged.
 




The argument revolves around concussions.

And it being a boring play with no strategy. It's a valid point, separating it from the rest.

Eliminating kickoffs - a small fraction of all plays - doesn’t really make a huge dent in the overall number of concussions

Unsubstantiated.

If you buy into the idea we need to eliminate concussions and the micro traumas then the following should occur:

-Eliminate linemen and/or players over 200 pounds.
-Passes to MOF illegal. Keep them outside the hashes.
-Two hand touch tackling or flag pull for linebackers and safeties vs running backs.
-Two hand touch on quarterbacks.
-Cut game times to one half. Running clock.
Change to three instead of four downs to encourage passing

None of this is true.
 




20% of concussions occurring on kickoff is pretty compelling.

What shocked me was the reported .4 concussions/game statistic. That is far higher than I would have expected.

Made me wonder about concussion risk at different levels. Did a bit of searching:

High school football: 6.4 concussions per 10,000 “exposures.”

http://prevacus.com/concussions-101/statistics/

College football: 81 injuries per 10,000 “exposures,” of which 7.4% are concussions. That implies 6 concussions per 10,000 “exposures.”

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/NCAA_Football_Injury_WEB.pdf

(Note: I am assuming, but do not know, that the definition of “exposure” was consistent in these sources. Hence the quotation marks. This has nothing to do with the donation/“donation” controversy.)

Not sure how to convert .4 concussions/NFL game to concussions per 10,000 “exposures,” but that appears to be a much higher rate than college or high school football. If, for example, 100 players were in a game, and appearance in a game counted as an “exposure,” that is something like 40 per 10,000 exposures. Far higher than college or high school football.

Feel free to correct my math, and if necessary, to call it “math.”
 

My guess is eliminating kickoffs for this league is more about pace of play than injuries. A kickoff results in a touchback now most of the time and wastes a lot of time. This leagues reduced the play clock to 35 seconds and there are no TV timeouts. Games are expected to take about 2 1/2 hours. It's a great plan.

They're certainly letting the QB's get hit. I liked what I saw last night from the league. It has a chance to be successful.

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Thought this was cool too.

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

20% of concussions occurring on kickoff is pretty compelling.

If the NFL tracked every play to such an extent that they knew what type of play that players were injured on, got an immediate diagnosis of concussion, recorded this information, and had it readied for a future study. Starting 22 years ago.

Which they didn't. Made up isn't "math". Fake numbers used with real numbers = fake numbers.
 

Considering 65% of collegiate concussions occur in contact sports other than football the list of dangerous sports is fairly lengthy. Thankfully we’ve not yet reached a point as a society we label concussion sufferers as doomed to mood disorders, neurodegenerative disease, or early deaths. Probably because the best data available doesn’t support those findings in former collegiate players.
 

If the NFL tracked every play to such an extent that they knew what type of play that players were injured on, got an immediate diagnosis of concussion, recorded this information, and had it readied for a future study. Starting 22 years ago.

Which they didn't. Made up isn't "math". Fake numbers used with real numbers = fake numbers.
Having a bit of trouble following. Are you saying that the authors of the study fabricated the data? That the NFL did not collect the data?

Here is a quote directly from the study: "During 2002-2007, concussions were recorded by NFL team physicians and athletic trainers using the same standardized reporting form used from 1996 to 2001. Player position, type of play, concussion signs and symptoms, loss of consciousness, and medical action taken were recorded."

Are you saying you know the above is not true? How do you know?

Or maybe I have missed your point?

Thanks.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

Considering 65% of collegiate concussions occur in contact sports other than football the list of dangerous sports is fairly lengthy. Thankfully we’ve not yet reached a point as a society we label concussion sufferers as doomed to mood disorders, neurodegenerative disease, or early deaths. Probably because the best data available doesn’t support those findings in former collegiate players.

I assume the source of the statistic is this:

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/SMH_Guideline_21_20160217.pdf

A pretty interesting document. Shows that the highest rate of concussions (perhaps the best indicator of risk) is in wrestling. Football is no. 2, before a drop to men’s ice hockey, women’s field hockey, and so on.

The rest of the document shows a problem-solving approach to the issue, regardless of the sport involved. Rather that argue that any one sport is good or bad, it focuses on protocols and procedures for all athletes.

I think an argument could be made that if kickoffs lead to 20% of concussions, a rule change might be worthy of consideration. Rule changes to promote player safety are nothing new. Perhaps a rule change could reduce the incidence of concussion in wrestling as well. But I suspect the the most effective way to reduce CTE, regardless of sport, is the kind of protocols described in the link. As research continues, no doubt the protocols will be improved. Hopefully these protocols, which are a long way from “he got his bell rung,” will be the primary method of reducing CTE over the long term.
 
Last edited:

I've always felt that the receivers get clobbered more than the kick returners. Its a dangerous game much like hockey can be as well.
 

What about onside kicks then.....there would be no chance if a team is behind two scores late in the game.
 




Top Bottom