They changed the rule on kickoff touchbacks (placement at the 25) a few years ago (2018, I think), as the league has, generally, struggled with dealing with kickoff returns – fans see them as exciting, and part of the game, but they have among the highest rates of injuries (including concussions) of any play in the game.
Thus, the league has instituted a couple of rules in the last decade or so to make kickoff returns both less common, and less dangerous:
Kickoff touchbacks are placed at the 25, rather than the 20
A kickoff that touches the ground in the end zone becomes a dead ball at that moment
Kickoffs are from the 35 yard line (after a number of years of them being from the 30)
Players on the kicking team (other than the kicker himself) cannot take a running start before the ball is kicked
As a result, 60% of all kickoffs this past season were touchbacks. If you go back to 2010, for example (which, I think, was the last year that kickoffs were done from the 30), only 16% of kickoffs resulted in touchbacks.
And, yes, kickers have generally gotten stronger, and more accurate, over the past few decades, too.
Thanks for the explanation. If that is the case, ISTM they might as well just give the receiving team the option of starting at their 25, rather than waste the time/effort in a meaningless kickoff. The only thing that would be affected would be the occasional squib kick. As a no-fan, it just seemed especially pointless.
I believe that the league has debated doing away with kickoffs entirely, but, at least at this point in time, haven’t felt compelled to take that step. Doing so would also require them to figure out how to enable the “kicking team” to have a chance to regain possession (as they can do, today, via an onside kick).
I guess you could give them an option of either attempting an onside kick or just giving the other team the ball at the 25. This would have the advantage of allowing a total revamp of just what the hell an onside kick IS, which presently is just a rule loop in what the rules for normal kickoffs are. If there’s no normal kickoff you can do anything replacing the onside kick. Have a guy punt the ball from his own 10 into a crowd of dudes or something.
So, what was the deal with the slippery turf? The announcers said something about the variety and said it had been an issue all season. They also mentioned the paint and changing cleats. Given the money and technology involved, how could the NFL allow that? Or, were the announcers just blathering?
Another alternative which has been considered (but not adopted) in the past few years is that the kickoff would be replaced by one of two options for what would have been the “kicking team”:
Give the other team the ball at the “receiving team’s” own 25 (to replace the “normal” kickoff)
Take possession of the ball at their own 25, with a “4th and 15” situation (to replace an onside kick) – if they can gain 15+ yards on a single play, they keep possession, but otherwise, they turn the ball over to the other team, in their own territory
They came up with what I thought was an interesting approach for having a natural grass field in a domed stadium – the playing surface itself can be slid out from the stadium, so that the grass is outside, and can grow normally (and, apparently, that is where it spends most of its time). Though, evidently, it’s not a perfect solution.
A photo of the stadium’s playing surface, sitting outside:
It’s surprisingly difficult to maintain a field through an entire season plus a post-season.
Players prefer natural turf, which exacerbates the issue. Real turf is better for players but requires a lot of regular maintenance and 5 months of NFL games (plus local college and high school games plus concerts, etc) takes a toll.
Some of the northern stadiums run into winterization issues, since real grass doesn’t always hold up under winter storms. And some teams are worse about it than others - Washington’s field is always ragged by November, much less the postseason. And it can be an issue for the international games. Mexico City’s field is kind of bad about this. It’s ok for soccer but it’s apparently not great for NFL games without a lot of prep.
Several teams have played with various turf schemes, but it’s not a solved problem. And, as noted, keeping up a grass field in Arizona isn’t trivial.
We have domed stadiums in the southern states. Lack of natural light doesn’t help. You can open the roof on several, which can help. And Arizona apparently transports theirs outside.
But it’s still not trivial. The field looked like it was in better shape than several others, but it probably wasn’t (and couldn’t) be in the same shape as a fresh field at the beginning of the season. Normal wear and tear can’t be fully repaired quickly, even with a few weeks to work on it.
I suppose the alternative was to maintain a pristine, untouched field the whole season just for the one game, since stadiums have years of notice on Super Bowls.
ETA: Doing a little reading on it, apparently the field has been indoors since Wednesday because of the extra bleachers they installed in the end zones to cram more seats in. Less time in the sun to dry, which could have been a factor.
ETA2: Apparently this WAS a fresh field just for the one game. Wow. And they still messed up.
The first of these I ever saw was in the Bundesliga, where Schalke built one in 2001. I don’t know if they invented it though, or copied it from another stadium.
One thing I was wondering about in particular was the fancy logos, where quite a bit of a slipping occurred. It might not just be the turf, but whatever they used to add color……
It has been a problem for years. I’m a Seattle fan and every year the Seahawks have to play at least one game down there because they’re in the same division. And there have been a disproportionate number of injuries there.
Here’s an article from years ago about the problems. It was framed as “bad luck” but the bad turf has also always been a factor.
