Fair catches are part of kickoffs too. That’s why kickers kick onside kicks into the turf. They can’t call for a fair catch after the ball hits the ground.
Nobody has asserted that. But kickoffs do seem to have the highest injury rate. That should be kind of a given since kickoffs are the only play where everybody lines up and charges across the entire field at the other team.
That’s right. That doesn’t mean concussions aren’t dangerous, it means the main danger isn’t big hits (but those hits are still a concern).
It would help in theory because you’d be reducing the danger involved in the most dangerous type of play.
How often do you see a fair catch on a kickoff? Almost never. The kick is lower and longer. If there is hang time on a kickoff it means that the ball is probably going into or out of the end zone. The defenders can’t get under the ball and are going full speed trying to make a crushing tackle. On punts, the kick is higher and shorter. There is hang time. The receiver can readily asses how vulnerable he is. The fair catch prevents the debilitating collision. Also, with a punt, most of the blocking is on the line. The blockers and tacklers don’t have a running start or they are going backwards to establish coverage. On kickoffs it is far different.
By your chart, with as closely as pass and run plays parallel kickoffs in terms of frequency of injury, I ask: is eliminating this particular (and often one of the most exciting plays from our barbarian sport…and let’s be honest: it IS our modern version of gladiators here) play really going to make much of an impact? Especially with a lame proposal like punting instead of a kickoff?
It does look like the injury rate on punts is much lower.
I’m still waiting for an explanation of why this is bad other than “It’s lame” or “heck you.” (On the flip side, “it’s lame” is the best argument so far offered.) I’m not giving this idea my vote yet, but the fact that nobody has been able to offer a concrete objection makes me think this idea at least deserves some consideration.
That’s another way of arguing that we should sacrifice the good for the sake of the perfect. It’s not a compelling argument that because we can’t do even better, we shouldn’t even try a little bit.
Of course, the owners might not go for it, anyway, but I would hope it’s for better reasons than the ones you’ve given.
I don’t mind the elimination of the kickoff all that much. Yes, it’s occasionally an exciting play, but then so are punt returns. And with the kickoff at the 35 now, a lot of them are going for touchbacks anyway. Kickoff returns are more dangerous than average plays, so if we need to remove them to keep players healthy and keep the game going, I’m good with that.
The only thing I don’t care for in this is that it takes away the element of surprise with the unexpected onside kick (remember the one from the Saints in the Superbowl a couple of years ago). I suppose you could make the case that somebody could try a fake punt now and then.
Count me on the side of barbaric then. I have seen this game evolve from the truly brutal almost bloodbath it was in the 1970’s to what it is now. The game is so far removed from what it was in every way that I just despise any further restrictions on what in my opinion makes it the sport it is, and yes, by that I do believe it means a certain amount of crushing hits, body blows and the like.
The further this pendulum swings towards safety the less it looks like football unless some seriously amazing technology is developed for the uniforms/helmets/pads. I also don’t think the NFL gives a shit beyond it’s ability to deflect legislation in terms of older players (which is a crime…they should be treated as the celebrated gladiators that they are and have suitable pensions) and just puts on this happy face for the media.
In short: it is and should remain a brutal sport because that is a big part of the attraction, yes more can be done on all sides to make it safer in terms of equipment, yes the NFL should shell out more money in terms of pensions and healthcare and no, they should not alter the game much more unless they want it to be flag football.
Sorry if that makes me a dick. Getting rid of the clothesline tackle is a good thing, getting rid of a kickoff is not.
I believe the phrase you’re looking for is “kiss my colon.”
Getting rid of 40 year old men unable to remember what happened 15 minutes ago is a good thing. The fact is that the public has seen the effects of head trauma and is appalled. Parents will be pulling their kids from football leagues at record numbers, and the stream of talent heading into college programs will dry up. Once we know the long term impact of head trauma the sport will change. It has changed, it will continue to change. The same thing happened in the early 20th century and the sport survived.
That’s one interesting consequence of removing kickoffs – removing onside kickoffs. While they don’t work often, it’s a way that a team which is down by more than one score has a chance to get the ball back after scoring late in the game. If the kickoff goes away, it’d be interesting to see if they would do something to replace the (expected) onside kick.
I think this position is overstated. There are PLENTY of men over the age of 40 that are making their living talking about football on TV…and even more that are living out their lives quite nicely if they haven’t squandered their money. The Mike Websters of the world are nicely offset by the Troy Aikmans (a multiple concussion sufferer) so excuse me if Chuck Bednarik doesn’t call you limp wristed.
Again: there is more research that can be done to protect players, but I believe that it starts at an equipment level at this point, since the rules have been so (rightly so) altered as they stand now.
Also again: The NFL is full of shit in it’s supposed desire to protect players, I mean, not have to pay pensions and healthcare, that it’s a ridiculous hypocrisy.
Just admit it’s a brutal game, that ongoing research will be conducted into enhancing player safety, admit that there are going to be limits to that given the nature of the fucking game, and move the fuck on.
The last thing this uber-popular game needs is more rules changes. You want rule changes talk to baseball about adopting instant replay.
Under this stupid scenario, no, they’d have to “go for it” on 4th and 15…on their 30. It’s ridiculous.
I think a 4th and 15 situation is too easy to convert compared to an on-side kick. Also, punting from the 30 yard line is going to put the punter on the 15 unless this is a free kick. A punt from the 15 is too much of an advantage for the receiving team. And a free kick is going to create the same situation as a kick off. I don’t see any advantage to this at all.
See, I was thinking they would just eliminate kickoffs and give the teams the ball at the 20 or 25, like college overtime. Then there’d be a real benefit to eliminating kickoffs: eliminating another commercial break! I absolute hate it after a team scores and it goes commercial-touchback-commercial. Even worse when it happens around the end of a quarter or some idiot coach calls timeout a play later.
I actually think the “convert a 4th and 15” for onside kicks would be kinda fun. Yeah, it’s easier - so what? I think (non-surprise) onside kicks have too low of a success rate as it is.
It’s always going to be a dangerous game, but busted ACLs are not the same as repeated head trauma. The public will accept guys on crutches or hobbling around in their 40’s. They simply won’t accept their sports heroes being reduced to babbling idiots. Now that the information is out there the public sentiment is changing.
I doubt you would say that if you had a loved one paralyzed from the sport. For the record, I am a die hard football fan and often rage at how the QBs have mini skirts on and legitimate tackles get flagged.
But the plan is actually kind of attractive from a football “game” standpoint. Change is change and people will hate it, but do not be surprised if High School football no longer exists in 15-20 years.
This is survival for the NFL.
I would agree that the placement is a little too advantageous for the receiving team. The net punting average for teams this year ranges between 36.5 and 45.9 yards (calculated from LOS, not the position of the punter). I’m not sure how to figure in the effect of touchbacks on that number, but most likely you’d see teams pretty regularly getting the ball at around the 30-35. Maybe moving the LOS on the play up to the 35 or 40 would fix that.
I’m not sure what the stats would say about 4th and 15 vs. a non-surprise onside kick, but I suspect you’re right about that being easier to convert. Maybe that’s not a bad thing. It would make those games where a team has a two score lead late more interesting up to the end more often.
Fans don’t have to care about safety, but the NFL does because it affects its business as well as its legal liability. The league has to be concerned that over the long term these reports about brain trauma will make people less willing to watch and play football and they can’t ignore that. It’s true that the league’s focus on safety has been all over the place since they’re also playing more Thursday games than ever and keep talking about expanding the schedule at the same time they are trying to get rid of some types of hits. The contradiction is ridiculous. That doesn’t mean the league shouldn’t look at sensible ways to make football safer without totally ruining it; it means the NFL needs to stop talking out of both sides of its mouth.
If this proposal were seriously explored ideally there would be some statistical calculations involved to determine where could the ball be placed so the team would be looking at a risk-benefit ratio similar to a kickoff when deciding to punt or run a play.