Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Fair catch inside the 25 = Touchback?


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is the worst rule change proposal I've heard in a long time.

From the article:

The proposal, approved by the competition committee, then tabled by the owners in March, would allow for fair catches inside the 25-yard line to be ruled as touchbacks, with the ball then being spotted at the 25. The proposal was in response to an uptick in concussions on kickoffs over the last three seasons—with 10 such concussions happening in 2020, 14 in ’21 and 19 last season.

The rule was a topic of discussion on a regularly scheduled conference call among the NFL’s 32 special teams coaches Monday. Two respected veteran special teams captains helped to take the lead from there, with one suggesting that they gather a special teams vet from every team to participate in opposing the rule. That led to a Wednesday night call that included 34 special teams players from across the NFL, with at least one from each of the 32 teams, and NFLPA officials dialed in as well.

Coaches on the Monday call unanimously felt that the rules change would do little to reduce concussions and actually could lead to unintended consequences that would lead to more injuries on kickoffs, and the special teams players largely agreed with that assessment. And the group gathered data that’s been shared with the league to back it up.

Ugh 😡

No word on who specifically proposed this that I've seen. Regardless, I genuinely don't get how people who are as well acquainted with the game as the Competition Committee members would be can sign on to such an utterly sh-tty idea.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s a bad change, but it’s in response to them trying to improve offense by moving the ball to the 25. Because of that, teams are now incentivized to kick the ball to the 5. Before it was too easy to get past the 20 if you kick it to the 5, so kickers tried for touchbacks.

Unfortunately, the idiots in charge don’t realize that they caused the increase in concussions because teams kicking off take the risk of stopping the returner before the 25 instead of a touchback.

The only problem I see is that it’s harder to see a fair catch on a kickoff versus a punt so the refs need to be on their whistles quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was fair catches inside the 5 it would make sense, but letting them fair catch at the 18 and giving them 7 yards is stupid.

 

Inside the 5 is like conceding its going to bounce into the endzone and is "protecting the possession"

Edited by Cullenator
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kickoff rule in the XFL seemed to work well. The kick off and receiving team are just ten yards apart from each other, with the kicker alone from the usual spot. The receiver is waiting in the zone between the 20 and the end zone and besides the kicker and receiver, everyone else is stationary until the receiver touches/catches the ball. 
 

It’s made kickoffs and returns more interesting and a bit more strategic. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ghostface Chilla said:

The kickoff rule in the XFL seemed to work well. The kick off and receiving team are just ten yards apart from each other, with the kicker alone from the usual spot. The receiver is waiting in the zone between the 20 and the end zone and besides the kicker and receiver, everyone else is stationary until the receiver touches/catches the ball. 
 

It’s made kickoffs and returns more interesting and a bit more strategic. 

The problem is the NFL is trying to eliminate kickoff returns without simply eliminating kickoff returns.  They are trying to engineer an outcome without just taking the outcome.

In their defense, they have been concerned about injuries on kickoffs for about a decade now.  In their indictment, why not just eliminate kickoffs and give the opposing team the ball on their own 20 (more on why the 20 vs. the 25 later) after the PAT/2-point try?

Just spitballing here, but what about onside kicks?  The current rules reduced the success rate of those from about 20% to about 6%, and I don't know how many fewer are attempted (surprise onside kicks) because of the low chances of success.  So they have virtually eliminated the onside kick, anyway, and especially those that are surprises.  Given that, just give the team that would kick the option of kicking off or giving the opposing team the ball on the 20.  If they opt to kick off and it is a touchback, give the opposing team the ball on the 25 as it is today, or maybe the 30 if you want to provide more of an incentive for them to not kick off.  And by touchback, I mean an in-the-endzone touchback.  If some team is good enough to kick off in a way that usually pins the opponent inside the 20, so be it.

Seems like that would give the "kicking team" to opt not to kick off and address their concerns about player safety.  Everybody would know when an onside kick was coming, but hell, everybody knows that since the rules changed, anyway.

Or leave it the way it is and find something that is (more) broken to fix.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

This is the worst rule change proposal I've heard in a long time.

From the article:

The proposal, approved by the competition committee, then tabled by the owners in March, would allow for fair catches inside the 25-yard line to be ruled as touchbacks, with the ball then being spotted at the 25. The proposal was in response to an uptick in concussions on kickoffs over the last three seasons—with 10 such concussions happening in 2020, 14 in ’21 and 19 last season.

The rule was a topic of discussion on a regularly scheduled conference call among the NFL’s 32 special teams coaches Monday. Two respected veteran special teams captains helped to take the lead from there, with one suggesting that they gather a special teams vet from every team to participate in opposing the rule. That led to a Wednesday night call that included 34 special teams players from across the NFL, with at least one from each of the 32 teams, and NFLPA officials dialed in as well.

Coaches on the Monday call unanimously felt that the rules change would do little to reduce concussions and actually could lead to unintended consequences that would lead to more injuries on kickoffs, and the special teams players largely agreed with that assessment. And the group gathered data that’s been shared with the league to back it up.

Ugh 😡

No word on who specifically proposed this that I've seen. Regardless, I genuinely don't get how people who are as well acquainted with the game as the Competition Committee members would be can sign on to such an utterly sh-tty idea.

TBH, I would rather they just nix the kickoff altogether if they are gonna go that route.

Which, given are historic struggles at KR and PR, maybe that isn't a bad thing for us.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open the game with some excitement.

Get rid of the coin toss. Visiting team gets to decide who takes the ball first. Home team gets home field advantage. If the fans can't make it home field advantage, then blame the fans and the team.

Game starts with the ball at the 50. Each team gets 1 down. The team that finishes on their side of the 50 stays on offense. The ball must go beyond the 49; the 2 yard zone between each 49 is considered neutral. If the ball remains inside the 50 yard line neutral zone after 3 snaps each, no running plays will be allowed. Touchdowns and turnovers are allowed, and will immediately begin the game. A turnover results in control of the ball. A touchdown is counted and the game continues as normal. Untimed until the starting offensive team is decided.

Crowd will be in the game and loud from the start as though it is the last play of the game.

After a score, let the XP decide starting field position. If the team chooses to kick the XP, the ball will be placed at the point of the kick for a missed XP, or at the 25 for a made XP. If the scoring team opts for the 2pt play, the ball will be spotted at the 2 if the team converts. If the team fails on the 2pt, the ball is placed at the 10. The other team will take over at the spot of the ball. If the defense intercepts, recovers a fumble during the XP, or blocks the XP kick, the ball will be placed at the 40 or at the spot if the defense advances the ball past the 40. The defense will have the ability to score a TD off of an XP turnover. 

Never going to happen, but this would be the answer to make the start of the game just as exciting as the end of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I guess so. Don't think I was involved with previous discussions.  Tepper is one of the newest owners in the NFL. Dan is going into his 3rd season as a GM - ever. Dave is going into his 3rd season as a HC - ever. Before becoming a HC, he was an OC/playcaller for one season total. Idzik is about to go into his 1st year as a play caller - ever. WRs are rookies, sophomores and 3rd year guys - though the experienced 3rd year guys are XL and Coker (who has missed a ton of games). TEs are guys going into their 2nd and 3rd seasons, and Tommy Tremble - though Sanders has missed a ton of games. QB has played 3 years. Chuba is an experienced RB, but Brooks and Etienne have taken very little snaps at the position. O-line is more experienced vets with some talent - which is HUGE. Need them to stay healthy. I mean the offense is very young in every aspect except O-line. You see it differently?
    • I said this ALL last season and will say it again this year. Our record means diddly squat this year, I don't care if we have 0 wins or 17 wins, I only care about one thing and one thing only. Bryce proves without a shadow of a doubt that he IS or ISN'T our long term solution at QB. It's the only thing that matters for the same reason it sucks that this is the same thing as last year.  This needs to be determined, and if they can't determine it, then it's still telling the team the answer, just not the one they want to hear. As right now we're in the ultimate QB purgatory, a position that dooms franchises for years.  Just look at a team like the Cardinals, who extended a better QB and it still screwed them over and haven't had a contending team in a long time. People get too caught up on wins and losses when evaluating players, particularly QBs.  When people look at the final record and use that as a reason to want to extend a QB or not is just a fools errand.  If we had lost 2-3 more games last year because we didn't make a last second FG, I genuinely wonder if we would have just moved on from Bryce this offseason (like we should have been doing anyways IMHO).
×
×
  • Create New...