New NFL Kickoff Rule

[batmagadanleadoff]

Just read about a new kickoff rule effective beginning this season: on a kickoff, a player from the receiving team can signal for a fair catch, just like on a punt, provided that player is anywhere between his goal line and his 25 yard line. If the fair catch is successful, the ball is then spotted on the receiving team's 25 yard line. The rule is designed to discourage kickoff returns and further prevent injuries on what is the most dangerous play in the game.

So why don't they just abolish the kickoff altogether?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/05/opin ... hange.html

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

They should have the kickoff from the goal line; that would be better

[Frayed Knot]

So why don't they just abolish the kickoff altogether?

So that they can claim that they're not really altering the game (just tweaking the rules a bit) while at the same
time planting their flag on the 'We're all about player safety' side of the line after which they'll publish stats citing
decreases in player injuries, evidence of which will be about as transparent as the surveys where we all demanded
the universal DH and a permanent Ghost Runner rule.




My favorite story of the not-yet-set-sail 23-24 NFL season is the 49ers QB saga where they decided that:
- Trey Lance, the guy who they acquired after dealing multiple 1st round picks in order to move up to #3 in 2021 draft was dropped to 3rd string
- Sam Darnold, the guy around whom NYJ fans decided was worthy of throwing away an entire season 'Suck for Sam!!' in order to snag him with
the 3rd pick of the 2018 draft, was going to be their 2nd string guy
- Brock Purdy, the guy drafted not just in the 7th round (2022) but with the very last pick in the entire dog and pony show, was given the starters
job even as he was coming off an injury from his lone partial season.

And it's my fave not to pick on SF. In fact I admire their decision not to chase sunk causes beyond all reason.
But having a 262nd pick from a 'lesser' college program (Iowa St) and with less pro experience beating out to top picks from just 2 and 5 years
earlier flies in the face of the idea that the draft 'experts' are worth listening to for months on end during the lead up to each year's draft.

[nymr83]

Just read about a new kickoff rule effective beginning this season: on a kickoff, a player from the receiving team can signal for a fair catch, just like on a punt, provided that player is anywhere between his goal line and his 25 yard line. If the fair catch is successful, the ball is then spotted on the receiving team's 25 yard line. The rule is designed to discourage kickoff returns and further prevent injuries on what is the most dangerous play in the game.

So why don't they just abolish the kickoff altogether?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/05/opin ... hange.html

The NFL essentially wants to abolish the kickoff. the problem with officially doing so, is that the possibility of recovering an onside kick keeps TVs turned on longer in blowouts. The best solution I've heard to that is that if you wanted to go for an onside kick, you can choose not to kickoff at all - you get the ball back after you score except its 4th and 15 from your own 35 yard line.

[whippoorwill]

I wish they’d just leave stuff alone.

Baseball Has enough wussy assed new rules.

[whippoorwill]

Just read about a new kickoff rule effective beginning this season: on a kickoff, a player from the receiving team can signal for a fair catch, just like on a punt, provided that player is anywhere between his goal line and his 25 yard line. If the fair catch is successful, the ball is then spotted on the receiving team's 25 yard line. The rule is designed to discourage kickoff returns and further prevent injuries on what is the most dangerous play in the game.

So why don't they just abolish the kickoff altogether?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/05/opin ... hange.html

Id like to know how this differs from the original intent

[Frayed Knot]

The NFL essentially wants to abolish the kickoff. the problem with officially doing so, is that the possibility of recovering an onside kick keeps TVs turned on longer in blowouts.

Definitely a big factor. The favorite 'Don't Touch that Dial' phrase among NFL talking heads these days with any game where the gap is 16 points or less is: 'And now it's only a two-score game!!!'

The best solution I've heard to that is that if you wanted to go for an onside kick, you can choose not to kickoff at all - you get the ball back after you score except its 4th and 15 from your own 35 yard line.

This is so contrived, gimmicky, and unfair that I'm surprised the league hasn't already implemented it.

[MFS62]

I wish they’d just leave stuff alone.

Baseball Has enough wussy assed new rules.

Amen!
Later

[nymr83]

The best solution I've heard to that is that if you wanted to go for an onside kick, you can choose not to kickoff at all - you get the ball back after you score except its 4th and 15 from your own 35 yard line.

This is so contrived, gimmicky, and unfair that I'm surprised the league hasn't already implemented it.

contrived and gimmicky yes. unfair? i wouldn't think so. the exact distance and yard line could be determined by the historic percentage to convert so as to match it up with the percentage to recover an onside kick - it would be the same odds you have now, just without those evil kickoffs.

[Frayed Knot]

Unfair in that after one team scores the other then gets the ball. Only in this case the scoring team decides that they're going to still be on offense (Yeah, I know it's the 3rd out but we're going to keep batting).

Not sure what the success rate of onside kicks are but it's gotta be lower than that of gaining 15 yards on a given play.

[Edgy MD]

They should start just by placing the ball at the 50. Put both teams in their respective end zones and blow the whistle.

[MFS62]

Not sure what the success rate of onside kicks are but it's gotta be lower than that of gaining 15 yards on a given play.

IIRC, last year one of the announcers said the success rate of recovering an on-side was around 30%.
Not sure if that was just last year or if it included past years.
I'd like to see what the percentage is for gaining 15 yards on one play but I'm guessing it is comparable because that's the distance the rules committee picked.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

I'd be shocked if the long term success rate of onside kicks is 30%

[DocTee]

Last year's success rate was 5.6% (3 out of 56).

The 4th and 15 "gimmick" is actually used in the XFL I think, and I could see it being adopted at some point in the future after the kinks are worked out.

[metirish]

Green Bay punter Dan Whelan is the first Irish born NFL player since 1985 ( Neil O' Donoghue )

Should be noted that Whelan moved to the US with his family nearly ten years ago

[kcmets]

Here's an idea, in the fourth quarter every team gets the ball on the
opposing 20 yard line and they just see who can score the most. Can't
get a first down? Five yard penalty, do over!!

[MFS62]

Or, they can select one Las Vegas Casino every week, and let the head bookmaker from that casino pick he final score. No player gets injured and we get the same result in the game.
Sheesh.
This is getting ridiculous. (start at 53 seconds mark)




Later

[Frayed Knot]

Last year's success rate was 5.6% (3 out of 56).

Yeah, roughly 1 in 20 sounds Much more realistic to me.

The 4th and 15 "gimmick" is actually used in the XFL I think, and I could see it being adopted at some point in the future after the kinks are worked out.

Oh I think it will be adopted, probably sooner rather than later.
First of all the NFL rarely comes up with these ideas first. Most of their so-called innovations over the years [2-pt conversions, goal posts in the back of the end-zone,
radios in helmets, replay reviews, etc] were not only invented elsewhere first (AFL, USFL, college) but were dismissed by the Shield as gimmicks unworthy of their
superior league ... before eventually being incorporated. And this one will just extend the whole idea that even a blowout in progress can still be turned around.
A team can be down by multiple touchdowns late in the game but, with the usual assortments of timeouts, plus the 2-minute warning (what a weird rule!) plus
all the other various game stoppages, and now each time they score they can continue with the possibility that the other side never gets to go on offense.
Plus, y'know, imagine the betting possibilities.

[MFS62]

plus the 2-minute warning (what a weird rule!)

The NFL may have stolen that, too. The CFL has a three minute warning. Not sure which came first.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

I've just never understood the origin or the purpose of the rule.
It seems to exist for no reason other than to stop play for the sake of stopping play.

[MFS62]

I've just never understood the origin or the purpose of the rule.
It seems to exist for no reason other than to stop play for the sake of stopping play.

I didn't know, but here's what I found. It goes back to the time when there was no large clock on the field. The ref timed the game with a stopwatch, and he would stop the time to alert the coaches that the end of the half (or game) was coming.
Here's more:
https://footballadvantage.com/2-minute-warning/

Its almost one of those traditions they've kept around like something we've kept around in baseball for the nostalgia. Like the seventh inning stretch.
Of course, it is now another delay into which the networks can pump additional commercials.
So much for nostalgia.

Later

[Edgy MD]

The seventh-inning stretch is the best.

[Frayed Knot]

And, unlike football's TMW, the 7th inning stretch doesn't affect game strategy or on-field results.

[Lefty Specialist]

I've just never understood the origin or the purpose of the rule.
It seems to exist for no reason other than to stop play for the sake of stopping play.

It exists for the chance to cram in a block of pricey commercials.

[Frayed Knot]

So the second half of the NY/NY Prime Time opening weekend show is bound to go at least a little bit better than Act 1, eh?