Fair Catch Kickoff rule proposal

[LKEEL75 2,566]

54 minutes ago, Auburn2Eugene said:

Ok so I get not wanting to make new rules just because they can, but I just don't get the issue. It's not like we pin people deep with the kickoff. You pin people deep with the punt. We just haven't had a punter who could since Steven Clark. Hopefully that changes with our Aussie punter. 

However, this is about kickoffs. It's not like we can pin teams deep at the 1 with a kickoff...

Actually I disagree with this.  The coaches are adapting to these rules each year.  Belichick has perfected the kicking game to have the kicker kick it high and come down inside the 5.  If you kick the ball high enough it gives your guys time to get down there and the returner has to return the ball because they are out of the endzone.  Saban has done this a lot as well.  This is a perfect example of two very smart coaches using the rules to their advantage all the while they are also hiding the fact that their kicker can't get it to the endzone most of the time.

[bigbird 60,368]

1 hour ago, Tiger said:

That will buy us time until the game becomes played entirely with virtual reality headsets

Imagine the shake up as far as the HS hierarchy goes.

[DivisionN 102]

If you tag them with just one hand, they are not down. You must tag them with both hands.

[WarTiger 3,896]

Well, the NCAA in all their idiocy approved the fair catch rule proposal.   How completely stupid is this?   I like the change on the blocking below the waist rule, but still ama  firm believer that blocking below the waist should be illegal all over the field (except the free blocking zone/tackle box) like it is at the high school level. 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23156570/ncaa-playing-rules-oversight-panel-approves-several-new-rules-which-implemented-2018-season

 

New fair catch, blocking rules among changes approved by NCAA for 2018

 

Teams that signal for a fair catch inside their own 25-yard line on kickoffs will now be awarded a touchback, according to rule changes announced Friday by the NCAA.

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved the fair catch proposal as part of an effort to increase the number of touchbacks and limit injury risk on kickoffs. The change will go into effect for the 2018 season. Before the 2012 season, kickoffs were moved from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line and touchbacks allowed teams to start possessions on their own 25-yard line rather than the 20.

The oversight panel also approved the prohibition of blocks below the waist by offensive players more than five yards from the line of scrimmage. Also, except when done by interior offensive linemen, such blocks must take place from the front side.

Other rule changes announced Friday include the 40-second play clock being used after touchdowns and after kickoffs to expedite play, and a 10-second runoff when instant replay overturns an on-field ruling when there is less than one minute remaining in each half.

The panel green-lighted the continuation of a collaborative instant replay program where officials involved in the replay office could be located outside of the stadium in a conference office. Most conferences have state-of-the-art television command centers where input on instant replay could be offered from a centralized location.

Friday's announcement from the panel did not include any new rules or policies regarding targeting penalties, a major topic during the football rules committee's meetings last month in Indianapolis.

[toddc 13,194]

I posted a new OP after not finding this one being on the forum! Sorry, I obviously didn’t look deep enough or I would have added article here! Thanks for catching that and locking my thread!

[AU-24 3,063]

On 3/3/2018 at 12:19 PM, alexava said:

My proposal; no player over 200lbs on kick coverage team OR for every player over 200 the return team gets to choose between adding a 12th player or adding 10 yards to the end of the run. 

How about we just force everyone on the kick-off team and kick-off return teams, to take-off their helmets. Watch injuries go down then.

During the kick-off’s, 220 to 260 pound guys that run a 4.4 forty or below, can’t make themselves like a human missle.

 I know, it will never happen, but if it did, injury problem, just about solved.

[Auburn2Eugene 2,317]

On 3/5/2018 at 3:59 PM, LKEEL75 said:

Actually I disagree with this.  The coaches are adapting to these rules each year.  Belichick has perfected the kicking game to have the kicker kick it high and come down inside the 5.  If you kick the ball high enough it gives your guys time to get down there and the returner has to return the ball because they are out of the endzone.  Saban has done this a lot as well.  This is a perfect example of two very smart coaches using the rules to their advantage all the while they are also hiding the fact that their kicker can't get it to the endzone most of the time.

Ok... but like I said, they still don't pin them at the 1 like a punt. And if a kicker has the leg to kick it to the 5, with the ball soaring like an eagle in the clouds to give the return team time to pin them inside the 10, that kicker can absolutely kick it into the endzone with a lower trajectory. 

[AU64 10,122]

7 minutes ago, Auburn2Eugene said:

. but like I said, they still don't pin them at the 1 like a punt. And if a kicker has the leg to kick it to the 5, with the ball soaring like an eagle in the clouds to give the return team time to pin them inside the 10, that kicker can absolutely kick it into the endzone with a lower trajectory. 

Face it.... possession after a score is gonna start at the 25 almost every time..    NCAA wants NO kick off returns of any kind.  Not doing away with the kick however and will still allow on-sides kicks.... but have made them almost impossible to recover....but the possibility is still there. That's being allowed since the injury potential is about nil. 

[bigbird 60,368]

If a fair catch rule is in effect, you should make it so they start at the 15.  It's ridiculous to reward a team for fair catching a kick on the goaline when they typically wouldn't make it to the 25.  

[doug3020 842]

Put the leather helmets back on. Players wouldn’t lead with their heads anymore. 

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

If a fair catch rule is in effect, you should make it so they start at the 15.  It's ridiculous to reward a team for fair catching a kick on the goaline when they typically wouldn't make it to the 25.  

The goal is to do away with the kick off return.....so if a team had to take the ball on the 15 with a fair catch, most would go ahead and run it out which would not be in accordance with the intentions.   

The David Cutcliffe piece below looks pretty much in line with what the NCAA is trying to do in baby steps. ...a band aid as he refers to it.

 http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article208917739.html

Of course he's had some bad experiences with kick-off returns.....as has AU....

[bigbird 60,368]

43 minutes ago, AU64 said:

The goal is to do away with the kick off return.....so if a team had to take the ball on the 15 with a fair catch, most would go ahead and run it out which would not be in accordance with the intentions.   

The David Cutcliffe piece below looks pretty much in line with what the NCAA is trying to do in baby steps. ...a band aid as he refers to it.

 http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article208917739.html

Of course he's had some bad experiences with kick-off returns.....as has AU....

I completely understand the goal. . Safety is key, but elimination is dumb. Why eliminate 1/3 of the game?  You can keep part of the most exciting parts of the game without completely removing it.  

[AU64 10,122]

46 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I completely understand the goal. . Safety is key, but elimination is dumb. Why eliminate 1/3 of the game?  You can keep part of the most exciting parts of the game without completely removing it.  

Good questions but in this era of statistics and metrics some folks have convinced (and maybe correctly) that KOs are the most dangerous plays of a game and the PTBs are doing what they think will eliminate the issue. 

It's pretty much a done deal and before many years pass I predict the game will be like basketball...flip the coin to see who gets the ball first and refs will go place it on the offense's 25 and blow the whistle to play ball. 

Guess they have to figure out yet what to do in lieu of an on-sides kick....I've seen a couple suggestions that are a bit strange but something will be done to compensate for the missed opportunity by a team that is behind in the score and wants to try and get the ball back immediately after scoring. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

11 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Good questions but in this era of statistics and metrics some folks have convinced (and maybe correctly) that KOs are the most dangerous plays of a game and the PTBs are doing what they think will eliminate the issue. 

 

My issue with it is that we haven’t seen hard data on KR injuries. I’ve seen speculation that the NFL found the KRs to be dangerous and that is it. They didn’t offer why it was dangerous, just that it was dangerous. The kickoff unit and the returnman arent bucking heads with the thirty yards of steam.That’s already a foul even if so. Similarly, the earhole blocks should already be a foul. 

The NCAA changing the rules and not offering public data to back up their action to millions of football fans is pretty arrogant if you ask me. I guess we are just supposed to “trust the NCAA on this one?” 

 

[AU64 10,122]

22 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

My issue with it is that we haven’t seen hard data on KR injuries. I’ve seen speculation that the NFL found the KRs to be dangerous and that is it. They didn’t offer why it was dangerous, just that it was dangerous. The kickoff unit and the returnman arent bucking heads with the thirty yards of steam.That’s already a foul even if so. Similarly, the earhole blocks should already be a foul. 

The NCAA changing the rules and not offering public data to back up their action to millions of football fans is pretty arrogant if you ask me. I guess we are just supposed to “trust the NCAA on this one?” 

 

They can change rules for whatever reason they want...don't owe a detailed explanation.... and rules change almost every year..  Usually it's expressed as "speeding up the game", or something that makes the game more interesting like a 2 point extra point and sometimes (spearing, leading with the helmet) is expressed in nebulous terms like "safety" or even more nebulous like "getting the call right". .       

But in this case, I'm guessing that the data, if it exists, would be very useful to attorneys suing individual schools or the NCAA in general for negligence or whatever.  You can pretty well bet that the decision to do this kind of significant change is coming from a room full of lawyers looking at injury stats. 

The NFL and NCAA are only about a half step ahead of a passel of attorneys looking to tap into all that money the leagues make and they would just love some proof that officials knew that certain aspects of the game were exceedingly dangerous and yet the leagues failed to take action to mitigate the issue. 

And we all know that nobody is gonna quit watching football when this rule is implemented. JMO but this is pretty much a no-brainer for the NCAA. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

They can change rules for whatever reason they want...don't owe a detailed explanation....

They can watch the interest in their precious product dwindle with an attitude like that. 

 

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

and rules change almost every year.. 

When the rules changes are justified, there aren’t nearly the same amount of blowback against the changes. 

 

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

You can pretty well bet that the decision to do this kind of significant change is coming from a room full of lawyers looking at injury stats. 

I’m not in this argument to make hypothetical guesses and bets. If the lawyers want to justify the altering of game plans (no more pinning teams deep,) only hard data alone will convince me that the rule was necessary. 

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

JMO but this is pretty much a no-brainer for the NCAA. 

Because of some mythical data at some lawyers office? If so, this too is another “no brainer” for you I assume:

[AU64 10,122]

3 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

They can watch the interest in their precious product dwindle with an attitude like that. 

 

When the rules changes are justified, there aren’t nearly the same amount of blowback against the changes. 

 

I’m not in this argument to make hypothetical guesses and bets. If the lawyers want to justify the altering of game plans (no more pinning teams deep,) only hard data alone will convince me that the rule was necessary. 

Because of some mythical data at some lawyers office? If so, this to is another “no brainer” for you I assume:

Not sure what world you are living in if you are unaware of the legal issue facing college and professional football over concussions and the like.   All a reasonable attorney needs is evidence (real or circumstantial)  that NCAA or NFL officials ignored stats on injuries and took no action to try and minimize or eliminate them.  

http://www.concussioninjuryattorneys.com/#~05y8p9

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/12/01/avalanche-football-related-concussion-lawsuits-against-ncaa-and-conferences-could

So far it is just about money....but if the leagues take no action to try and prevent those type injuries and someone leaks some damaging stats, it wont' be long until the cases become criminal in addition to civil.

What is hypothetical and a pure stretch is that rule changes like the one being discussed are going to negatively impact the popularity of the game.  There is more than enough violence to satisfy most football fans without KO related injuries.  JMO

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

Not sure what world you are living in if you are unaware of the legal issue facing college and professional football over concussions and the like.

All I want is facts ( the real kind- not the circumstantial kind which you seem to defend as though it’s just as credible as real) if the NCAA is going to force the college football coaches to take strategy out of 1/3rd of the game. You’re an old geezer, surely you remember way back when the kickoffs were at the 40. Why couldn’t we do that and let the kickers kick it out of the endzone most of the time? At least then the coaches still have tbe infrequent option to sky one in order to try and pin them deep at the end of the game or when appropriate. 

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

What is hypothetical and a pure stretch is that rule changes like the one being discussed are going to negatively impact the popularity of the game.

The pure stretch is calling it a no brainer to take an established facet out of the game for the sake of “safety” when the rule isn’t going to make the ten other players safer and when there is no concrete evidence that the change will make the game any safer to begin with. 

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

There is more than enough violence to satisfy most football fans without KO related injuries.  JMO

There are also more than enough alternatives to keeping the game safer without completely altering the game of football.  JMO. It’s a false binary assuming that the people that want the integrity of the game to stay the same don’t care about player safety. Especially when concrete evidence that the game will be safer isn’t offered in return. 

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

On 3/3/2018 at 7:09 AM, AUBwins said:

With our recent kickoff return coverage issues, I was hoping to see kickoffs were eliminated. 

Winner.  Post of the Year!

[AU64 10,122]

7 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Especially when concrete evidence that the game will be safer isn’t offered in return. 

Like it or not, the people who are responsible for the game have to make the decisions and they do what they think is necessary based on the information they have available,  to protect players and also protect the financial structure of the game....whether it involves leading with the crown of the helmet, or cut blocks beyond the line of scrimmage or a dozen other rules and penalties that have safety implications.        JMO but those who want to take hike over this issue are free to do so....and I think it will have less impact on the games or enjoyment by fans than some folks are predicting. 

[bigbird 60,368]

40 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

All I want is facts ( the real kind- not the circumstantial kind which you seem to defend as though it’s just as credible as real) if the NCAA is going force the college football coaches to take strategy out of 1/3rd of the game. You’re an old geezer, surely you remember way back when kickoffs were at the 40. Why couldn’t we do that and let the kickers kick it out of the endzone most of the time? At least then, the coaches still have tbe  infrequent option to sky one in order to try and pin them deep at the end of the game or when appropriate. 

 

Exactly

[aujeff11 6,243]

14 minutes ago, AU64 said:

JMO but those who want to take hike over this issue are free to do so...

Nobody is wanting to take a hike over this issue. If the NCAA cared about player safety during KRs, there are more pragmatic ways to police that aspect of the game. It actually makes sense just to scrap the KO than that half-hearted rule which only protects the ball carrier and not the front line. If they want to police concussions and leading with the crown, why isn’t the targeting rule already in full effect?   

14 minutes ago, AU64 said:

and I think it will have less impact on the games

Well we do know it equalizes the great kickers in the nation like ours or Georgia’s that can put hangtime on the ball wirh one kick and then boom it the next. I don’t know if you know this, but it’s the hangtime, not the long line drives to the endzone that deters KRs. This rule basically just bails out the returner. 

But anyway, good talk and all.

[gr82be 14,402]

My goodness, just play the entire game with overtime rules and be done with it. No kickoffs, no punts, no reason to fair catch. 

[doug3020 842]

10 minutes ago, gr82be said:

My goodness, just play the entire game with overtime rules and be done with it. No kickoffs, no punts, no reason to fair catch. 

JMO, but likely to happen within the next 15 yrs. It'll start in the HS ranks first.

[WarTiger 3,896]

11 minutes ago, doug3020 said:

JMO, but likely to happen within the next 15 yrs. It'll start in the HS ranks first.

Hmm.  very doubtful, IMO and most rule changes (not all) start at the higher levels and filter down, so it's highly unlikely no kicking starts at the high school level.  It won't happen ever, imo.