NCAA Rules Committee to recommend moving kickoffs to 35
I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see that the NCAA Rules Committee is recommending that kickoffs be moved to the 35 yard-line and that kick-coverage defenders be limited to a 5-yard running start. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7560237/ncaa-proposes-moving-kickoffs-30-35
I really don't see the logic in this. If you think kickoffs are too dangerous, then just have the offense start from the 20. Kicking off from the 35 just cuts down on the number of kick returns--it doesn't make the returns that actually occur any safer.
February 12th, 2012 at 7:55 AM ^
makes me a sad panda....
February 12th, 2012 at 7:57 AM ^
February 12th, 2012 at 8:28 AM ^
February 12th, 2012 at 8:41 AM ^
The players aren't afraid of getting hit...
Their families are afraid of them turning into Jim McMahon (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Jim-McMahon-My-memory-s-pretty-much-gone-?urn=nfl-284214)
or Tom McHale (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127165938.htm)
or Gary "Big Hands" Johnson (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/04/gary-big-hands-johnson-dead-57/)
Or any of the coutless ex-football players who are living with brain injuries.
February 12th, 2012 at 8:48 AM ^
What are you advocating? Making football a non-contact sport?
For every Jim McMahon who gets headlines for having a poor memory at age 51, there's a hundred other ex-players who are doing okay.
I'm 53 an my memory is nowhere near what it once was. And I never played a down of full contact football. I blame age and too much beer.
February 12th, 2012 at 8:59 AM ^
I'm suggesting that the argument of "only pussies want to soften the game" is stupid.
It is possible to enjoy football and reduce concussions. According to a study (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/sports/football/30dementia.html), football players are 19 times more likely to suffer dimensia. Why not try to brign that number down?
February 12th, 2012 at 10:46 AM ^
concussions are for pussies. Especially these high school and college kids who can't seem to keep their brains from bouncing around their skulls. No changes ever: the essense of the game needs to be maintained at any cost otherwise it will turn into flag football blah blah blah
February 12th, 2012 at 10:54 AM ^
Some additional reporting on football and the concussion crisis:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/31/110131fa_fact_mcgrath
I suppose it's easier, and looks more superficially manly, to be a "softening the game is for pussies" blowhard than to examine the problem and its consequences objectively.
In my view, even aside from the concussion crisis, the mere possibility of an Eric LeGrand event on every kickoff is grounds for reform.
February 12th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^
and the danger inherent in football--including the danger of death and paralysis. Every one. And I still would not change a rule to limit kickoff returns, which BTW are one of the most exciting plays in football. I wouldn't limit the ability to hit hard either. That is the game. If you don't feel the benefits outweigh the risks, don't play. Make the equipment as safe as possible, enforce the current penalties for dangerous play, make sure every participant knows the dangers involved with football--and then play on.
February 12th, 2012 at 3:35 PM ^
1) Football does not have some talismanic/mystical origin that precludes any tweaking of it. Human beings created it and have changed it over time. Human beings can and do continue to change it. Therefore, I don't know how true or significant it is to say "that is the game." Based on that rationale, players would still have leather helmets because "that is the game."
2) That something is exciting is not per se justification for its existence. It's possible (and reasonable IMHE) to consider whether the excitement fans feel during kickoffs is worth the occasional Eric LeGrand. Some (myself, and apparently the NCAA included) reasonably think it's not. Particularly when it's not a professional who's injured (i.e., someone for whom football is their life's work), but instead a college kid for whom football is not and likely will not be their profession. But even in the case of pros, why not protect them against known serious risks and shortened lives? Because fans get excited?
3) That some activity is voluntarily undertaken in a free society does not mean that measures should not be taken to make the activity safer. Otherwise, why have safety mechanisms on hunting rifles? Or bike helmets? Or [fill in any of countless safety measures for voluntary activities].
On this last point, you've equivocated by highlighting the voluntary nature of the game, but also talking about equipment safety and penalties for dangerous plays. So where do we draw the line for making adjustments? Based on some fuzzy notion of tradition or the game's true "essence"?
February 12th, 2012 at 5:24 PM ^
your ding-a-ling? (I filled it. You're welcome.)
February 12th, 2012 at 6:02 PM ^
fundamentally alter the character of the game itself, and thus its appeal to fans, who are after all the reason the game is played today. (Although I admit that one person's "fundamentally alter" is another person's "necessary change"). I think having fewer kickoff returns, by design, falls into the former category of change that lessens the excitement level of the game.
Regarding the subjective notion of how much change is too much, IMO it is change that alters the nature of the game vs. change that plays around the margins. As examples of the forner I'd offer reducing kickoffs by design, and the myriad of changes that the NFL implemented designed to protect one person, the QB. As examples of the latter I'd offer changes in equipment, face mask penalties, and other current safety measures. Once you start eliminating actual plays in the game (kickoff returns) for completely unproven safety benefits, I'd say you've gone too far (given that football is a voluntary activity where the dangers are known by all that participate).
February 12th, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^
From your linked article: The paper itself questioned the reliability of using phone surveys to assess prevalence rates of diagnosed dementia, as did several experts in telephone interviews.
The link article also doesn't say a word about what should be done about the concussions. I didn't read anything in there about new helmet designs, rule changes ... or anything of the sort. It's a rather typical NY Times article decrying a problem for the sake of decrying a problem.
I'm not dismissing the reality that some ex-football players have issues. It's a rough sport. And there's a good chance other factors play into the later general health of players who play football, excel at it, and make a career of it.
February 12th, 2012 at 12:25 PM ^
As a rather typical NYTimes article, it includes the proper disclaimers and qualifications from the work it's discussing. That doesn't make the study bunk; it makes it less conclusive, and in need of confirmation using alternative methodologies. If they find out the rate only multiplies by 5 instead of 19, it's still reason to change the game. You might not be dismissing "the reality that some ex-football players have issues," but dismissing the statistical reality that concussions have serious, avoidable consequences is still pretty crass and thoughtless. Not impressed.
February 12th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^
I didn't say the study was bunk. I simply pointed out the article itself drew the study into question. And I also pointed out the article does nothing to suggest remedies to address the very problem it reports on.
February 12th, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^
Football may be a contact sport, but it could still be made safer. I don't know where the stat comes from, but the average life expectancy of an NFL player who plays for more than five years is estimated at between 53 and 59 years.
There is no study on average lifespan of college players yet, but it's not much of a "reach" to deduce that the collisions have more force as the level of competition becomes better. Also, everyone knows how to train their bodies for maximum power and their technique for maximum results. Thanks to information being so readily available to all coaches now, everyone maximizes their output, and the force of any collision is increased even more.
The game is probably at a crossroads now. It needs to be made safer without compromising the quality of the game. One place to start is quarterbacks. Currently, after a quarterback passes, a rusher can apparently take one whole step toward him, hit him, and then he is also allowed to slam the QB to the ground for another impact that has absolutely nothing to do with the play.
Quarterbacks take numerous impacts like this every game, and they are totally unnecessary. I think that after the ball is gone, the player should not be allowed to make an aggressive move to the QB.
Anyway, www.sportslegacy.org, run by Harvard grad and ex-WWE performer Christopher Nowinski, is a clearinghouse for CTE. If you really need any stats or studies proving that the game is dangerous, especially at elite levels, there is plenty of information there.
February 12th, 2012 at 9:44 AM ^
The ironic part of your post is that none of these guys returned kicks.
So I suggest we take the worse part of the game out with the following ideas.
- Have the OL and DL play speed chess instead of hit each other. The winner protects or gets the QB. This will save on torn ACLs/MCLs and eye gouges.
- The RBs will be able to start their rushes 10 yards in advance of the Line of Scrimmage. This will allow them to avoid the LBs who lurk just past the chess playing linemen. They will wear lime green jerseys.
- The QBs will be surrounded by a shark cage, just in case an errant CB blitz goes wrong and they have a free shot at the QB. The QBs will wear red jerseys, like in practice. No need to confuse things.
- The TEs will be able to catch balls over the middle now without fear of being hammered by those pesky LBs, because there will be a rule that they must be given a 10 yard bubble. Even after the catch.
- All WRs will run streaks or deep posts. The CBs may follow, but will not be allowed to touch the WRs AT ALL. Even if the WR initiates the contact. The result is 1st and goal no matter where it happens on the field.
- The CBs and safeties will be allowed to hit. But it must be with a highly padded pugel stick. Minimum thickness to be 12 inches diameter per 1 inch diameter on the gripping part of the stick.
- Dousing the coaches with gatorade will result from immediate expulsion from the league. Those gatorade jugs are heavy and anyone doing anything that violent on purpose needs to be taught a lesson.
Sorry about the spacing, for some reason it formatted it this way.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^
that's not irony.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^
We are talking about avoiding concussions by moving kickoffs to the point of irrelevancy. However the players you listed are not kick return guys.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^
It would be ironic for Plaxico Burres to bring a gun to a nightclub for protection and then shoot himself with it...
It would be ironic for Jim Tressel to get a job as a compliance director...
And it would be ironic for me to declare that you have a firm grasp on the concept of irony.
February 12th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
IMO he's absolutely right. You're arguing for the elimination of kickoffs and you listed a whole bunch of players who got hurt not returning kickoffs or playing on the kickoff team. To me the point is obvious: if those guys were the ones you wanted to protect from head injury, kickoffs are not the thing that should be legislated out of the game.
February 12th, 2012 at 11:20 AM ^
whether or not he had a point, it wasn't ironic. that was my point.
EDIT: Defintion of irony is "when what is said is contrary to the intention" ala "hey, phork, you have a firm grasp on irony" when the intention is that he has no idea what irony is.
An alternate definition of irony is "the disparity between intention and result" like plaxico burress bringing a gun for protection but shooting himself on accident.
My intial comments may have been slightly irrelevant tot he argument, but they werent ironic.
February 12th, 2012 at 11:18 AM ^
But swanflu is right; that is not irony. Irony (its most common form, anyway) is employment of something to achieve a particular outcome, only to achieve the exact opposite outcome because of the very thing employed. Thus, the Plaxico Burress example, etc...
And this was really about the larger issue of safety in football, of which kickoffs are a prominent subtopic.
The clearest example of the danger of kickoffs, as I pointed out above, is Mr. LeGrand, who was injured on what appeared to be a routine play. It's the routine-ness of it that makes it so horrific.
February 12th, 2012 at 5:35 PM ^
February 12th, 2012 at 2:32 PM ^
dont know why i got downvoted... it was not irony.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:13 AM ^
Or the ones who aren't. See: Dave Duerson.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:19 AM ^
and there are babies whose mothers drank during pregnancy that are born healthy... does that mean we should allow pregnant women to drink all they want?
February 12th, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^
That whooshing sound was Boston's point (which completely agrees with you) going right over your head. Dave Duerson isn't "living" with a brain injury anymore, is the idea.
February 12th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
thanks. i was wondering what that sound was. perhaps my post would have been better placed after someone suggested that hundreds of players are perfectly healthy post-career.
February 12th, 2012 at 11:25 AM ^
Perhaps so. But I don't think it's the best analogy, because the baby has no say in the matter, whereas football is a consciously made decision. Really, I feel like this kickoff stuff borders on slacktivism. A way to say "look, we're doing something" without having to really do something. And as long as players will lie about their health in order to get back into the game - which is extremely commonplace - there's only so much that can be done, and it's not much.
February 12th, 2012 at 12:22 PM ^
"A way to say "look, we're doing something" without having to really do something."
+1
Or, as in the case of the NY Times article linked earlier ... to say "Look, something should be done!" The easiest thing in the world is to point at an issue and cry out about how something should be done about it ... without venturing any suggestions as to what should be done.
February 12th, 2012 at 2:49 PM ^
February 12th, 2012 at 2:43 PM ^
February 12th, 2012 at 2:48 PM ^
It's really that simple. This is a dangerous, entirely volunteer game.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:58 AM ^
Did you know that the kickoff is the most dangerous play in football?
Yes, even more dangerous than punt returns where it's one guy who can get his head taken off if he doesn't waive his hand in the air.
I love how the FANS make these calls, but many have never played the game. Not for one down.
Ask anyone who's every PLAYED football...kickoffs are THE most dangerous play in football.
You have 10 guys (the kicker doesn't count) who get a running start at you. On punt coverage, guys have to stay back and block.
On kick coverage it's a bunch of fast guys who hit hard...On punt coverage it's a couple of WR/CBs, some FB/LBs and then lineman.
On kick coverage...the return team often turns it back to the oncoming tacklers, and doesn't really have a man as much as you have an area (that's why Coach Hoke is so intent on "placing the kick"...if you can place a kick you can pretty much eliminate 2-3 blockers on the other side of the field because they have no one to block).
The biggest thing is that there really isn't a fair catch on kick coverage (I know it's possible, but how often do you see it?) AND if you don't catch the ball in the field of play and it stays in the field of play...it's a live ball.
Obviously on a punt, it's not, it's just downed inside the 10 or whatever. So if you're in danger, you don't HAVE to field the kick...on kickoffs, you do. If that ball is going to the 1 yardline, you better catch it and start running.
The only thing more dangerous than a kickoff...an onside kickoff.
February 12th, 2012 at 11:15 AM ^
Okay, then just ban kickoffs. I mean look at the NFL, the kickoff is now just a placeholder to make sure they can get in that extra commercial (you know how the NFL loves the sequence of):
1. Scoring Play
2. Commercial Break
3. PAT
4. Commercial Break
5. Kickoff (Probably a touchback now-a-days)
6. Commercial Break
7. Real Play Resumes
(Estimated time between action #1 and #7... well let's just say you ain't watching soccer bud, prepare to witness hundreds of Bud Light commercials in one 3 hour sitting).
-Chet
February 12th, 2012 at 5:06 PM ^
I don't disagree with what you said one bit...I'm just saying that it is a dangerous play in football.
Part of me says leave it alone, part of me says move it up, part of me says eliminate it all together...
...when I add all that together, I quickly the biggest part of me doesn't really give a damn. Just play football.
February 12th, 2012 at 11:49 AM ^
Just an anecdote to add, I returned kicks and always got hit much harder on punt return than kick offs. For the returner I think kicks are safer, it is really all the people in between.
February 12th, 2012 at 2:46 PM ^
February 12th, 2012 at 5:35 PM ^
than punt returns.
Nearly every kick return can involve a collision with both players running at full speed in opposite directions. That doesn't happen very often in punts, as the return man usually doesn't get a chance to get up to full speed in the direction of the coverage team.
February 12th, 2012 at 2:20 PM ^
i lika da rule
February 12th, 2012 at 8:13 PM ^
I mean, Teddy Roosevelt completely ruined the game when he created the forward pass and got rid of the flying wedge.
February 12th, 2012 at 8:34 AM ^
Why do they want to limit Dennis Norfleet as soon as we get him.... Thats just my thinking he will have the kickoff return duties
February 12th, 2012 at 8:40 AM ^
February 12th, 2012 at 8:39 AM ^
covertly install wind machines in both scoreboards and turn them on when necessary.
February 12th, 2012 at 9:17 AM ^
Kickoffs in the NFL are pointless for the most part and a position that certain types of athlete are being phased out. I understand the concussion threat, but I think the punt returner is in much more danger. He is looking up at the ball while two or more guys are flying right at him to separate him from the ball. At least during a kickoff, the returner sees what's coming.
This is a bad idea and I would think that college would learn from the NFL failure that this is not good for the game. As the season went on, more and more players were returning kicks from 5 or more yards deep in the endzone. Return guys want to do what they do.
If you want to significantly reduce head and brain injuries, auto atically eject any defender who makes contact with a ball carrier's helmet with his helmet. Once the players and coaches understand the rule, the helmet to helmet hits will stop. Players want to play. This is so much worse than eliminating the jump ball in basketball. I don't even watch kickoffs on Sunday's there no real point.
Advertisers won't like it because they will realize fans watching on TV will skip the kickoff knowing there is an 80% chance that's it's a touchback. That extra commercial break will cost advertisers and they will force football to drop the kickoff all together and start from the 20. This will get ridiculous.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:58 AM ^
-they have turned from a means of protection to a blunt weapon. If eliminating helmet-to-helmet contact could be done in a reasonable and fair way, that would certainly decrease the incidence of concussions and head injuries. BUT, it is a huge part of the game- (OL/DL line play, anyone?)- I don't see how it could be applied (no pun). Maybe if there was something regarding limiting it vs the ball carrier....?
February 12th, 2012 at 9:28 AM ^
I'm fine with it for safety reasons, but then just don't kick off at all. They will be pretty pointless if this goes into effect.
February 12th, 2012 at 9:28 AM ^
I'm fine with it for safety reasons, but then just don't kick off at all. They will be pretty pointless if this goes into effect.