The new kickoff rule i can live with except for a touchback.
The hip tackle will just cause chaos and it's a 15 yard penalty.
The real killer is if there's a touchback on the kickoff they want the offense to start at the 35 yard line.
This is just ruining the game, I would go back to starting on the 20 imho.
why not just go to college overtime rules and start on the other teams 25.
the kicking team has no incentive to do so that’s why the 35 yard line
They want the kicker to kick between goal line and 20. If returner calls for touch back in this area.. ball placed at 20.. therefore incentive for returner to run it out
That’s my take.
It's all BS. They moved the kickoffs up to reduce the number of returns because they claimed that the kick returns played a big part in injuries and concussions. Now they want teams to return more kicks by having teams not kick the football into the end zone?
the kicking team has no incentive to do so that’s why the 35 yard line
They want the kicker to kick between goal line and 20. If returner calls for touch back in this area.. ball placed at 20.. therefore incentive for returner to run it out
That’s my take.
I can see this forcing teams to have a second kicker who is skilled at dropping it at a specific spot within that 20 yard area on top of a kicker with a strong leg for 55 yard field goals.
There aren't a bigger group of phonies than the NFL owners and the dork they hired to represent them - Goodell.
You are 100% correct, btw. The biggest prize for owners is 18 games. No doubt about it. They know they are in the entertainment business - which is true, actually - and they want more of their product to be consumed. Thus, more games.
That's because safety is only considered at its intersection with profit.
2. Position the kicking team line so that the players can’t get to the goal line on any kick that can reach the end zone (i.e., a kick with optimal distance trajectory). No start up until the ball is kicked.
3. Place the touchback at the 20, or 25, or 30, whatever appears to work best after a season or more of play.
If you want to further limit the kicker’s ability, don’t let him use a tee. Need a holder.
More than likely
The hip drop tackle is where all the high ankle injuries come from. Another great rule. Don’t drag the carrier and your weight to shatter his leg. How about form tackling?
We can always tell who actually read the article from their posts…
I think that's the point. Make it in the kicking's team best interest to kick it off and play the return.
This might be one of the dumber posts here. The hip drop is NOT a form tackle. A form tackle is when you line a runner up, put your shoulder squarely into the runners’ chest/stomach area and roll your hips, lift the carrier and plant him.
The hip drop tackle is completely different- the defender grabs the runner from the side or behind, drops their hips (meaning, uses their weight to pull down) and uses their body weight to bring the carrier down- usually resulting in the carrier getting their legs rolled up under the tackler or twisted an an odd angle. The carrier has two choices- go down at contact or risk and injury trying to run through it.
Just to demonstrate, when Dak broke his leg against the Giants a couple years ago- that was a hip drop tackle. It was not a common type of tackle then- but it has become one. In fact, in one game, a Cincinnati LB used it 3 times and injured 3 different players.
It has NO place in the game, and the chest beaters (who are usually posers anyway) about how soft the game has gotten rarely look at facts because they would rather rant about their fake macho ideas than use facts.
I'm not sure why that's so controversial. It's the way any of us who learned to play as kids were taught.
the kicking team has no incentive to do so that’s why the 35 yard line
They want the kicker to kick between goal line and 20. If returner calls for touch back in this area.. ball placed at 20.. therefore incentive for returner to run it out
That’s my take.
Too bad BB is out of the game this season- he was already doing this. He would have his kickers put the ball high in the air, and come down short of the goal line. His apparent thinking was that if the guy returned it, the coverage team would be there as the ball did and put them in bad field position.
To counter that, teams started calling fair catches inside the 10 so the ball would move out to the 25.
This move appears to be an attempt to counter teams trying to benefit from a loophole in the rules. It used to be that when you kicked off, you HAD to return it if it was outside the end zone or it would be marked down where the returner received it.
In the old days, you had to maintain your lane on kick coverage- meaning that you were not to freelance and chase the ball across the field- hold your lane until the returner got to you. This appears to be the intent- force teams to strategize again on both sides.
For example, under this new rule, if you have two deep guys for return, you could have one catch the ball and the other run towards the receiver- and either fake or hand off the ball to the second guy. If a coverage team freelances and doesn’t maintain their lane, the receiving team is likely to get a big return if the second player runs against the coverage.
You are also likely to see teams use larger players up the middle- players used to blocking (like TEs and backup OL) on return and LB/DEs on coverage- guys who use used to disengaging from blocks. Because you will be moved up about 30-40 yards, you can no longer rely on a head of steam to push your way through- you will have to rely on pass rush techniques to break through quickly and get yourself in position to make a play.
I suspect that teams will no longer use very small guys back there if the coverage team uses a number of larger guys- even getting rid of the running start, when a little guy takes a hit from a larger player at the Line, they then to go flying backwards. Teams might be more inclined to use RBs as KR to have players used to taking a hit and being able to fall forward to spin through the hit.
Nah, if you fumble it through the end zone it should stay a touchback
Quote:
.
We can always tell who actually read the article from their posts…
Yeah that’s me. All I’ve been reading for years is that they want to get rid of the kick off entirely for safety reasons and now they don’t?
Still haven’t read by the way.
I mean, most of us agree. If it only weren't for the fact that the NFL continues to make more money for the owners than ever...
Quote:
So they renamed the form tackle and then outlawed it? Apologies if I'm overstating it hut this game is going to be unrecognizable in 10 years.
This might be one of the dumber posts here. The hip drop is NOT a form tackle. A form tackle is when you line a runner up, put your shoulder squarely into the runners’ chest/stomach area and roll your hips, lift the carrier and plant him.
The hip drop tackle is completely different- the defender grabs the runner from the side or behind, drops their hips (meaning, uses their weight to pull down) and uses their body weight to bring the carrier down- usually resulting in the carrier getting their legs rolled up under the tackler or twisted an an odd angle. The carrier has two choices- go down at contact or risk and injury trying to run through it.
Just to demonstrate, when Dak broke his leg against the Giants a couple years ago- that was a hip drop tackle. It was not a common type of tackle then- but it has become one. In fact, in one game, a Cincinnati LB used it 3 times and injured 3 different players.
It has NO place in the game, and the chest beaters (who are usually posers anyway) about how soft the game has gotten rarely look at facts because they would rather rant about their fake macho ideas than use facts.
Your definition of a form tackle would likely constitute a Roughing the Passer penalty in today's NFL, if applied to a quarterback. Form tackles induce injuries, as do "hip drop" tackles. Welcome to biomechanics; contact sports correspond with injury risk. Quite ironically, the increased prevalence of hip drop tackles applied to ball carriers within the pocket was partially in response to the evolution of rules severely limiting the target area for defensive players.
Furthermore, how would a defensive player go about applying a proper form tackle to a ball carrier from behind or from the side? I ask rhetorically, of course, because the standard definition of a form tackle cannot often be applied in those circumstances. When chasing a ball carrier from behind, a hip drop tackle is generally the easiest and and most practical technique, and it has been taught within this context for decades. Banning the hip drop tackle, which the Player's Union is in favor of protecting, is tantamount to ceding the end zone to any ball carrier behind the last line of defense.
Quote:
So they renamed the form tackle and then outlawed it? Apologies if I'm overstating it hut this game is going to be unrecognizable in 10 years.
This might be one of the dumber posts here. The hip drop is NOT a form tackle. A form tackle is when you line a runner up, put your shoulder squarely into the runners’ chest/stomach area and roll your hips, lift the carrier and plant him.
The hip drop tackle is completely different- the defender grabs the runner from the side or behind, drops their hips (meaning, uses their weight to pull down) and uses their body weight to bring the carrier down- usually resulting in the carrier getting their legs rolled up under the tackler or twisted an an odd angle. The carrier has two choices- go down at contact or risk and injury trying to run through it.
Just to demonstrate, when Dak broke his leg against the Giants a couple years ago- that was a hip drop tackle. It was not a common type of tackle then- but it has become one. In fact, in one game, a Cincinnati LB used it 3 times and injured 3 different players.
It has NO place in the game, and the chest beaters (who are usually posers anyway) about how soft the game has gotten rarely look at facts because they would rather rant about their fake macho ideas than use facts.
Ok but at this level of play how do you expect a defensive player to tackle from behind especially a CB going againts the TE and 250 pound RBs of the league there is physically no way to tackle a player without using your weight to slow down a player at that angle. What is upsetting is every rule goes againts one side of the ball and its out of hand now and has been for a while
No. It's the hip drop tackle. Rugby outlawed this a few years back and it reduced ankle injuries.
It's essentially a cousin of the horse collar tackle. The issue is when a 300 lb lineman drops his hips to the ground to pull a WR/RB backwards and their leg is under the lineman.
It really won't be hard to police this, it's as obvious as a horse collar. And after a preseason of over enforcement, players will adjust accordingly.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
So they renamed the form tackle and then outlawed it? Apologies if I'm overstating it hut this game is going to be unrecognizable in 10 years.
This might be one of the dumber posts here. The hip drop is NOT a form tackle. A form tackle is when you line a runner up, put your shoulder squarely into the runners’ chest/stomach area and roll your hips, lift the carrier and plant him.
The hip drop tackle is completely different- the defender grabs the runner from the side or behind, drops their hips (meaning, uses their weight to pull down) and uses their body weight to bring the carrier down- usually resulting in the carrier getting their legs rolled up under the tackler or twisted an an odd angle. The carrier has two choices- go down at contact or risk and injury trying to run through it.
Just to demonstrate, when Dak broke his leg against the Giants a couple years ago- that was a hip drop tackle. It was not a common type of tackle then- but it has become one. In fact, in one game, a Cincinnati LB used it 3 times and injured 3 different players.
It has NO place in the game, and the chest beaters (who are usually posers anyway) about how soft the game has gotten rarely look at facts because they would rather rant about their fake macho ideas than use facts.
Will this penalty end hip-drop tackles? No. But it'll be like the horse-collar tackle: Less common because it's illegal. You can't stop guys from doing it, but you can discourage it with a major penalty.