The End Of Kickoffs? - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

Froob · 12-06-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlcarr

My problem with PATs is, like Belichick's problem with them, that they are too automatic and are thus an essentially meaningless play.

So either make them meaningful or get rid of them.

I think the easiest thing to do is simply spot the ball at the 18 for PATs so they would be 35yd attempts instead of 19.5yd attempts.

Didn't somebody lose a game the other day missing a pat? Chiefs maybe?

***ctpatsfan77*** · 12-06-2012, 03:40 PM

BTW: does anyone else find it ironic that, according to PFT, the idea came from Greg Schiano?

The same Greg Schiano who is trying to kill the victory formation?

Joey007 · 12-06-2012, 04:00 PM

So what about onside kicks??

Sicilian · 12-06-2012, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

Kick-offs have been a part of the game since day 1. Taking it out of the game is completely changing the game.

And this is the first change to the NFL that's ever happened?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

As for your BS claim, sorry, but getting rid of kick-offs would be followed by them wearing flags instead of tackling. And you damn well know it.

Just like enacting a speed limit eventually led to the outlawing of cars, outlawing drinking and driving led to a (permanent) prohibition of alcohol, and gay marriage will eventually lead to people marrying their dogs. This logic has never stood up in any argument ever. It is possible to limit an action until you reach an acceptable level of risk and then stop, it happens all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

I have yet to see any evidence that there were more injuries on kick-offs than any other play during a game. All we have is Goodell's claims. And we already know that Goodell will exaggerate to the point of lying to make his case.

I have no evidence either way, but let me ask you this: What exactly would be to Goodell's benefit to get rid of the kickoff IF there was no evidence that it was more dangerous? If it's all show for the courtroom, he would only need to make the change if there was a reasonable chance it could be used against the NFL in a lawsuit. If no one could point to evidence that the NFL was endangering these players on kick-offs, there would be no reason to make the change.

***Deus Irae*** · 12-06-2012, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sicilian

....Just like enacting a speed limit eventually led to the outlawing of cars, outlawing drinking and driving led to a (permanent) prohibition of alcohol, and gay marriage will eventually lead to people marrying their dogs. This logic has never stood up in any argument ever. It is possible to limit an action until you reach an acceptable level of risk and then stop, it happens all the time...

While it's certainly not 100%, slippery slope arguments have proven accurate time and again. It is, in fact, the basis for much of U.S. law, and it's huge in politics, as Ted Kennedy noted with his "half a loaf".

RayClay · 12-06-2012, 04:16 PM

I hate the idea, but if they needed a diiferent way to start a sequence...

Choose to start on your own one, or let the other team.

I suppose non half starting (after scores) could just be at the twenty to avoid whole games full of futility.

Start with four downs, of course.

I still hate it. I agree that kickoffs don't seem to be the cause of injuries more than any Other play.

If we had banned PATs we'd have Gronk.

They do need to address safety, but i wish they did it when they had a commish with more common sense.

manxman2601 · 12-06-2012, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sicilian

Just like enacting a speed limit eventually led to the outlawing of cars, outlawing drinking and driving led to a (permanent) prohibition of alcohol, and gay marriage will eventually lead to people marrying their dogs. This logic has never stood up in any argument ever. It is possible to limit an action until you reach an acceptable level of risk and then stop, it happens all the time.

Sorry, but you're building a whole bunch of straw men there. It's not unreasonable to suggest that limiting contact on kickoff will lead to further rules limiting contact bearing in mind that the proposed new kickoff rules would be part of an already slippery slope, namely the changes in kickoff rules already in place.

Sicilian · 12-06-2012, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

While it's certainly not 100%, slippery slope arguments have proven accurate time and again. It is, in fact, the basis for much of U.S. law, and it's huge in politics, as Ted Kennedy noted with his "half a loaf".

Hyperbole may have gotten the better of me here. I just took exception to the notion that this rule suddenly is the first stepping stone to flag football and how I "damn well know it", when there are numerous examples of society being perfectly willing to accept dangerous behavior... assuming they've reached an acceptable level of mitigation.

Sicilian · 12-06-2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manxman2601

Sorry, but you're building a whole bunch of straw men there. It's not unreasonable to suggest that limiting contact on kickoff will lead to further rules limiting contact bearing in mind that the proposed new kickoff rules would be part of an already slippery slope, namely the changes in kickoff rules already in place.

They're not trying to limit contact in general on kickoffs, they're trying to find a way to not have a combined 450-500 lbs of muscle slam together at 40 mph. That may happen once on a fluke play during a game, but it happens at least a half dozen times EVERY kickoff. I'm not sure this solution is the best one, but I can see why they would be mulling over options.

fnordcircle · 12-06-2012, 05:17 PM

I support pretty much any rule change which helps prevent injuries to other human beings, but I'm a wacko liberal pinko fag, apparently.