NFL Considering Change to Kickoffs

[Rob0729]

Why not just eliminate the kick off all together? Gostkowski can kick a touchback now 8 times out of 10 assuming he still has the same power coming back from injury. I hate this rule.

 

[Ghost of Ben Dreith]

I actually love this new rule.

It is beneficial to the players for injury reduction, it is beneficial to the fans for less off-side re-kicks....and....a big booted kicker is going to force you to start at your 20....unless you got the sack to haul it out....

 

[Gwedd]

I actually love this new rule.

It is beneficial to the players for injury reduction, it is beneficial to the fans for less off-side re-kicks....and....a big booted kicker is going to force you to start at your 20....unless you got the sack to haul it out....

Agreed. I am looking forward to this and seeing how it well play out.

 

[Dagg]

Interesting my main complaint on Graham waa kick offs and not his FGs. Wonder if this helps a kicker like him compete. Gost still makes me nervous esp. in big games.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I actually love this new rule.

It is beneficial to the players for injury reduction, it is beneficial to the fans for less off-side re-kicks....and....a big booted kicker is going to force you to start at your 20....unless you got the sack to haul it out....

Upon further consideration I'm changing to a like because BB said it was safer and could reduce injuries. I hate the loss of skilled players to injury. And if concussions are reduced, much better for post football quality of life.

 

[Gwedd]

Upon further consideration I'm changing to a like because BB said it was safer and could reduce injuries. I hate the loss of skilled players to injury. And if concussions are reduced, much better for post football quality of life.

Agreed. Like I said, I'm interested to see how this plays out. Ought to be interesting, regardless.

 

[Wolfpack]

I actually love this new rule.

It is beneficial to the players for injury reduction, it is beneficial to the fans for less off-side re-kicks....and....a big booted kicker is going to force you to start at your 20....unless you got the sack to haul it out....

Whuh huh? How is this "beneficial to fans"? It's taking away one of the most exciting plays in the game. I don't see how that benefits fans. That's why they moved it back to the 30 in the first place: To make things more exciting. And it worked so it stayed at the 30.

 

[Wolfpack]

The Colts' special teams suck, and Polian was trying to pull a 2004.

Yeah, sure. And what Jedi mind trick did he use on the rest of the competition committee and the 26 owners who supported the change? Are they all in the bag for the Colts?

 

[PrairiePat]

Now that they've put the dampers on the most exciting play in the game, the Competition Committee should throw the fans a bone by eliminating the incredibly obnoxious TV timeout after most kickoffs.

It was bad before, now we're going to be forced to endure (bunch-of-commercials, ko/touchback, bunch-of-commercials), with little possibility of any excitement from the only actual football play in this sequence.

Bad for viewers at home, especially bad for fans at the game.

 

[Wolfpack]

Now that they've put the dampers on the most exciting play in the game, the Competition Committee should throw the fans a bone by eliminating the incredibly obnoxious TV timeout after most kickoffs.

There are a fixed number of commercials for every game. Kickoffs follow scores and oftentimes a score comes from a long drive. When there is a long scoring drive, the network needs to catch up with their commercials, hence the commercial break, kickoff, another commercial break routine.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, sure. And what Jedi mind trick did he use on the rest of the competition committee and the 26 owners who supported the change? Are they all in the bag for the Colts?

He got the 2004 changes passed too, smartass.

 

[Wolfpack]

He got the 2004 changes passed too, smartass.

If you're talking about the emphasis on illegal defensive contact in the secondary, that is an entirely different matter because that wasn't a rules change and didn't have a 3/4ths majority vote among the owners. So like I said... how did Polian single handedly engineer a vote of 26 owners to go along with his dastardly plans? Are they all in the bag for the Colts?

Feel free to learn what you're talking about any day now.