hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
This totally would have saved us in the Taxslayer Bowl. Hell, Jonathan Parker might never have left.
New Kickoff Rule
- Thread starter tksirius
- Start date
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
Sure, I just wasn't sure what you were asking.
I think the odds definitely are higher, especially in a line-drive kick, but if it's a ballooned kick and defenders are near you (like in a punt situation), the odds of a turnover increase if you field it. My assumption is that the NCAA sees this as a way of reducing the overall number of returns, and, therefore, the risk of concussions.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Not sure I explained it well.
I'm assuming the average start position now is inside the 25. (which may be incorrect). Let's say it's the 18.
The kickoff team wants to either kick a touchback eliminating the chance of return or kick it in such that the returner is held inside the 25 (dropping it in at the 4 yard line). The new rule would take the later option away. So, the average field position would hypothetically mover farther out since the reward for a perfectly placed kick (landing at the 4 yard line and tackling the guy short of the 25) is taken away.
A failed onside kick still gives the other team good position, but the difference...is smaller...which makes it a slightly better risk than before.There was an interesting piece about a high school coach that onside kicks every time and the numbers really supported him. If the average start position with the new rule is further up field, the "lost yardage" of a failed onside kick is less than it used to be...making it a slightly better risk than before.
I'm sure there's 100 ways to shoot a hole in that, but it makes sense given those parameters.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
I still think hawkfanntn's solution--line drive, bouncing squib kicks--is the answer. Just Johnny Steamroller the ball off the tee every time with a bouncer/line-drive kick.
The other side of it--which seems not to have been addressed--is the drop/muff of a kick. If that happens on a punt, fair catch or not, it's a free ball. I would think the same would apply, but with these morons, who knows?
The other side of it--which seems not to have been addressed--is the drop/muff of a kick. If that happens on a punt, fair catch or not, it's a free ball. I would think the same would apply, but with these morons, who knows?
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
It would have made more sense to simply change the rule to include the 5 yard line in a touchback with a fair catch. A ball field closer to mid-field means the kickoff team has less distance to run and would have to slow down sooner and perhaps not reach top speed.
From that article: "One of the things that when I was researching, I think it was like, in the old kickoff rules, 17 percent of the catastrophic injuries happened on kickoffs, yet it's only about 6 percent of the plays in the game," Schiano said.
That is the driving force for all of this: kickoff returns really are substantially more dangerous than other football plays.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
I think slowing down the KO coverage team is exactly what the NCAA wants.
I'm okay with allowing the returner the option to fair catch at his discretion. Simply extending the line out to the 5 yard line creates a bit of an issue, in that the returner would need to insure his feet are behind the line, which means taking eyes off the ball. Conceivably, he may wave at the 4 1/2 yard line, but have to step up at the last second, fielding the ball at the 5 1/2 yard line. Not good. Or, worrying about it, he may field it normally, then get blasted by the coverage, thereby increasing the concussion risk.
It makes more sense to give the returner the discretion to fair catch anywhere inside the 25 to ensure that the 25 is the LOS. If it's a short kick or a line-drive kick, the returner can decide to take a chance and field it normally.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
you stand with your feet on the 5 yard line and if you move forward 1 inch to catch the ball, you can't fair catch. if you move backwards to catch the ball, you can fair catch.
But let me state again, this rule makes absolutely no sense to me. If the intended consequence is to slow down the kickoff team players to lessen impact; I don't think this is the way to do it. If they really wanted to slow down kickoff team players, they would allow fair catch inside the 20 yard line and that would allow the ball to be spotted at the 30. Then, move the ball out to the 20 if the ball is kicked out of the end zone. I would coach my players to fair catch on the 15 yard line for a guaranteed spot at the 30 yard line.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
With the current rule you can fair catch at the 15 and get the ball at the 25, so I don't see how that's much different than what you're proposing. The way it is right now, any fair catch inside the 25, or touchback, results with the ball at the 25. That would slow down the coverage players as they would see the hand waved and let up.
As for the 5-yard line idea, it still puts the returner (and the coverage players) in a very awkward position around the 5. Sometimes you move forward or backward at the very last second and don't have time to alter your declaration. You may step up, realize you can't fair catch, then move back at the last second and want to fair catch but don't have time. As a former returner, I can tell you, that is not an ideal situation at all.
Last edited:
Ree4
Well-Known Member
If the point of the rule is to reduce the risk of injury it still doesn't really accomplish that. Gunners will still be running into blockers - they have to assume that the fielder is NOT going to fair catch the ball. Really seems like a silly rule - but getting rid of kickoffs altogether would remove the possibility of getting onside kicks - I guess that would benefit us more since we generally are victims of onside kicks more than we are beneficiaries.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
I agree to a point. I'm not a fan of the rule, and it's definitely not ideal, but I think it's safe to say that the overall number of significant collisions would be lessoned if players have the comfort of knowing that they can get the ball to the 25 without an active return.
Ree4
Well-Known Member
They would still need to block though in the event that the returner drops the kick and not everyone is able to see if he signals fair catch or not. Unless teams know they are absolutely going to fair catch before the kick I think the effect of the rule would be minimal. I could be wrong of course but I'm interested to see how it plays out.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
you're right. Nothing about the rule makes sense. That's been my point. I only offered a counter to answer a question.
NoBeer
Well-Known Member
The Schiano plan addresses the need to have a play like onsides kicks where you get a chance to retain or regain possession of the ball in a desperation late game move.
Plus, converting a 4th and 15 is more skill-based than recovering an onside kick. The onside kick is exciting, but it is fluky as hell (weird bounces of an oblong ball and such).
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
There would still be contact, no doubt. I think it's simply a matter of degree. The league is trying to reduce the frequency and intensity of collisions, but, without eliminating KOs entirely. there's no way to completely mitigate the risk.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
I watched the Ohio State Spring game on BTN. They banned tackling. It wasn't that hard to watch.
That is where football is going to end up (eventually). Blocking will be legal, but tackling will not be. Backs, receivers and QBs will have flags at their waists that must be pulled to accomplish a tackle. Basically, flag football with pads and helmets. The ongoing CTE research is going to kill tackle football. The sport as currently played is too dangerous for these young men who play it. I love the current sport of college football, but it will end for the sake of the players.
That is where football is going to end up (eventually). Blocking will be legal, but tackling will not be. Backs, receivers and QBs will have flags at their waists that must be pulled to accomplish a tackle. Basically, flag football with pads and helmets. The ongoing CTE research is going to kill tackle football. The sport as currently played is too dangerous for these young men who play it. I love the current sport of college football, but it will end for the sake of the players.
STILLBUSTER
Well-Known Member
I'm ok with the fair catch as long as it's down where caught - just like a punt. You might think no one would ever fair catch a ball at the 20, 15 or 10 but it happens all the time on punts.
Because it's extremely unfair to give a potential 24 yard bonus to the receiving team, this rule will NOT stay intact beyond this season. I could see the spot being moved back to the 20 (ideally, it should be the 15) on fair catches and staying at the 25 on a touchback.
The 10 yard difference in spot would rebalance the advantage to both teams -- reward the kicking team / defense for a great kick, not crush the receiving team / offense up against the goal line, still achieve the intended safety goals.
Because it's extremely unfair to give a potential 24 yard bonus to the receiving team, this rule will NOT stay intact beyond this season. I could see the spot being moved back to the 20 (ideally, it should be the 15) on fair catches and staying at the 25 on a touchback.
The 10 yard difference in spot would rebalance the advantage to both teams -- reward the kicking team / defense for a great kick, not crush the receiving team / offense up against the goal line, still achieve the intended safety goals.
