Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    kingpin9995 is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    182
    1998 wide left... All that work for a pip squeak kicker to take it away from us. Norwood wide right.... Take these gusy out of a MANS GAME...

    Hey stop bogarting... Give me some of dat..

  2. #12
    kingpin9995 is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    182
    Football is already ruined with the rule changes they have made that hamstring defenses. Players from the past I am sure shake their head in shame to see where this game has gone. Quarterbacks in skirts all in the name of protecting their number one invetstment. Is that how a sport is suppose to be run? Protecting these guys to the point of the ridiculous? Now it's receivers that laugh at defenses as they run over the middle knowing defenses will be penalized with any hard hit. Hitting a defenseless receivers... lol. Next it will be Peterson getting called for a 15 yarder for unecessary roughness for hitting a d back to hard. Oh no that won't happen. Offense rules...

  3. #13
    keystonevike is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    294
    If this goes thru, it would surely ruin the sport.
    Goodell could go down in infamy as the guy who ruined a bazillion dollar business.

  4. #14
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692
    There are far better solutions to the kickoff problem, and to improve player safety on every other play of the game as well.

    Personally I'm in favor of a blanket rule which would create what is effectively a strike zone on any player being tackled or blocked. Above the knees, below the head. See what you hit. No special exceptions or convoluted rules for QBs or "defenseless receivers" all players are protected equally.

    If the tackler leads with the top of his head, no matter where he hits his target(not seeing what you hit) it's a flag, a fine, a suspension. If the tackler clearly initiates contact with the head of his target, flag, fine, suspension. If you're not trailing the ball carrier and you hit him below the knees the same penalties follow.

    Give any player the chance to take himself out of a play, take a knee or walk to the sideline, whatever. If he doesn't, he's fair game between the whistles, so long as the formerly mentioned strike zone is obeyed. So the QB who's stupid enough to pursue the returner of the pick he just threw better know he's gonna get lit up by a d-lineman.

    It would force guys to block and tackle with sound fundamentals and drastically reduce the injury rate. There will be more opportunities for big hits with less to think about. Just keep your eyes up and odds are you're not gonna get flagged.

    The tricky part is enforcing it. I'd like for the refs to use discretion, since you frequently see the runner change his pad level which results in a helmet to helmet hit. Though I suppose under my proposed rule, so long as the tackler doesn't lead with the top of his helmet, it can be ignored in those situations.

    If that's not doable, and kickoffs must go, turn them into a free kick, like the ones following a safety. But force the receiving team to group up 6 or 7 guys 5-10 yards in front of the kicker and let him blast one at them as the onside kick replacement.


    These are imperfect solutions to an unsolvable problem. However, if the league really wants to improve player safety and maintain a high level of competition and excitement, they work.
    Last edited by Mr Anderson; 12-21-2012 at 08:55 AM.

  5. #15
    TheAnimal93 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,308
    Why are they trying so hard to take the FOOT out of FOOTBALL?? The grand spectacle that is football should not start off with a squeak it should start out with a roar!! You flip a coin and then the teams go to their respective corners and come out swinging on the 20 yd line?. How exciting is that? Don't you just about come out of your shoes when the returner hits that hole and is GONE? I do. And I havent noticed as many injuries overall on KO's this year. The players have to be accountable sooner or later and start tackling like they should instead of trying to be launched missles with their heads aimed more or less at a chin or earhole, speaking of tackling in general.
    Last edited by TheAnimal93; 12-20-2012 at 10:40 PM.

  6. #16
    ConnecticutViking's Avatar
    ConnecticutViking is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Posts
    383
    If you remove kickoffs, you also take away onside kicks...Thus, removing the ability for any team to get the ball back when behind.

  7. #17
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Anderson View Post
    There are far better solutions to the kickoff problem.
    What problem

    Teams kick off the ball & the players play football. The player is already protected. He can take a knee in the endzone or call for a fair catch. If he elects to run with it, he's already accessed the risk, made a choice & we play football.

    Once the ball is caught & the player takes off running, it's no different than a running play or a run after the catch. Maybe next they will try to eliminate passing while the receiver is running across the middle of the field.
    Last edited by singersp; 12-23-2012 at 08:47 AM.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  8. #18
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    What problem

    Teams kick off the ball & the players play football. The player is already protected. He can take a knee in the endzone or call for a fair catch. If he elects to run with it, he's already accessed the risk, made a choice & we play football.

    Once the ball is caught & the player takes off running, it's no different than a running play or a run after the catch. Maybe next they will try to eliminate passing while the receiver is running across the middle of the field.
    It's not a problem that 17% of injuries occur on a play which only makes up 6% of the game?

    Obviously players understand the risks they're taking by going out there, so why pick and choose where the game is made safer? Why give them helmets and pads? Why shouldn't a player be permitted to clothesline or facemask to take down his opponent? Just because they know it's unsafe doesn't mean it shouldn't be made safer where it can be. And clearly I don't believe eliminating kickoffs would be a good solution, but support changes which apply to every play of the game.

  9. #19
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    What problem

    Teams kick off the ball & the players play football. The player is already protected. He can take a knee in the endzone or call for a fair catch. If he elects to run with it, he's already accessed the risk, made a choice & we play football.

    Once the ball is caught & the player takes off running, it's no different than a running play or a run after the catch. Maybe next they will try to eliminate passing while the receiver is running across the middle of the field.
    It's quite a bit different actually. On a kickoff you have guys barreling down the field with a full head of steam and the collisions tend to be much more violent. And it's not just the guy returning the kick, it's everyone on the field that are at a higher risk due to the speed and space.

    I'm not a fan of getting rid of the kickoff, it's a very big part of the game, but I understand why there is focus on it.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    64
    The problem is its all about money. The NFL is facing a mountain of concussion lawsuits so high that, if they lose, could forever change the game as we know it. Just google it and you will find several articles on it. A Forbes piece says the NFL is looking at "Tobacco-like damages reaching billions of dollars:

    NFL Faces Tobacco-Like Damages Reaching Billions Of Dollars In Concussion Litigation - Forbes

    This could potentially ruin the NFL if the plaintiffs win. They would have to pass so many rules, to make the game safer, so as not to lose their ass again in settlement payments. It may turn into a game that none of us will want to even watch anymore.

    In August the NFL asked a federal judge for a dismissal of the case. I can't seem to find any updates on this case, since then, so I think its still in some sort of legal limbo.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •