PDA

View Full Version : rules committee



rcsodak
03-16-2011, 03:24 PM
Theyre looking at changing the kickoff.....AGAIN!

They're proposing moving the kickoff back to the 35yd line and moving touchbacks out to the 25yd line.
No other changes on touchbacks...just ko's.

They're also looking at lining up the players between the 30-35yd lines to hopefully lesson injuries.

Positive/negative/indifferent?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

SR
03-16-2011, 03:27 PM
I think they should leave it as is. That really isn't something that needs changing.

rcsodak
03-16-2011, 03:42 PM
I think they should leave it as is. That really isn't something that needs changing.As sucky as denvers ST's have been, holding the opponent to the 25 would be an improvement.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

underrated29
03-16-2011, 03:45 PM
This is not something that needs tinkering. They should stop with all of these crazy rule changes. They are going to tweak things too much. Most everyone likes things the way they are now. Quit doing this.

Major rule changes, like the brett favre overtime rule fine.
The brady tuck rule. Fine.


But for god sakes, stop. Let the players play.

MNPatsFan
03-16-2011, 03:54 PM
This is not something that needs tinkering. They should stop with all of these crazy rule changes. They are going to tweak things too much. Most everyone likes things the way they are now. Quit doing this.

Major rule changes, like the brett favre overtime rule fine.
The brady tuck rule. Fine.


But for god sakes, stop. Let the players play.Not to mention this rule change penalizes the teams with strong legged kickers and good special teams.:tsk:

If the change is to protect player health, I don't see how running 5 fewer yards and/or moving the ball 5 yards farther from the endzone on touchbacks accomplishes or promotes player safety.:confused: Anyone have ideas how this proposal promotes or protects player safety ... Leaving out the elimination of the wedge aspect.

FanInAZ
03-16-2011, 03:55 PM
If the league truly wants to do away with as many injuries as possible, they would do like the rugby and Australian Football leagues do: play without any pads. Players are coached to lower their shoulders and lay the biggest hit possible on their opponent with in certain unrealistic limits. They are more than willing to do so because they know that their shoulders are protected by pads. If you took those pads away, their lowering shoulders and laying the biggest hit possible on their opponent would like result in them breaking their shoulder. The result, players would instinctively stop hitting so hard. However, if you want them to keep lowering their shoulders and laying the biggest hit possible on their opponents, then players are going to keep getting injured.

rcsodak
03-16-2011, 04:07 PM
Not to mention this rule change penalizes the teams with strong legged kickers and good special teams.:tsk:

If the change is to protect player health, I don't see how running 5 fewer yards and/or moving the ball 5 yards farther from the endzone on touchbacks accomplishes or promotes player safety.:confused: Anyone have ideas how this proposal promotes or protects player safety ... Leaving out the elimination of the wedge aspect.

If I made it look like the ball placement was for player health, I apologize. The location of the player is for safety. Ie. Less heads of steam at impact.

As for the ball location, it would help if the kicker can get it high and to the 5yd line, enabling more time for his guys to get down there.
Edit: well, ross tucker says the new ball location/touchback rule IS for player safety. Huh!
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

NightTerror218
03-16-2011, 04:14 PM
If the league truly wants to do away with as many injuries as possible, they would do like the rugby and Australian Football leagues do: play without any pads. Players are coached to lower their shoulders and lay the biggest hit possible on their opponent with in certain unrealistic limits. They are more than willing to do so because they know that their shoulders are protected by pads. If you took those pads away, their lowering shoulders and laying the biggest hit possible on their opponent would like result in them breaking their shoulder. The result, players would instinctively stop hitting so hard. However, if you want them to keep lowering their shoulders and laying the biggest hit possible on their opponents, then players are going to keep getting injured.

Actually there are more injuries on the rugby field by far than the football field....I played rugby for 5 years....at least 1 broken bone per game....yah heads dont get hit as much...still do...but I had broken ribs, several people with; broken legs, collar bones, arms, stitches every game for someone and the broken noses all the time.

Rugby makes football players look like basektball players....injury now and then but nothing major. in rugby you attempt to "wrap" in a tackle...so you can launch at people

rcsodak
03-16-2011, 04:15 PM
If the league truly wants to do away with as many injuries as possible, they would do like the rugby and Australian Football leagues do: play without any pads. Players are coached to lower their shoulders and lay the biggest hit possible on their opponent with in certain unrealistic limits. They are more than willing to do so because they know that their shoulders are protected by pads. If you took those pads away, their lowering shoulders and laying the biggest hit possible on their opponent would like result in them breaking their shoulder. The result, players would instinctively stop hitting so hard. However, if you want them to keep lowering their shoulders and laying the biggest hit possible on their opponents, then players are going to keep getting injured.
This has been my contention regarding concussions. They are constantly 'improving' the helmets to hopefully lesson them....but I think just the opposite is happening.
No stats to back me up, but I seem to hear about more happening. How about maybe put the improved helmets on only the" receivers" of the hits while the older helmets go on the hitters. Maybe the hitters will go back to proper tackling techniques.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I Eat Staples
03-16-2011, 09:28 PM
The NFL uses the completely bullshit excuse of "player safety" to justify every stupid rule they think up. The commissioner and his lackeys are garbage.

Dirk
03-17-2011, 06:15 AM
Why even kick off? Just put the ball on the 25 and play. Most kickers in the league today will kick it out of the endzone anyway.

How long ago was it that the league moved it back to ALLOW for a run back to make the game more exciting? LOL

BroncoStud
03-17-2011, 06:21 AM
Yeah I don't get how that is going to make much of a difference from an injury standpoint. I think Kickoffs are pretty good they way they are. What they NEED to do is enforce offsides on kickoffs, they could throw that flag every time. That in itself would probably make players more aware of their bodies.

rcsodak
03-17-2011, 07:25 AM
More changes proposed:
Getting rid of the 3rd coach's challenge (if first 2 are successful)
Reasoning? It was rarely used. :eek: :rolleyes:
Doing away with the wedge. (Don't say it)
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

jhildebrand
03-17-2011, 11:23 AM
It looks like legislating even more for the offense!

The 25 is just too far and defenses are handicapped enough anymore. Just leave it alone.

The Glue Factory
03-17-2011, 12:08 PM
Yeah I don't get how that is going to make much of a difference from an injury standpoint. I think Kickoffs are pretty good they way they are. What they NEED to do is enforce offsides on kickoffs, they could throw that flag every time. That in itself would probably make players more aware of their bodies.

Make it even easier, no motion except for the kicker prior to the ball leaving the tee. False start and back the kick up 5 yards for a rekick.

Day1BroncoFan
03-17-2011, 12:31 PM
I think the touch back should stay at the 20. I don't care where they kick it from. I think they just want to give the offense more of an edge by putting it on the 25 and more touch backs by kicking from the 35.

The Glue Factory
03-17-2011, 01:28 PM
Having watched from when KOs were from the 35 before it was moved back to the 30, nearly every KO was a touchback. If they adopt this change I'd like to see the kicking team not be allowed to move forward until the kick is in the air. At least then the receiving team will have a chance at returning the ball. Otherwise you might as well just place the ball on the 25 and not even bother with a KO!

rcsodak
03-18-2011, 08:40 AM
Having watched from when KOs were from the 35 before it was moved back to the 30, nearly every KO was a touchback. If they adopt this change I'd like to see the kicking team not be allowed to move forward until the kick is in the air. At least then the receiving team will have a chance at returning the ball. Otherwise you might as well just place the ball on the 25 and not even bother with a KO!
Yep. Flip a coin to start the game, then alternate after halftime.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-22-2011, 06:14 PM
Well, here's the deal:
1. Kickoffs from 35. Denvers ST's just improved!
1a. Kicking team lines up no more than 5yds behind kicker.
2. TB's stay at 20yd line. See above.
3. 2man wedges stay
4. ALL scoring plays will be reviewed (think college). '10: 20% of challenges
5. Coaches will still have 3rd challenge opp if successful on previous 2.

To compare to back when they last kicked from the 35:
'93: 5ko td's/57 rtns 40+yds
2010: 23ko td's/113 rtns 40+yds
SD says thank you. And if this had been the case last yr, they beat seattle and who knows. Meanwhile, hester, cribbs, and washington are licking their wounds.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums