Better starting field position = more points. The game already jumped the shark in favor of high scoring. When are there going to be any rule changes that help the defense?
were almost identical to 1983's. That's 40 years ago. Scoring has been steadily declining since a peak in 2020. We've been seeing more and more shell coverage to take away the deep shots and quick scores. Rule changes will always favor the offenses because defenses always catch up.
Everyone likes to think that the NFL has become such a "passing league," as if the concept of passing the football is only a product of these modern, enlightened times. Indeed, this year teams averaged 33.7 pass attempts per game, which seems like a lot. But in 1953, back in the Stone Age of 70 years ago, teams averaged 29.6 pass attempts per game, a mere four fewer than in 2023. Of course, they completed less than 50% of those attempts, so total passing yards were significantly fewer. But still, it wasn't as if the Neanderthals were afraid to fling it.
You may also note that the league scoring average was only 0.3 pts/game less than in 2023 (21.5 vs 21.8).
already on the books. Offensive holding is out of control in the NFL (not as bad as in college). The Super Bowl was ridiculous, really for both teams. Meanwhile, defensive holding is called with impunity. It's made it hard to take serious. They need to enforce that rule and it needs to be consistent crew to crew.
The biggest problem with kickoffs is that it's just so dangerous and a very high percentage of injuries occur on the play. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for kicking teams to try and let them return the ball, either, as they may gain a few yards but realistically they're just setting up their guys for potential injury without much payoff. Hence, teams just get good kickers who can put the ball out of the end zone and it's become a non-play. Unlike other rules changes which (as you note) either make it way too easy for the offense or (more importantly for the owners) make the teams more money by adding in commercial breaks, I can respect them trying to adjust this play. Let's see how it ends up.
Have a representative of the team play the kickoff on Madden NFL 24 broadcast on the video screen, and place the ball where the play ends up.
If the receiving team agrees to take the ball at the 25 and the kicking team concedes the ball to their opponent at the 25, then skip it. Most of the time everyone knows the ball is going out of the end zone. It would take 10 minutes off the game. They wouldn’t have to experiment with all those other clock rules that they constantly toy with.
I’m guessing that if the ref asked each coach if they would accept taking/giving possession and skipping the kickoff, 95% of the time agree to skip it.
they believe that it adds excitement to the game. They don't like the touchback.
When both kickers consistently put the kick off through the uprights, and every man, woman and child watching, knows that’s what’s going to happen, it is pointless.
There are a lot of times when it’s just like the intentional walk in baseball. Going through the motions just wastes time.
they're saying that if you kick it out of the end zone, the other team gets the ball on the 35 (not the 25). That's a huge difference, as it is basically 2 first downs until you're in field goal range (give or take). They want to force the teams to kick it shorter to set up the return, and they're trying to make it safer by not giving the kicking team the ability to run 60 yards full speed prior to getting blocked. By lining up both teams 5 yards apart on the one side of the field and not allowing them to go until the ball is caught, it places the emphasis on blocking and shedding blocks, and it will allow for more returns. If you do want to get a touchback, you need to kick it so that it bounces before the goal line and goes into the endzone, and then the team gets the ball on the 20. In other words, it can reward well placed kicks.
It's not necessarily my favorite method, but they're trying to bring some safety into what is potentially one of the more exciting plays in the game. I can respect it.
I thought the kickoff set up was cool. They're going back to a traditional kickoff this year though.
Also it's kind of weird to cheer for AJ McCarron when over a decade ago he and Bama turned us into a mangled shipwreck.
I wonder if the USFL-XFL merger (hello, UFL) is the reason for the rule change back, but I agree with you about liking the kickoff set up.
The Battlehawks offense has a lot of weapons between McCarron and the WR core (assuming the OL can give him time to cook). I worry a little bit about the defense, though. They'll certainly have the strongest home field advantage.
The Battlehawks have had some tough luck endings in their two seasons (2020 -- COVID shut down the league when clearly the best team; 2023 -- crappy tiebreaker despite being the second best team), so hopefully some of it comes back around this year.
but I am pretty sure it is just a one year agreement.
I agree I think the merger had to do with it moving back to traditional kickoffs. Maybe they'll reconsider it next year.
I'm more excited about Hakeem Butler coming back. The guy is a monster. Overall the team was definitely the "Cardiac Kids" last year. The tiebreaker at the end was a total buzzkill. I still didn't fully understand how they decided it. Had something to do with the way they reviewed the point differential between us and Seattle right?
"The teams were tied through the first four tiebreakers and on the fifth, the tie was broken.
At the end of the season, the Battlehawks scored 249 points and allowed 202, ranking second and fourth in those races for four total tiebreaker points. The Sea Dragons scored 243 points and gave up 177, ranking fourth and first, respectively, for five total tiebreaker points."
Put enough hang time on the kick so your coverage team can get under it and compete for the ball.
Now the relative velocity between the tackler and the returner is basically zero. Any collision is safer.
is the potential problem. They don't want guys with a full head of steam hitting a stationary player, and they want to have returns.
at their own 35 yard line with a 4th and 10 (or 15). They'd have the option of punting or going for it. This would replace the kickoff with a typical punting situation, where you don't have as many gunners running free down the field.
and it is intentional to allow the defense to get positioned before a returner can build up a head of steam to hit up the line at full speed.
The kick-off is a live ball in both sports. So an up-and-under style of kick also acts like a version of the onside kick. The receiving team has to make sure they get to the short kick first. Where would you deploy your return man if the kicking team varied the placement of the kickoff much more than they do now?
In general, kicking strategy in rugby is more interesting than in football, but there is nothing in the rules preventing football from using the rugby strategy.
You can close those 20 yards pretty damned fast.
Fair catches on short, high kickoffs would kill excitement, but removing fair catches (and "kick catch interference," I guess) from kickoffs might make it more dangerous again. For those reasons, I don't see rugby-style kickoffs entering American football right now.
entirely if we are going to that. Start each team at the 25.
once you break through that initial line of defenders, there is nobody there to stop you.
Of course, teams might end up just kicking it out of the end zone if returns start to be a problem.
Don't overthink this aspect of the game.
If safety is the driving force, install your suggestion.