NFL Considers Moving Kickoffs to 35, Touchbacks to 25

As a Colts fan, I am wholeheartedly in favor of eliminating the kickoff return man as an offensive weapon.

Kick returns cause more injuries than any other play. What is the difference in the percentage of injuries caused by kickoffs and caused by other plays? If it is a drastic difference, maybe kickoffs should be eliminated all together. This would be a huge change and take away a lot of interesting aspects of games (onside kicks, special teams touchdowns, etc.) But the league once had no forward pass and then had a rule that an incompletion was a turnover. Perhaps the new emphasis on penalizing big hits and taking away the wedge blocking will make a difference with injuries during kick returns. I think football fans should get used to the idea of drastic rule changes though. The sport is too dangerous the way its played now.

A legitimate point that has to be considered when discussing the idea of getting rid of kickoffs (which I am in favor of):

You're cutting down the commericals significantly, which makes it a no-go for the networks. Remember, every change in possession has a commercial before and after the kickoff. If you get rid of kickoffs, you only have the 1 commercial break between possessions. At that point, either the networks cut back (Oh god they need to), or they find other ways to get their commercials in, to keep their ad revenue up.

The other big thing that would disappear with the elimination of the kickoff (besides the Chicago Bears): the onside kick. Something would have to be figured out to put in a chance-y way of getting the ball back after scoring.

I think this is a step in the right direction. I've been in favor of just eliminating the kick return for safety reasons for a couple of years now, but if you do that you lose the onside kick, which is quite a bit worse than just losing the excitement of a good return.

They should definitely do away with the KR in OT and just have the "receiving" team start at the 20 (home team gets to choose ball or wind, no coin toss), and keep it straight sudden death from there.

I think if you do one, you must do both--moving TB's out to the 25 makes it that much harder on the defense to stop a score (don't know what the #'s would be, but scoring would increase). However, if the counter is to make it easier for deep kicks or touchbacks, then Aaron is right--the emphasis for kickoffs would be for a high directional kickoff beween 60 & 65 yds. Almost all returners now will bring a kick out even if they're a yd deep.
On the other hand, wouldn't you want a VERY aware return man, who would be able to diagnose if a kick would go OOB, or bounce into the endzone, thus increasing field position?
I think these changes would mean the end of the "kickoff specialist," but would place an even greater emphasis on the return man--he must be aware AND shifty. For example, the kickoff is high and short, coming down at the 5 yd line (what would be the 10 with present rules). At present, that type of kick almost guarantees starting past the 25--and (if FO could run the numbers) would probably give an average start at the 30. Not good for the kicking team. But under these proposed rules, we back everything up 5 yds--so they start between the 20 & 25--decent for the kicking team, and (iirc) slightly above average, compared to the present rules. If the kicking team has a good coverage unit, or the return team is below average, then you might pin them inside the 20--now that's great. Of course, this would cause a drop in scoring, where the TB coming to the 25=more scoring. In other words, they probably balance out over the course of a season--and probably most teams wouldn't notice much of a change either way, at least not outside the realm of normal variability. However, teams that tend to have above-average ST in many aspects--esp. regarding kickoffs--would probably see the benefit.

I'm curious how this would effect the decisions coaches make with regard to punting / going for it on 4th down when they are just outside of FG range. It would be nice if the increased yardage from touchbacks would help them grow some balls and go for it.

This is really quite fascinating. It wasn't too long ago (1994, to be exact) that the NFL moved the kickoff back to the 30. This was done in the name of generating excitement, as kickers were less likely to boom their kicks into the end zone (or at least not far into the end zone), compelling players to run them back. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I'd be curious to know how this effected average starting position (pre 1994 and post 1994) and if there was a change in kickoff returns for a TD per year for the league. If there were a noticeable uptick in those changes (and I'm under the impression that there was), then this would have had a significant impact on overtime-- a topic of much debate in the last decade or so.

I, for one, am happy to hear about the change back. I never liked leagues tweaking rules to favor scoring or "action" under the (mistaken) impression that this would lead to more popularity. More interesting is the idea of adding five yards to the touchback. I assume (from the context of the article) that this would be an added incentive to take the touchback and therefor reduce somewhat the injury-causing mayhem of the kickoff return.

How much would this change yardage output per year, I wonder? Each time a touchback is taken, QBs, WRs, and RBs would miss out on a chance to get an extra five yards. Over the course of a year, that's perhaps 160 yards. As we think about comparative statistics over seasons, it may be useful to think that a particularly good season for a RB (if this rule is put into place) might be a few yards less than before. Maybe.

Kickoffs were moved back to the 30 because touchbacks are boring.

I suspect what this would lead to is a new style of kicker who can "pooch" a kickoff.

I don't think I like this move too much as it seems like it would take away a key strategic element from the game.

That said, I wonder if this would embolden teams to try intermediate range onside kicks more as the advantage of a touchback would be less and you'd be kicking from further forward. If there was a penalty that moved the kickoff further forward, it might be advantageous to always just start onside kicking if you're at their 50 - failure is only costing you around 15 yards.

I've been in favor of abolishing kickoffs and punts for years. they're stupid and enormously wasteful in terms of the number of players on the team who are there solely for special teams and the number of injuries they cause.

It might just be because I'm a Bears fan, but I can't say I like this move. I enjoy watching special teams play, and I feel that having the players decide where the ball ends up rather than the leg strength of the kicker is preferable.

We have PATs, which are completely rote, with a few foul ups that happen here and there and the option to go for 2 if you are in dire straights. This seems like it will turn kick offs into the same thing.

I don't know if I have an opinion on if the changes is good or not, but it's worth mentioning that we already have a pretty significant rote down, and it doesn't ruin the game.

Doesn't the increased penalty for a kickoff combined with the shorter field give teams the incentive to try pooch kicks, which will still result in plenty of returns, collisions and injuries?

The moved up touchback is presumably to incentivize touchbacks more, and prevent injuries on returns. However, I don't think it will work nearly as well, due to the law of unintended consequences.

First of all, how many injuries happen when gunners and protectors collide at around the 25-35 yard line? This generally occurs before (or simultaneously with) the return man deciding whether or not to run it out. So more touchbacks might not necessarily cut down on injuries as much as they hope.

Secondly, because touchbacks are now worse for the kicking team as well as better for the receiving team. Several people have already pointed out in this thread that kickers will now try to "pop up" the kick, which could lead to more injuries because you get players colliding before the kick even comes down.

Also, I wonder what this will do to the frequency of squib kicks?

Such a change would make onside kicks more attractive.

Hmm, on the topic of safety and thus eliminating punts, what would the consequences be of making a turnover on downs take place wherever the ball ends up? Peyton Manning occasionally treats long 3rd downs as "punts," throwing a ball with a decent chance of being intercepted because there's also a chance at getting a long completion.

QB lofts the ball downfield on 4th down, and if it falls incomplete, the opposing team takes over there. That would potentially encourage more 4 down play, which I think everyone here would appreciate, and getting rid of punts can't be a bad thing for player safety. Teams can always run instead, of course, and intercepting on 4th down would no longer be a generally stupid play.

Seems more exciting to me, but my favorite team has a pretty good QB.

All this thinking about the game theory implications of moving the kickoff made me think about an overtime rule I haven't seen discussed much (though I also haven't looked), a bidding based system. Basically it's a sudden death format (nothing weird about FGs on first possessions not winning unless a defensive stop follows them) where each team offers to start with the ball progressively closer to their own goalline. Home team can start the bidding so if they want the ball at their own 1 yard line they can have it there, sudden death, or else offer a higher yard line bid.

Why not just eliminate kickoffs completely. Every time the offensive team starts a new series following a scoring play or start of the game or second half, they can start at the their own 20 yard line.

This way you eliminate wasted roster spots on a specialized return man, a long distance kicker (see Vinatieri) and special teams guys who have no value other than their kamakazee play.

The logic of this move demands the end of kickoffs. If kick returns cause injury, they how do you justify them at all?

Personally, I'd just get it over with and get rid of kicking in football. What's the point? Kickers are not football players - everyone agrees. The point after is virtually guaranteed, so why not just make a touchdown seven points and be done with it. Field goals are basically a reward for failure to scores a touchdown.

So let's get rid of special teams, and play Passball. This also has the virtue of solving the football/soccer problem, and shut up all those Hate-America nancy-boys who insist on pointing out the 'mistake' of stupid Americans.

Prefer to keep kicking game the way it is.

We need some RaiderJoe logic on this topic. I haven't seen a RJ post in a long time. Did all the decertification/lockout nonsense cause him to go to the Sierra Nevada nuclear option?

One of the other proposals the Competition Committee is considering is to reduce the number of allowed replay challenges to two (now it can be three if the coach gets his first two right) but have all scoring plays be booth-reviewed.

What I really don't get is the double logic here.

So...one part is to move the kicks to the 35, making touchbacks more likely and thus fewer returns. Okay, that cuts down on injury! Yay!

And then we'll disincentivize touchbacks by making them back at the 25 instead of the 20. So that means...uh...people are going to not want to do touchbacks; not only is it less valuable to do so, but it's more likely to gain something compared to a touchback if you do a kick.

Here, want to minimize kick returns? Do the exact opposite of what was suggested. Make touchbacks mandatory if the ball crosses the end zone and make them start at the 15. Teams will be incentivized to kick it as far as they can (even low balls) and only rarely will kick returns happen outside of onside kicks, which rarely end up with injuries.

do not like rules chsnges all the tuimr. Too mich changing. Make rules and sitkc to thm

I like the idea of more "pop-up style kicks": it would place more emphasis on technique and placement than on leg power, thereby reducing the gain from steroids. If it happens, though, I wonder if there will actually be a decrease in the number of injuries: aren't there almost as many injuries on punt plays as on kickoffs?

Think yhrtr are more injurits on kikckoffs than punts but dont have any nimbers handy

This would be great news for Nate Kaeding.