All Things Roger Goodell/Rules Changes/Player Safety

[PkrsBcksGphsMqt]

This **** is crazy...

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-o ... s-entirely

In an article that's hitting newshelves everywhere this week (and is available online if you have a subscription), NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told TIME that he'd consider eliminating kickoffs in professional football.

Goodell has, per the article via Chris Burke of Sports Illustrated, considered the idea of changing the way the NFL handles kickoffs by replacing them with an offensive opportunity.

The idea is to give the team that scored the ball on their own 30-yard line. That team would have one shot to pick up 15 yards and keep the ball, or they could simply punt from the 30-yard line.

This whacky kickoff replacement is even crazier than you might think, because of its origination: it was proposed by Buccaneers head coach Greg Schiano. You know, the same guy who likes to try to spoil the victory formation at the end of games.

But Goodell maintains the possibility of radically redesigning the kickoff procedure isn't some PR stunt; he'd only consider it because it's "the right thing to do."

"I don't do things for public relations," Goodell said. "I do things because they're the right thing to do, because I love the game."

Kickoffs are impossibly dangerous because of the high-speed nature of the collisions involved between players. But changing them from a special-teams play to an offensive-option play would be something incredibly drastic.

Would it change the way rosters are constructed? Would it inflate the value of punters while deflating the value of kickers? How would players react? And would the public approve?

Those are all questions that the NFL and Goodell need to consider before moving forward with this possible rule change, which could be exactly why the possibility just made its way into a national magazine.

[chuckleslove]

I think this is awful, I'm open to the idea of getting rid of kickoffs, but if you do that just give the other team the ball on their 20 or 25, not this crazy 15 yard or punt crap, that seems like a completely unnecessary route to go.

[trwi7]

LOL at this clown. Owners need to fire him before he completely ruins the game.

[LUKE23]

I'm for eliminating Goodell all together.

[bullox]

just give the other team the ball on their 20 or 25

But then there is no shot for an onside kick type of play.

[LUKE23]

The idea is to give the team that scored the ball on their own 30-yard line. That team would have one shot to pick up 15 yards and keep the ball, or they could simply punt from the 30-yard line.

This whacky kickoff replacement is even crazier than you might think, because of its origination: it was proposed by Buccaneers head coach Greg Schiano. You know, the same guy who likes to try to spoil the victory formation at the end of games.

[Kerb Hohl]

I still don't get why anyone ever cared about Schiano's antics.

[RiotPunch]

This power hungry douche is going too far. Time to can him.

[Newz]

I personally think kick and punt returns are probably the most exciting plays in the game.

I think this would be poop.

[trwi7]

This rule would be a huge favor to a team like the Packers. Give Rodgers a chance to get 15 yards on one play? Say you convert that 25% of the time. The chances of holding the opponent to a field goal attempt or forcing a turnover I would imagine is a lot higher so we would have a huge advantage. I still hate this idea though.

[Thunder Muscle]

Goodell, lol. I understand the safety part but you'd definitely be eliminating arguably the most exciting part of the game. I'm curious what football will be in 20-30 years.

[chuckleslove]

just give the other team the ball on their 20 or 25

But then there is no shot for an onside kick type of play.

I oppose the idea, I was saying if they are insistent about getting rid of kickoffs then they should do that, the 15 yard on one down or punt option is just stupidity.

[MickeyDavis]

Agreed. Stupid idea to eliminate kickoffs but if you do it then just give the other team the ball at the 20 or whatever. But this "offensive opportunity" thing is Nuckin' Futs.

[jakecronus8]

Goodell, lol. I'm curious what football will be in 20-30 years.

[Run-MKE 311]

Pretty much over Goodell right now. He may run the NFL into the ground.

[eagle13]

What's next? Eliminate punting and instead have a cheerleader competition to decide where the ball is marked.

[humanrefutation]

A good piece that really, I think, brings up a good point. It's not about kickoffs. It's about football itself.

http://deadspin.com/5966319/why-the-nfl ... ion-crisis

[Godgers]

Goodell is so bad. This idea is dumber than Stern years ago wanting to move NBA teams to other countrys.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

A good piece that really, I think, brings up a good point. It's not about kickoffs. It's about football itself.

http://deadspin.com/5966319/why-the-nfl ... ion-crisis

And that's an example of why deadspin isnt objective journalism. Good stuff and overall brings up good points but way too one-sided. Guess what happens when you try to eliminate concussions? You are reducing head hits in general. There is less and less repetitive hits to the head based since the hits aren't anywhere near a head. Players are also not slammed to the ground anymore. Also, when you develop helmets you are protecting the head in general and not just concussions. Are these rules enough? Who knows but probably not. Still the writer makes it sound like the nfl isn't doing anything besides concussions.


Also, he says something how he doesn't what to say that belcher committed those crimes due to cte, but then goes on to basically say it was and said he didn't have concussions hinting at it being from repetitive hits.

[humanrefutation]

First of all, that isn't a Deadspin writer, that is a Bloomberg View writer, and a Bloomberg View article, being republished in Deadspin.

Second of all, I feel like you read what you wanted to read, rather than what was actually being said. He never made any accusation about Belcher, but pointed out that he thought about concussions when it happened (which I think many people, including myself, did). He said pointed out that his thought process was fallacious because even if Belcher didn't have concussions, that didn't mean he wasn't dealing with brain damage.

The point being made is that the CTE issue cannot be solved simply by minimizing the risk of concussions because most recent studies say that even routine taps to the head can lead to CTE.

"The study found that the incurable degenerative disease known as CTE—chronic traumatic encephalopathy—is just as likely to be caused by a routine hit to the head as it is by a big, concussive blow."

So, in framing the issue as a "concussion crisis," you're only dealing with part of the problem. Sure, you can change around the sport to minimize the risk of concussion-type hits, but if even routine taps to the head can cause CTE, then you're not solving the issue. Those routine taps to the head are part of the very nature of the contact sport we call the NFL, and cannot be eliminated without drastically changing the sport.

"Most of all, calling the head-injury crisis a concussion crisis made it sound as if it stemmed from how the game is played, not from the game itself. Football is an inherently violent sport in which unremarkable plays can eventually add up to permanent brain damage. That damage, in turn, can result in dementia, depression and destructive behavior."

That's the point being made. It isn't accusatory. It isn't blaming. It isn't "biased" either because there isn't two sides to this issue. He's just posing a problem that the NFL is dealing with. And I think its a problem worth discussing.