Rule Change

[Bison06]

I have felt this way for years and yesterday's events just reminded me of it.

Fumbling the ball through the endzone should not be a touchback. It is the most asinine rule in football, a team is about to score and happens to fumble and now all of a sudden the other team gets the ball at the 20.

They have done nothing to earn the ball unless they recover it IMO, AND why in the hell would you give them 20 yards?

It's a bad rule that needs to be changed in my opinion.

[Hammerhead]

What do you think should happen if the ball gets fumbled out of the end zone? I'm not sure about college rules. If a player fumbles the ball in the field of play and it rolls out of bounds 5 yards down the field, do they spot the ball where the fumble occurred or where it went out of bounds.

Didn't this happen to the Bison in another game this year?

[BisonTeacher]

I have felt this way for years and yesterday's events just reminded me of it.

Fumbling the ball through the endzone should not be a touchback. It is the most asinine rule in football, a team is about to score and happens to fumble and now all of a sudden the other team gets the ball at the 20.

They have done nothing to earn the ball unless they recover it IMO, AND why in the hell would you give them 20 yards?

It's a bad rule that needs to be changed in my opinion.

Its too bad that happened because I think that would have put the game away a lot earlier.

[NDSUBowler]

Seeing how the UNI player was the last to touch the ball before it hit the pylon led me to thinking...what happens if a defensive player intentionally kicks the ball into the end zone OB? Why should an offense get penalized if, say, they fumble on the 5 and the defender just kicks it into the end zone and OB so it gets called a touchback?

[IzzyFlexion]

I tend to agree.
If it's not recovered by an opponent, there should not be a change of posession.
Just throwin' it out there, but how about putting the ball at the 20, the offense retains posession and it's a loss of down. If the fumble occurred at a point on the field that would have resulted in a first down, then 1st and goal from the 20.
Please don't flame me. This idea just popped into my tiny pea sized brain. If it has no merit, I'll eat pea soup out of Answer Guy's belly button.

[EmeraldCityBison]

I tend to agree.
If it's not recovered by an opponent, there should not be a change of posession.
Just throwin' it out there, but how about putting the ball at the 20, the offense retains posession and it's a loss of down. If the fumble occurred at a point on the field that would have resulted in a first down, then 1st and goal from the 20.
Please don't flame me. This idea just popped into my tiny pea sized brain. If it has no merit, I'll eat pea soup out of Answer Guy's belly button.

I was thinking the same thing today. If the defense doesn't establish possession, that team should not get the ball. Put the ball on the 20 and offense keeps possession. Or since offense can't advance on a fumble, spot the ball at the spot of the fumble and continue with the possession.

[99Bison]

Yep, it's dumb.

It should be just like any other place on the field. Offense get's the ball at the place it was fumbled (not advanced, nor does at the 20 make any sense).

When defense recovers the current rules make sense... touchback, safety, etc.

[IndyBison]

What do you think should happen if the ball gets fumbled out of the end zone? I'm not sure about college rules. If a player fumbles the ball in the field of play and it rolls out of bounds 5 yards down the field, do they spot the ball where the fumble occurred or where it went out of bounds.

Didn't this happen to the Bison in another game this year?
Correct. If a player fumbles the ball forward out of bounds in the field of play, the ball is brought back to the spot of the fumble. "in the field of play" is a key part of the rule. If the ball is fumbled into and out of B's end zone, then it is a touchback. Allowing A to keep the ball seems like a silly rule change to me. Don't fumble the football and you don't have a problem.


I was thinking the same thing today. If the defense doesn't establish possession, that team should not get the ball. Put the ball on the 20 and offense keeps possession. Or since offense can't advance on a fumble, spot the ball at the spot of the fumble and continue with the possession.
That is only true on 4th down or a try. Otherwise the offense can advance a fumble.


Seeing how the UNI player was the last to touch the ball before it hit the pylon led me to thinking...what happens if a defensive player intentionally kicks the ball into the end zone OB? Why should an offense get penalized if, say, they fumble on the 5 and the defender just kicks it into the end zone and OB so it gets called a touchback?
Then you have an illegal kicking foul against the defense. The result of the play would still be a touchback but A will accept the penalty and get the ball half the distance to the goal from the spot of the fumble (assuming it was beyond the previous spot). The down would be replayed unless enforcement put the ball beyond the line to gain.

[56BISON73]

Correct. If a player fumbles the ball forward out of bounds in the field of play, the ball is brought back to the spot of the fumble. "in the field of play" is a key part of the rule. If the ball is fumbled into and out of B's end zone, then it is a touchback. Allowing A to keep the ball seems like a silly rule change to me. Don't fumble the football and you don't have a problem.


That is only true on 4th down or a try. Otherwise the offense can advance a fumble.


Then you have an illegal kicking foul against the defense. The result of the play would still be a touchback but A will accept the penalty and get the ball half the distance to the goal from the spot of the fumble (assuming it was beyond the previous spot). The down would be replayed unless enforcement put the ball beyond the line to gain.

The ref on the field said---the ball went in to the endzone spun back hit the pylon at which time it came back in to the field of play. A lot of crazy going on there. I didnt like the ruling BUT he shouldnt have fumbled the ball either.

Can you possibly explain why the ruling was made the way it was?

[Bison06]

Correct. If a player fumbles the ball forward out of bounds in the field of play, the ball is brought back to the spot of the fumble. "in the field of play" is a key part of the rule. If the ball is fumbled into and out of B's end zone, then it is a touchback. Allowing A to keep the ball seems like a silly rule change to me. Don't fumble the football and you don't have a problem.

That is only true on 4th down or a try. Otherwise the offense can advance a fumble.


Then you have an illegal kicking foul against the defense. The result of the play would still be a touchback but A will accept the penalty and get the ball half the distance to the goal from the spot of the fumble (assuming it was beyond the previous spot). The down would be replayed unless enforcement put the ball beyond the line to gain.

Please explain why you think someone fumbling the ball on one part of the field vs. another part of the field should have a completely different result.

For the defense to take possession of the ball in any other area of the playing field they have to earn it by gaining possession. Why in this area of the field when the offense is about to score, should the result be any different than other areas of the field. The defense hasn't done anything to earn possession of the ball and there needs to be research done into coming up with a new rule for this special situation.

[IzzyFlexion]

Correct. If a player fumbles the ball forward out of bounds in the field of play, the ball is brought back to the spot of the fumble. "in the field of play" is a key part of the rule. If the ball is fumbled into and out of B's end zone, then it is a touchback. Allowing A to keep the ball seems like a silly rule change to me. Don't fumble the football and you don't have a problem.


That is only true on 4th down or a try. Otherwise the offense can advance a fumble.


Then you have an illegal kicking foul against the defense. The result of the play would still be a touchback but A will accept the penalty and get the ball half the distance to the goal from the spot of the fumble (assuming it was beyond the previous spot). The down would be replayed unless enforcement put the ball beyond the line to gain.

I'm 95% sure that on the replay, it showed the UNI player (toward the left hand side of the screen) accidently kicking the ball over to the sideline.

[Bison06]

The ref on the field said---the ball went in to the endzone spun back hit the pylon at which time it came back in to the field of play. A lot of crazy going on there. I didnt like the ruling BUT he shouldnt have fumbled the ball either.

What happened in yesterday's game was the correct call for the current ruling, no dispute from me there.

I am saying that shouldn't be the rule in the first place and I would be interested to hear someone give justification to the current rule.

[56BISON73]

What happened in yesterday's game was the correct call for the current ruling, no dispute from me there.

I am saying that shouldn't be the rule in the first place and I would be interested to hear someone give justification to the current rule.

I agee that the call was the correct one according to the rules. My only question is the rule it self and what is the reasoning behind that rule. Usually when a rule is made in the book I think there is an explaination of the rule itself.

[HerdBot]

I think it is a stupid rule too. Its really not consistent with the other rules either. I think a better rule is to let the offense keep the ball on the 20.

This stupid rule benefitted the Bison last year vs UNI... one reason why the score was closer.

[TheBisonator]

Opposing team should still get the ball, but at their own 1.

[Bisonguy]

It's a pretty messed up situation, but I really don't have an issue with the call. If a punt or kickoff goes OB in the endzone, it's a touchback.

The offensive team screwed up, they shouldn't be rewarded for screwing up. You have to have possession of the ball when you cross the goal line, and in this instance they don't. Maybe loss of down and a ten yard penalty from the previous spot, but I really don't have an issue with the current rule. Prevents fumbling into the endzone same as the 4th down rule.

[Twentysix]

If this exact same thing happened the other way around everyone would be praising the rule. Just man up and take it.

Heres one for Indy though. The bs pass interference call, I had thought def pass int was a 15 yd penalty or 1/2 the distance to the goal if inside the 15.

When it was called the line of scrimmage was at the 9 yd line(it was 2nd and 9(goal))and they spotted the ball on the 2..

[EndZoneQB]

If this exact same thing happened the other way around everyone would be praising the rule. Just man up and take it.

Heres one for Indy though. The bs pass interference call, I had thought def pass int was a 15 yd penalty or 1/2 the distance to the goal if inside the 15.

When it was called the line of scrimmage was at the 9 yd line(it was 2nd and 9(goal))and they spotted the ball on the 2..

Isn't it a spot foul if it is less than 15 yards?

[Bison06]

If this exact same thing happened the other way around everyone would be praising the rule. Just man up and take it.

Heres one for Indy though. The bs pass interference call, I had thought def pass int was a 15 yd penalty or 1/2 the distance to the goal if inside the 15.

When it was called the line of scrimmage was at the 9 yd line(it was 2nd and 9(goal))and they spotted the ball on the 2..

My manhood is fully intact thank you, I thought I had made it pretty clear in my initial post that yesterday's play had nothing to do with my opinion on the rule. So I would still be calling for a rule change had the situation been reversed.

[Twentysix]

Isn't it a spot foul if it is less than 15 yards?

Thats what im asking.

[A1pigskin]

I would like to see that play in slow motion.

[EmeraldCityBison]

If this exact same thing happened the other way around everyone would be praising the rule. Just man up and take it.

Heres one for Indy though. The bs pass interference call, I had thought def pass int was a 15 yd penalty or 1/2 the distance to the goal if inside the 15.

When it was called the line of scrimmage was at the 9 yd line(it was 2nd and 9(goal))and they spotted the ball on the 2..

I think if the interference happens in the end zone when the LOS is inside the 15 yardline, the ball is places at the 2 by rule.

...or something like that.

[stevdock]

I think if the interference happens in the end zone when the LOS is inside the 15 yardline, the ball is places at the 2 by rule.

...or something like that.

I don't understand why this isn't half the distance like everything else though??

Also maybe this has always been the case but when did the holding rule change: if it's behind the line of scrimmage it's ten yards from the line of scrimmage, I thought it was always 10 yards from the spot of the foul?? If that's the case then you should be able to hold a defender when the QB is in the endzone and it should be half the distance instead of a safety.

[IndyBison]

If this exact same thing happened the other way around everyone would be praising the rule. Just man up and take it.

Heres one for Indy though. The bs pass interference call, I had thought def pass int was a 15 yd penalty or 1/2 the distance to the goal if inside the 15.

When it was called the line of scrimmage was at the 9 yd line(it was 2nd and 9(goal))and they spotted the ball on the 2..
DPI penalty enforcement is an exception to standard penalty enforcement. It's a 15-yard penalty from the previous spot if the foul occurs 15 yards or more from the previous spot. If the foul occurs less than 15 yards from the previous spot, then the ball is placed at the spot of the foul. Half-the-distance enforcement does not apply but the penalty can not place the ball any closer than the 2 so any time the ball is snapped at the 17 or in and the penalty occurs inside the 2 or the end zone, the ball is placed at the 2. The one exception to this is on a try. Then it is half the distance. Got all that straight? They got it right (including the foul). This enforcement is very different than both high school and NFL which probably confuses a lot of non-officials.


I don't understand why this isn't half the distance like everything else though??

Also maybe this has always been the case but when did the holding rule change: if it's behind the line of scrimmage it's ten yards from the line of scrimmage, I thought it was always 10 yards from the spot of the foul?? If that's the case then you should be able to hold a defender when the QB is in the endzone and it should be half the distance instead of a safety.
Most fouls by the offense committed behind the line of scrimmage are enforced from the previous spot. The one exception to that is a foul by the offense in the end zone. That does result in a safety. As with the fumble forward out of bounds into the end zone, the reason it's different is that goal line is the most important line on the field. It has an impact on several different rules.

Hope that helps.

[99Bison]

Please explain why you think someone fumbling the ball on one part of the field vs. another part of the field should have a completely different result.

For the defense to take possession of the ball in any other area of the playing field they have to earn it by gaining possession. Why in this area of the field when the offense is about to score, should the result be any different than other areas of the field. The defense hasn't done anything to earn possession of the ball and there needs to be research done into coming up with a new rule for this special situation.

exactly...

[IndyBison]

Please explain why you think someone fumbling the ball on one part of the field vs. another part of the field should have a completely different result.

For the defense to take possession of the ball in any other area of the playing field they have to earn it by gaining possession. Why in this area of the field when the offense is about to score, should the result be any different than other areas of the field. The defense hasn't done anything to earn possession of the ball and there needs to be research done into coming up with a new rule for this special situation.
Because there are several rules that treat actions in the end zone differently than on the field of play. Penalty enforcements are different if the foul occurs in the end zone or while the ball was in the end zone. Force (what caused the ball to go into the end zone) is key element on balls into the end zone. The goal line is the most important line on the field.

As for the play itself I haven't seen it yet. I got to watch the replay on FCS last night but they cut out the first 5 minutes of the third quarter for some reason. Based on the comments here the rule was applied correctly though.

If the rule were ever to be changed, I doubt they would give the ball to the offense at the 1 or 10 yards behind the fumble or the 20. There is no precedent for something like that in any other rules. My guess is they would spot the ball at the spot of the fumble like other forward fumbles out of bounds. I have never heard any rumblings suggesting a rule change like that. This is a pretty standard, long-time rule that is easy to process. That doesn't mean someone can't propose a change though.

What if the Bison hadn't recovered the fumble for a TD in the third quarter and the ball went out of the end zone? Should the Bison be awarded a safety? They didn't do anything to earn possession of the ball in the end zone. Should the offense be given the ball where they fumbled or at the 20 (touchback)?

[Bison06]

Because there are several rules that treat actions in the end zone differently than on the field of play. Penalty enforcements are different if the foul occurs in the end zone or while the ball was in the end zone. Force (what caused the ball to go into the end zone) is key element on balls into the end zone. The goal line is the most important line on the field.

As for the play itself I haven't seen it yet. I got to watch the replay on FCS last night but they cut out the first 5 minutes of the third quarter for some reason. Based on the comments here the rule was applied correctly though.

If the rule were ever to be changed, I doubt they would give the ball to the offense at the 1 or 10 yards behind the fumble or the 20. There is no precedent for something like that in any other rules. My guess is they would spot the ball at the spot of the fumble like other forward fumbles out of bounds. I have never heard any rumblings suggesting a rule change like that. This is a pretty standard, long-time rule that is easy to process. That doesn't mean someone can't propose a change though.

What if the Bison hadn't recovered the fumble for a TD in the third quarter and the ball went out of the end zone? Should the Bison be awarded a safety? They didn't do anything to earn possession of the ball in the end zone. Should the offense be given the ball where they fumbled or at the 20 (touchback)?

If the ball had been kicked around and never picked up by our defense and it gets kicked out of the back of the endzone, it should be just as if it went out of bounds anywhere else on the field. Nobody retained possession of the ball so it goes back to the last team who had possession of the ball. Where to spot it would be a different discussion I suppose.

I realize the endzone is a special place on the field, so having special set of rules for this area is competely understood. This one rule though, seems to reward a team for doing nothing.

Let's say a guy is running down the field about to score a touchdown, nobody is within 20 yards of him and he fumbles it straight through the endzone and out the back. It would be called a touchback and the opposing team would get the ball at the 20 yard line. I could be wrong, but I can't think of another instance in the game of football that a team is rewarded so heavily for an event that they did nothing to cause. It seems that the penalty doesn't fit the crime and it is a matter of bad fortune that turns the game completely around in most instances.

In this specific scenario, I would be for a penalty thrown on the offense, similar to kicking the ball out of bounds on the kickoff. Penalize the team 10-15 yards, but why take possession away from them when the defense didn't earn the ball by recovering it?

[NorthernBison]

I believe a major reason for awarding the ball to the defense in this situation is to balance out the risk/reward. Since the Offense could conceivably recover in the end zone and be awarded 6 points for not actually carrying it across the goal line, it is counterbalanced by the threat of losing possession EVEN IF IT IS NOT RECOVERED BY EITHER TEAM. That's actually a big disincentive to keep teams from fumbling intentionally.

[CAS4127]

If the ball had been kicked around and never picked up by our defense and it gets kicked out of the back of the endzone, it should be just as if it went out of bounds anywhere else on the field. Nobody retained possession of the ball so it goes back to the last team who had possession of the ball. Where to spot it would be a different discussion I suppose.

I realize the endzone is a special place on the field, so having special set of rules for this area is competely understood. This one rule though, seems to reward a team for doing nothing.

Let's say a guy is running down the field about to score a touchdown, nobody is within 20 yards of him and he fumbles it straight through the endzone and out the back. It would be called a touchback and the opposing team would get the ball at the 20 yard line. I could be wrong, but I can't think of another instance in the game of football that a team is rewarded so heavily for an event that they did nothing to cause. It seems that the penalty doesn't fit the crime and it is a matter of bad fortune that turns the game completely around in most instances.

In this specific scenario, I would be for a penalty thrown on the offense, similar to kicking the ball out of bounds on the kickoff. Penalize the team 10-15 yards, but why take possession away from them when the defense didn't earn the ball by recovering it?

Two things on the bolded portions above, well, maybe more than two. First, I would venture a guess that the VAST majority of fumbles are caused by a defensive play, so that takes the VAST majority of the scenarious. Next, if an offensive player fumbles on his own accord and the ball goes out of the endzone (out of "field of play"), shouldnt his team be "penalized" for such a self-imposed blunder. Why reward a fumble/mistake? Also, leaving to the officials to decide whether fumble was caused by the defense of just was just a blunder by the ball carrier would really put things into the gray area.

Lastly, that was a hell of an effort by Holloway!!!

[THEsocalledfan]

Really surprised no one is talking about this:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2770404-ncaa-approves-2018-kickoff-rule-change-impacts-fair-catches-within-25-yard-line?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

I think this was inevitable after the 25 yard line touchback did not have the desired effect of lowing the number of returns due to coaches moving to pin teams with high kickoffs to corners. It will make for interesting decision making for the returner having the option of fair catching and going to the 25 yl.

Discuss.

[Hammerhead]

People have been talking about the new kickoff/touchback rule. Might as well end kickoffs totally and just give teams the ball on 25 or 20 yard line every time.

[THEsocalledfan]

People have been talking about the new kickoff/touchback rule. Might as well end kickoffs totally and just give teams the ball on 25 or 20 yard line every time.

What thread? I have not seen anything since this was finalized on this board.

[Hammerhead]

I know I was reading about the new kickoff rule and thought it was in this thread, but it is in the rules survey thread: http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?39122-NCAA-Rules-Survey

[THEsocalledfan]

I know I was reading about the new kickoff rule and thought it was in this thread, but it is in the rules survey thread: http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?39122-NCAA-Rules-Survey

Thanx....10 char

[IndyBison]

Really surprised no one is talking about this:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2770404-ncaa-approves-2018-kickoff-rule-change-impacts-fair-catches-within-25-yard-line?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

I think this was inevitable after the 25 yard line touchback did not have the desired effect of lowing the number of returns due to coaches moving to pin teams with high kickoffs to corners. It will make for interesting decision making for the returner having the option of fair catching and going to the 25 yl.

Discuss.I'm not sure what the original desired outcome was, but I thought I read somewhere the number of touchbacks went from like 15% to 37%. So they definitely increased but far from eliminated returns. It's easier said than done to sky a kick to the 5 near the sideline. I'm sure we'll see an increase in touchbacks but there will still be plenty of returns.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[CalBison97]

People have been talking about the new kickoff/touchback rule. Might as well end kickoffs totally and just give teams the ball on 25 or 20 yard line every time.

Do not abolish the opportunity for onside kick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bisonaudit]

Do not abolish the opportunity for onside kick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe if teams unsed it more often in situations where the whole world didn’t already know it was coming, there would be a better argument for not continuing to mess with kickoffs.

[IndyBison]

Do not abolish the opportunity for onside kick.
Most discussions have included an option for the "kicking" team to run one play on their side of the field with an opportunity to pick up a first down in 10 or 15 yards or punt the ball away. If the rule ever does eliminate the free kick I would expect to see something like that.

I re-read the earlier posts on this thread about the dreaded fumble into and out of the end zone. Another point I've heard is the reason the forward fumble out of bounds coming back to the spot of the fumble is to prevent a team from gaining yards from intentionally fumbling forward out of bounds. The rule applies whether or not the fumble is intentional. A player is not going to intentionally fumble into the end zone out of bounds. That's another reason the rule is different when it comes to the goal line. The 4th down fumble rule is similar preventing anyone but the player who fumbled from advancing. The rule is preventing a player from fumbling intentionally so his teammate could advance it beyond the line to gain. Again, it doesn't matter if the fumble was intentional.

The only possible change I could see would be to bring the ball back to the spot of the fumble if it goes out of bounds in the end zone. But I would be very surprised to see that change. The goal line is a big factor on the play.

[KNOW IT ALL]

Football is general is in big trouble over the next few years. Studies are finding more and more head injury data at ALL levels. Prominent players are coming forward every day with new horror stories, Kickoffs are violent and almost every returning kickoff in an NFL game results in somebody being helped off the field (while we are away at commercial). Asking 225lb top athletes to run full speed 40-50 yards and crash into each other is currently in the radar of common sense medicine. The NFL is being given a small window to clean this up or a couple large legal firms, backed by former NFL stars and members of their families are going to. I love football and it may be the only sport I watch on tv, however, I give it about 20 years if there is no radical change.

[56BISON73]

The new kick off rule :facepalm:

[OrygunBison]

Football is general is in big trouble over the next few years. Studies are finding more and more head injury data at ALL levels. Prominent players are coming forward every day with new horror stories, Kickoffs are violent and almost every returning kickoff in an NFL game results in somebody being helped off the field (while we are away at commercial). Asking 225lb top athletes to run full speed 40-50 yards and crash into each other is currently in the radar of common sense medicine. The NFL is being given a small window to clean this up or a couple large legal firms, backed by former NFL stars and members of their families are going to. I love football and it may be the only sport I watch on tv, however, I give it about 20 years if there is no radical change.

The game HAS seen some fairly radical change in how the athlete trains and what their skills are on the other side. From that perspective, the game is much safer than it previously was. That progress is unfortunately largely swallowed up by the fact that everyone keeps getting bigger and faster.

Personally, and as a youth coach, I would not be disappointed at all to see no kickoffs in the future. As a dad who has a kid back there returning, I think about injuries all of the time. In 6 years returning kicks, he's only had one time that he got rocked and luckily I was tending to another kid at the time and didn't see it. Full acrobatics in the air, landing on his head and back. Freaked him out but no real injury.

[Mr Meaty]

Most discussions have included an option for the "kicking" team to run one play on their side of the field with an opportunity to pick up a first down in 10 or 15 yards or punt the ball away. If the rule ever does eliminate the free kick I would expect to see something like that.



So throw it deep and hope to get a PI called.

[IndyBison]

Most discussions have included an option for the "kicking" team to run one play on their side of the field with an opportunity to pick up a first down in 10 or 15 yards or punt the ball away. If the rule ever does eliminate the free kick I would expect to see something like that.



So throw it deep and hope to get a PI called.
You could. Or you could just try to pick up the 10 or 15 yards for a first down. PI would only be 15 yards in NCAA and I believe they considered that change for the NFL as well.

[EC8CH]

Has it been proven that more head injuries occur during kickoffs than other downs? I can see the reasons why it might, but I'm just wondering if it's been proven.

[TBone]

Indy guy is a ncaa mouthpiece. ridiculous. We are all impressed that you waste your time reffing to feel needed

[thundarsdaddy]

Has it been proven that more head injuries occur during kickoffs than other downs? I can see the reasons why it might, but I'm just wondering if it's been proven.

NFL exec's claim that 4 times as many concussions occur on kickoffs versus any other play, but they have never showed any stats to back that up.

[EC8CH]

NFL exec's claim that 4 times as many concussions occur on kickoffs versus any other play, but they have never showed any stats to back that up.

In a way it would be nice it they could identify that kickoffs are the majority of the problem with concussions so they could focus on that and leave the rest of the game alone. That's probably just wishful thinking though.

[OrygunBison]

In a way it would be nice it they could identify that kickoffs are the majority of the problem with concussions so they could focus on that and leave the rest of the game alone. That's probably just wishful thinking though.

Kickoffs and the forward pass. We don't need either, really.

[56BISON73]

Kickoffs and the forward pass. We don't need either, really.

May as well not play the game.

[OrygunBison]

May as well not play the game.

Did I really need the purple text, Wendell?

[OrygunBison]

Has it been proven that more head injuries occur during kickoffs than other downs? I can see the reasons why it might, but I'm just wondering if it's been proven.

There's a certain NFL tight end previously from Illinois State that tried to tackle John Crockett during a late kickoff in the NC game in early 2015. He might have a unique perspective on the situation.

[EC8CH]

There's a certain NFL tight end previously from Illinois State that tried to tackle John Crockett during a late kickoff in the NC game in early 2015. He might have a unique perspective on the situation.

Pretty sure he still thinks Roberson won that game.

[56BISON73]

Did I really need the purple text, Wendell?

Nope. Obviously I did.

[KNOW IT ALL]

May as well not play the game.

Take into consideration that Public High Schools may have to remove the sport entirely in the very near future because they cannot assume the liability that is going to come with offering the sport. Some schools are already removing the sport and the CTE findings are only getting more defined. Now, will high school aged football be sponsored by community clubs vs. school systems? Most likely (Canada doesn't have high school sports), however, the days of allowing public tax dollars to sponsor dangerous sport are coming to an end, whether we like it or not! Public schools getting back to the business of educating our kids vs. entertaining them is a novel idea anyhow.

[AKBison]

Perhaps we should look at the data. Girls high school soccer has a higher rate per capita of concussion incidents then boys football. I am all for making football safer but not at the expense of ruining the game. Penn State coach was on ESPN radio yesterday and said according to his data, there was not a higher incidence of concussion in NCAA football during kickoffs. The data did show that there was a higher incident of injury though with most of those being hamstrings. He wasn't very happy about the rule.

[KNOW IT ALL]

Sounds like a quote out of Penn State!!! The NFL is the one trying to take the kickoff out of the game as they don't dispute the excess violent hits that occur during kickoffs. The NFL doesn't like change, they simply know they better try and stay ahead of the curve regarding CTE. In the near future QB's will be considered down by contact when a defender places two hands anywhere on their backside, thus, eliminating blind side hits to vulnerable players. Like it or not, accept it or not, football as you have known it will change drastically over the next decade as some of its biggest detractors are former NFL stars of great character. But even more importantly science is catching up to the game. 60 year old brain dead cripples don't make for a great 'poster child'.

[HerdBot]

Pretty sure he still thinks Roberson won that game.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoX-HkOcEuE

[56BISON73]

Take into consideration that Public High Schools may have to remove the sport entirely in the very near future because they cannot assume the liability that is going to come with offering the sport. Some schools are already removing the sport and the CTE findings are only getting more defined. Now, will high school aged football be sponsored by community clubs vs. school systems? Most likely (Canada doesn't have high school sports), however, the days of allowing public tax dollars to sponsor dangerous sport are coming to an end, whether we like it or not! Public schools getting back to the business of educating our kids vs. entertaining them is a novel idea anyhow.

All they have to do is sign a waver. I dont see the doom and gloom you do---With a million kids playing football every year. Considering those number the CTE scare is just that a scare. CTE isnt as prevalant as some would like to make out. The media is a huge driving force in that. Much is learned on the fields and courts that one doesnt learn in the class room.

[bisonaudit]

All they have to do is sign a waver. I dont see the doom and gloom you do---With a million kids playing football every year. Considering those number the CTE scare is just that a scare. CTE isnt as prevalant as some would like to make out. The media is a huge driving force in that. Much is learned on the fields and courts that one doesnt learn in the class room.

who's disputing that kids can learn valuable skills from participating in sport?

on the CTE front, you don’t know anymore than they do. In fact, I’m pretty sure you know less, as you’re not actively engaged in research. Have some media reports been a bit hyperbolic about the potential dangers? Sure. That’s how media works. Would the NFL prefer if no one knew the potential brain damage their game can inflict on participants? Sure. Corporations only act in their own interest. There’s a lot of uncertainty right now but tests are coming for CTE in the living. We’re going to learn a lot in the next decade or so.

[56BISON73]

who's disputing that kids can learn valuable skills from participating in sport?

on the CTE front, you don’t know anymore than they do. In fact, I’m pretty sure you know less, as you’re not actively engaged in research. Have some media reports been a bit hyperbolic about the potential dangers? Sure. That’s how media works. Would the NFL prefer if no one knew the potential brain damage their game can inflict on participants? Sure. Corporations only act in their own interest. There’s a lot of uncertainty right now but tests are coming for CTE in the living. We’re going to learn a lot in the next decade or so.

Public schools getting back to the business of educating our kids vs. entertaining them is a novel idea anyhow.

That comment was in regards to this statement.

[THEsocalledfan]

who's disputing that kids can learn valuable skills from participating in sport?

on the CTE front, you don’t know anymore than they do. In fact, I’m pretty sure you know less, as you’re not actively engaged in research. Have some media reports been a bit hyperbolic about the potential dangers? Sure. That’s how media works. Would the NFL prefer if no one knew the potential brain damage their game can inflict on participants? Sure. Corporations only act in their own interest. There’s a lot of uncertainty right now but tests are coming for CTE in the living. We’re going to learn a lot in the next decade or so.

How though? That is where I disagree. The only way to definitively study it is to do a randomized, controlled prospective trial. (kids are randomly assigned to play or not play football with no choice in the matter once assigned.) That will not happen. Next best option is to do a prospective cohort trial trying your best to match demographics. That will take at least 20 years to get results, not to mention if you want autopsy results, longer. (most object to brain samples when living) So, no, we will not get better data even if the media and stupid people try to pass off stuff as good data. We will get lots of crap, uncontrolled restrospective data folks who want glory will try to pass off as quality research. (granted, not much different than surgical data.....hope folks can sleep at night)

Rule #1 of this kind of research; you have to do it prospectively with some kind of decent control to knock out the weeds. The rest is crap and I will remain skeptical and keep my kids in football and mock the hysteria.

[bisonaudit]

How though? That is where I disagree. The only way to definitively study it is to do a randomized, controlled prospective trial. (kids are randomly assigned to play or not play football with no choice in the matter once assigned.) That will not happen. Next best option is to do a prospective cohort trial trying your best to match demographics. That will take at least 20 years to get results, not to mention if you want autopsy results, longer. (most object to brain samples when living) So, no, we will not get better data even if the media and stupid people try to pass off stuff as good data. We will get lots of crap, uncontrolled restrospective data folks who want glory will try to pass off as quality research. (granted, not much different than surgical data.....hope folks can sleep at night)

Rule #1 of this kind of research; you have to do it prospectively with some kind of decent control to knock out the weeds. The rest is crap and I will remain skeptical and keep my kids in football and mock the hysteria.

There’s a blood test coming.

[NoDak]

There’s a blood test coming.

Couldn't someone trying to do a study without "assigning" people randomly to "play football" or "not play football." There are lots of kids who play football. There are also lots of kids who do NOT play football. Couldn't these two populations work as a control and experimental groups. If we are worried about confounding variables such as kids who do not play football but might be subject to similar injuries in other ways they could be left out of the survey. Or left in to balance things out and possibly show that there are LOTS of things that can cause these injuries in young people, not just football.

I am not a scientist and I may be way off base here and this may be infeasible. But if so please tell me how.

[totoinfl]

Couldn't someone trying to do a study without "assigning" people randomly to "play football" or "not play football." There are lots of kids who play football. There are also lots of kids who do NOT play football. Couldn't these two populations work as a control and experimental groups. If we are worried about confounding variables such as kids who do not play football but might be subject to similar injuries in other ways they could be left out of the survey. Or left in to balance things out and possibly show that there are LOTS of things that can cause these injuries in young people, not just football.

I am not a scientist and I may be way off base here and this may be infeasible. But if so please tell me how.

Ok, so not scientific, but life based observation. Our oldest son played football and soccer in HS (Soccer is a winter sport in Florida). I can guarantee he had concussions from both. I only remember one concussion from football. Funny story, senior homecoming night, he was named homecoming king...doesn't remember it (concussion came about 3 plays before the half). He was a sweeper in soccer. I know for certain of 3 concussions in HS playing soccer. Two were head to head going for a ball in the air, the third was a nasty elbow to the temple.

No traditional sport is safe from the injury or concussion if you play a truly competitive level, except maybe table tennis or badminton. The most important for a parent to do is not ignore the little events, the headaches, etc. Take your kid to the doc, don't think "it will pass".

If I had young ones again, I would do the same again. If they want to play football, fine, just not until high school...period.

[KilldeerBison]

IMO, physical exercise is a really good thing, especially for adolescent males. Physical interaction seems to be a part of our DNA. Sports like football are a good way to let young guys be aggressive, while having oversight, rules and protective equipment. Not every young man needs/wants this, so be it. But, for those that do, football seems like a good alternative. If studies are the basis, then include history of steroid, drugs, alcohol, other sport injury, family history, ect...

[56BISON73]

Dont see anyone trying to ban soccer, boxing, MMA etc etc etc. Wheres the outrage?????

[OrygunBison]

Dont see anyone trying to ban soccer, boxing, MMA etc etc etc. Wheres the outrage?????

If need be, I will jump on the "Ban Soccer" bandwagon. Just tell me when and where to meet...

[56BISON73]

If need be, I will jump on the "Ban Soccer" bandwagon. Just tell me when and where to meet...

Gastropub?:biggrin:

[OrygunBison]

Gastropub?:biggrin:

Is that the place where we met Twitchy and you wasted some protoplasm or some shit?

[56BISON73]

Is that the place where we met Twitchy and you wasted some protoplasm or some shit?http

Bingo...............

[td577]

I could see high schools getting out of the athletics game. We might be the only country in the world where schools sponsor the athletic teams of these kids. Everywhere else it is community and business sponsored club teams.

I've never seen it broken down, but I wonder how much of property taxes support athletics? I know kids pay a fee to play, but that can't be covering the full cost. Club teams are fully supported by those who participate in those sports. No title anything concerns. You want a sport, start a club in the community, and if it popular enough, other communities follow.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[1998braves64]

I could see high schools getting out of the athletics game. We might be the only country in the world where schools sponsor the athletic teams of these kids. Everywhere else it is community and business sponsored club teams.

I've never seen it broken down, but I wonder how much of property taxes support athletics? I know kids pay a fee to play, but that can't be covering the full cost. Club teams are fully supported by those who participate in those sports. No title anything concerns. You want a sport, start a club in the community, and if it popular enough, other communities follow.

Sent from my SM-G960U using TapatalkProbably not real clear but I'm sure if you go into your school's school board agendas and meeting minutes over a year you could get a good idea. The receipts from admission also help pay for it too that is probably where they get a fair chunk of revenue. Booster clubs help cover some of the costs also. Don't know if NDHSAA pitches in any maybe for tournament play.

The problem with clubs being supported by those playing and businesses is you'd eliminate a lot of the poor and poor communities. Which may have eliminated many of those that have gone on to be great athletes from becoming what they did. Maybe that is bad too?? I get that some cases there would/could be scholarships so to speak. But how many parents would put little Johnny/Sally in a sport and pay how many thousands (on top of the thousands they do now just to try to make them better) just to watch them warm a bench 95% of the time? The coach/parent issue would be even worse. You eliminate a lot of the casual athletes missing out on life lessons.

Idea is entriguing but not sure you could turn the tables on what has become the HS activities associations.

Sent by my phone on a bullet train from Hillsboro.

[HerdBot]

With the new kickoff rule, do you think there will be more long on side kick attempts? You know the longer kicks that bounce between the 30 and 40 in the open space? If every kickoff is going to start at the 25, it may make more sense to attempt these.

[Bison 4 Life]

Looks like the uniform rules are tightening up.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcEaeZhXUAcwsrT.jpg

[aces1180]

Looks like the uniform rules are tightening up.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcEaeZhXUAcwsrT.jpg

More NFL-like bullshit. Will they fine the players too?

[BadlandsBison]

More NFL-like bullshit. Will they fine the players too?

The umpire can prevent players from taking the field.

I hate the biker shorts that players are wearing, I'm glad that is going away.

[IndyBison]

Looks like the uniform rules are tightening up.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcEaeZhXUAcwsrT.jpg

The only change is requiring the knee pads to cover the knees. It was passed last year and they decided to give teams a year to comply. The previous rule required the knee pad but only recommended it cover the knee. Players were getting too liberal with that recommendation so the rule was changed. Officials hate to be the uniform police. We'll see how strictly we are asked to enforce it. The FBS guys tend to be more liberal and that trickles down. Players know these rules but they want to look cool so they'll do it until an official tells them no. The coaches hate it too.

[Bison 4 Life]

I always thought that back plate could injure someone if it were flopping around

[IndyBison]

I always thought that back plate could injure someone if it were flopping aroundI know a guy who has a player rupture his spleen when he landed on a player with his back pad flipped vertical. A player could fracture his back if he landed on his back with the back pad perpendicular when it hits.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Hammerhead]

I don't see anything wrong with forcing players to tuck in their shirts and cover their knees. (Yes, I'm turning into an old geezer.)

[IndyBison]

I think the idea is to be as "uniform" as possible. If you don't restrict it you have to draw a line somewhere and that can be fuzzy. For example, there is no writing allowed on eye black. If you allow it where do you draw the line. Many call it the Tim Tebow rule because he was putting bible verses on his eye black.

Funny story related to jerseys. I had a DB with his t-shirt tucked out like the middle picture on the right. Throughout the first half I kept asking him to tuck it and he said he would. I saw him when we were walking off the field at halftime and told him I really need him to tuck it in. If he looks good he plays good. He comes out after halftime and shows me he has tucked in his t-shirt. #1 is standing next to use and he has his jersey tucked up like the upper right photo. I point to him and tell the DB, he won't play well because he doesn't look good. In the third quarter that DB gets an INT and I told him it was because he tucked his shirt on. On the next series #1 catches a long pass and could have walked into the end zone, but he tripped over the 10 yard line. When he got up and gave me the ball I jokingly told him would have scored if his shirt was tucked in. A couple series later that team completes a TD in the back of the end zone with an amazing diving catch. The receiver gets up and it's #1. And guess what? His shirt is tucked in! On the next series the DB gets a second INT and after the play he came running to me to give me the ball! Of course the jerseys had zero impact on any of that, but it made for a great story.

The next season I have that same team and I'm talking to the coaches and a player who has his shirt untucked telling them the story from the previous year. The DB (different than previous year) tells me he'll tuck it in before the game. On the first series the other team scores when a defender falls down taking the wrong path in coverage. It's the DB I talked to before the game and his shirt is untucked! I told him he fell down because he didn't tuck in his shirt. On the next series his shirt is tucked in and he goes on to make 2 INT in the game. I can't make up this stuff!

The moral of the story...you look good you play good.

[Gully]

I think the idea is to be as "uniform" as possible. If you don't restrict it you have to draw a line somewhere and that can be fuzzy. For example, there is no writing allowed on eye black. If you allow it where do you draw the line. Many call it the Tim Tebow rule because he was putting bible verses on his eye black.

Funny story related to jerseys. I had a DB with his t-shirt tucked out like the middle picture on the right. Throughout the first half I kept asking him to tuck it and he said he would. I saw him when we were walking off the field at halftime and told him I really need him to tuck it in. If he looks good he plays good. He comes out after halftime and shows me he has tucked in his t-shirt. #1 is standing next to use and he has his jersey tucked up like the upper right photo. I point to him and tell the DB, he won't play well because he doesn't look good. In the third quarter that DB gets an INT and I told him it was because he tucked his shirt on. On the next series #1 catches a long pass and could have walked into the end zone, but he tripped over the 10 yard line. When he got up and gave me the ball I jokingly told him would have scored if his shirt was tucked in. A couple series later that team completes a TD in the back of the end zone with an amazing diving catch. The receiver gets up and it's #1. And guess what? His shirt is tucked in! On the next series the DB gets a second INT and after the play he came running to me to give me the ball! Of course the jerseys had zero impact on any of that, but it made for a great story.

The next season I have that same team and I'm talking to the coaches and a player who has his shirt untucked telling them the story from the previous year. The DB (different than previous year) tells me he'll tuck it in before the game. On the first series the other team scores when a defender falls down taking the wrong path in coverage. It's the DB I talked to before the game and his shirt is untucked! I told him he fell down because he didn't tuck in his shirt. On the next series his shirt is tucked in and he goes on to make 2 INT in the game. I can't make up this stuff!

The moral of the story...you look good you play good.

Don't you play well? :)

[IndyBison]

Don't you play well? :)

I didn't say anything about being fat, bald, and ugly. But my pants are hemmed, my shoes polished, and my shirt is tucked in.

[Gully]

I didn't say anything about being fat, bald, and ugly. But my pants are hemmed, my shoes polished, and my shirt is tucked in.

LOL. Sorry, I was making fun of your grammar (well vs. good), not your looks.

[IndyBison]

LOL. Sorry, I was making fun of your grammar (well vs. good), not your looks.

Yeah...look good play well isn't as poetic

[tjamz]

Yeah...look good play well isn't as poetic

Look swell, play well?