It's official: Kickoffs from 35, touchbacks to 25, 5yd running start for coverage team
"The Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP) during its conference call on Tuesday approved moving the kickoff and touchback lines beginning with the 2012 football season.
Next fall, teams will kick off at the 35-yard line instead of the 30. Also, players on the kicking team can’t line up for the play behind the 30-yard line, which is intended to limit the running start kicking teams used to have during the play.
Also, touchbacks on free kicks will be moved to the 25-yard line instead of the 20 to encourage more touchbacks. Touchbacks on other plays (for example, punts that go into the end zone, or fumbles that go out of the end zone) will remain at the 20-yard line." - from NCAA website
What I really didn't like was the no-running-start rule for coverage teams. The 35/25 would make elite kickers even more valuable, giving a major field position advantage for a team who can kick it sky high with good coverage. Coverage rule may negate that effect if you can't get down there quick enough.
3 months ago
jmnpb996
112 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I bet the freakin ACC had something to do with this since we got Bracy.
- conspiracy. (Joking)
by jenolesone on Feb 24, 2012 11:08 AM EST via mobile reply actions
There is nothing good about this when it comes to FSU.
Any team with elite talent and speed will hate this.
"A better ending could not have been scripted. Of course, if we had won, that would have been better." -Bobby Bowden
by cerebralfish on Feb 24, 2012 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly. We will be taking the ball at the 25 far too often, instead of letting a Los or Bracy/Darby take it out.
No team will kick to us anymore, and most mediocre kickers are going to be able to put it deep in the end zone every time.
The benefit for FSU is “placing” the ball inside the 10 and letting our burner coverage team stop them well inside the 25.
We’re going to find a way to use our elite kickers, returners, and coverage teams to gain a field position advantage.
Hmm.
Seems like kickers will be able to concentrate on getting more height now; allowing coverage to get farther downfield; possibly more quick (and hard) hits on returners?
Assuming that teams will always try to go for the touchback – while at the same time decreasing the desirability of a TB – might be a mistake. We’ll see.
what could be on their thought process...
is if they are mediocre kickers and are being asked by more aggressive coaches to kick it at a higher angle for hang time, unlike a punt, the odds it goes out of bounds increases, for a penalty: would coaches then opt to TB EVERY time?
whatever their thoughts, they’ve ruined the KR now…
"My acting is a bit like basketball. Most females in my films come off very well. I give great assist. And if I`m lucky, I even score." - Burt Reynolds
by RobbSeminole on Feb 27, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
"They may just be moronic, or possibiy psychotic"
They’re the fellas at the freaking ACC……
agreed, next they’re gonna say pointing at the ball is some sort of fair catch signal and call back a td return. Oh wait, …
by Tallinasty_Nole on Feb 24, 2012 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It takes about ten yards for a player to reach full speed (perfect conditions)
Therefore the five yards that the ball is going to be moved up is absolutely useless since the player still has 65 yards ahead of him…
This doesn’t make the game safer, it just makes KO returns less frequent due to touchbacks, which is sorta like saying : “Cutting myself hurts, and I don’t like it, I should cut myself less.”
If we can't laugh at ourselves, Packer fans will call us crybabies and we will be forced to kick their tooth in. I really don't want to go to jail (again).
by Alittlemore_cowbell on Feb 24, 2012 11:19 AM EST reply actions
They should add in a rule
saying that kickoffs that are not cleanly possessed by the return team get moved to the 20 as well. It would still reward kickers strong enough to kick the ball through the endzone.
I honestly bet we'll see Hopkins kickoff go through the uprights at some point.
by jenolesone on Feb 24, 2012 11:33 AM EST via mobile reply actions
That was common with Janikowski, back when they kicked from the 35.
"Baseball is like church. Many attend but few understand." - Wes Westrum, Mets Manager
I once saw him kick a balll all the way out of Doak.
True Story
Formerly known as Randall W. Spetman.
Janikowski once kicked a ball across Pensacola Street and onto the practice fields.
Into the wind.
by Dauntless12 on Feb 25, 2012 12:16 AM EST up reply actions
whatever, Graham Gano once kicked
from his house in Pensacola and landed it on the practice fields.
Janikowski once kicked a ball only to the 40 ...
but that was after he kicked it all the way around the world.
Roberto Aguayo, also.
Video of Aguayo putting it through the uprights from 74 yards at a kicking competition last year:
by agn931 on Feb 24, 2012 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This rewards teams....
for being “more safe” and not taking it out of the endzone. It’s the day and age we are living in. The game is changing completely, and I hate it.
If Satan had a son, it would be John Swofford.
by FSU5410 on Feb 24, 2012 11:38 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Actually less..
He will blend in more as the majority of kickers will have more touchbacks now
I disagree,
I think a kicker like Hopkins is gonna be able to really get under the ball and drop it somewhere between the goal line and the 5-yard line, I could see us pinning a lot of returns within the 15 with this rule so long as Dustin doesn’t just try to kick the ball out of the endzone.
seemed to be his strategy anyway
in some of the cupcake games last year. aim for the goal line, let the elite speed of the kicking team get down and pin them inside 15.
Given the rule change in the NFL, guys that plan on playing at the next level
should be doing this anyway.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
This definitely originated from the ACC
Significantly curtails the importance of FSU’s elite kicker and kick coverage unit.
>>---l>
Is there an actual reason they are doing this?
Or is this more of a case of, it isn’t broken – but we are going to fix it anyway?
'Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football.' John Heisman
to limit returns.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 24, 2012 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
The real question is this:
Will we coach Hopkins to boom it and give up the 25, or will we coach him to kick it super high and deep and try to pin opponents inside the 25. Remember, while the coverege unit gets less of a head of steam, they also have 5 fewer yards to run. And since Hopkins doesn’t have to worry as much about depth, he could probably get some pretty serious hang time.
Of course, the other side is — even if you gained a few yards in FP on average by doing this, you are increasing the chance of a game-changing return for touchdown.
Probably depends on the quality of the opponent’s return game.
I hope they don't "coach" him to do anything.
He’s got one more year then he’s NFL bound…It’d be sad to see him screw up his kicking motion to accomodate some BS rule change. We’ll live with it for one year IMO. Cut him loose and let him boom them as far as possible. I hope he hits a gator fan or two in the dome in the opposing end zone.
Formerly known as Randall W. Spetman.
Football has to adapt to the growing concern about concussions. Some of the changes will be silly and/or not helpful
But, legally and morally and for public perception, they HAVE to adapt.
Yes, because people will grow so disenchanted with the concussions that they'll stop watching.
The Super Bowl will be just too unbearable. People will stop playing football. Sure.
No, its because Football will get sued out of existence at the HS level
if it doesn’t get a handle on the concussion issue. Right now the NFL is facing multiple concussion related lawsuits, obviously at the HS level the pain threshold for lawsuits is much lower. I do hate this rule and don’t think it will do a ton to reduce concussions.
It is about the liability lawsuits...
With the lawsuits facing the NFL, if they succeed you will see lawsuits against the colleges, high schools and youth football. The costs of insurance will be staggering. I soon expect colleges and even high schools to have players undergo medical exams to show they have no previous concussions. Especially with the high schools, the players will be responsible for the costs of such exams.
Seems like a token effort to me.
I do see some hard hits on kickoffs, but if we put together a compilation of hardest FSU hits over the past few years, most wouldn’t be on kickoffs, right?
It would seem that at best this would marginally reduce the number of concussions, at best. To me this rule change seems like lame, half-hearted attempt at reducing concussions, and seems to support the idea that the game is too dangerous to play.
Societal acceptance of sports that intentionally inflict head trauma seems to be growing (MMA, UFC, etc…) yet football changes its rules…
I’m not saying I’m convinced that this isi wrong, just I haven’t figured out how to make sense of it yet.
Oh, it's definately a token effort.
If you wanted to limit concussions, you’d change (or try to change) other aspects of the game (e.g., penalizing throws over the middle; the point of impact for lineman). The purpose of this kind of rule change is to make it LOOK like they are making reasonable steps to limit concussions without grossly altering the nature of the game. I mean, it’s pretty hard to argue that college football will be less compelling to watch because the KO was moved 5 yards.
Studies have shown it isn’t the big hits, as much as the repetitive small shots that cause the brain problems later in life. Trying to encourage touchbacks is supposed to eliminate a play that causes lots of trauma. I agree it is token in the effect that it is only one play and not a very common occurring one.
Also, making touchbacks be at the 25 encourages kicking teams to sky the ball and avoid touchbacks, so it seems these moves are counter productive to each other.
My photo appeared in the Nightlife photo collage of the FSView for six weeks in-a-row. That’s who I am.
Yeah
I said something similar above, before reading this far down (you posted first). I agree that it might not be as good a move as it would appear to be. Let’s see if the practice plays out like the theory.
I don't expect us to field a lot of kickoffs this season anyway.
And I expect even fewer returns allowed. D Hop’s kickoffs will likely land somewhere on Champions Way.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
Sure
I know my username is misspelled
by unconqured15 on Feb 24, 2012 3:28 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Fail. Sure kicking from the 35 helps protect the players.
But now hopkins is gonna be dropping bombs on the student section.
I know my username is misspelled
by unconqured15 on Feb 24, 2012 3:30 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I hope we let Bracy and Los take them out still
Even from 5 yards deep they ought to consistently reach the 20, and 5 yards is worth the potential big return. I do worry that it will get slightly harder to add young depth since kickoff team for freshman year is becoming moot.
NFL this season
teams seemed to return from 3-5 yards deep in the endzone, any further take the touchback. I guess the thought was kind of like punts inside the 20. Stand at the 10 (or for ko stand at the back of letters in endzone). The 25 yard touchback seems to defeat the purpose though, b/c, as many others have said, kick for the 5 yd line to goalline and let the coverage pin them.
Just like the NFL
(No fun league). Why don’t we just put flags on the players hips and eliminate tackling all together? I HATE this namby pamby BS. Kick off returns are arguably the most exciting play in any game and they are all but eliminating it.
"When you go out there and put numbers on the scoreboard, everything changes. We went out there and executed." -- FSU coach Jimbo Fisher
by xfactor159 on Feb 24, 2012 3:55 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Hell yeah, really, why don't we put a skirt on the players and change their names to Nancy, Susan, Mary, Debbie, and Alashawandre, while we are at it?
>------::----::------->Spearing 'em and Scalping 'em like it's 1999
I'm not so sure this Jimbo fella is the right man for the job.
If there was a vote
for “Poster most likely to walk up to Tim Jernigan and call him Nancy”, xfactor gets my vote. He’ll probably call him the c word and spit in his face just to make sure he got his point across.
Formerly known as Randall W. Spetman.
I guess that means
Its time for me to make sure my life insurance policy is in order
"When you go out there and put numbers on the scoreboard, everything changes. We went out there and executed." -- FSU coach Jimbo Fisher
by xfactor159 on Feb 24, 2012 8:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Have you been reading the UF roster again?
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
by Jamil Dawson on Feb 24, 2012 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
Believe me, I’m not dogging any players for this. I’m just perturbed that the governing bodies are changing things that made football the #1 sport in the country. You can’t breath on a QB anymore without getting a flag (unless of course you’re an FSU opponent), if you’re an LB you better not try and hit a receiver going over the middle or else you’ll get tosses ( see Nigel Bradham). Its just not the same game I grew up playing and loving and I honestly think eventually it will be the downfall of the sport. Just one mans opinion, sorry if I offended anyone.
"When you go out there and put numbers on the scoreboard, everything changes. We went out there and executed." -- FSU coach Jimbo Fisher
by xfactor159 on Feb 24, 2012 6:17 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
*tossed
"When you go out there and put numbers on the scoreboard, everything changes. We went out there and executed." -- FSU coach Jimbo Fisher
by xfactor159 on Feb 24, 2012 6:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
No offensive taken. It was an attempt at a lame joke piggybacking off your comment.
>------::----::------->Spearing 'em and Scalping 'em like it's 1999
I'm not so sure this Jimbo fella is the right man for the job.
Alashawandre played for FAMU...
"D.RUSSO IS THE MAN" -DA-2
Follow me on Twitter for all the outrageous sh!t I can't say on Tomahawk Nation...
Follow @DRusso97
Kicking high on kick-offs
Count me among those who think this means teams with average kickers benefit. The reason I say that is that I’m just not sure how easy it is to kick a teed ball for height as well as distance.
Maybe a different question if the rules allow a punt-style kick-off after scores, but that’s 65 yards to the end zone. Could a guy like Shawn Powell make that tactic pay off?
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 24, 2012 4:41 PM EST reply actions
Vomit
That is all
A Seminole warrior killed in battle is a legend remembered. A Gator lost in battle becomes a pair of boots and a belt.
twitter of random stuff and tons of confessing FSU love Follow @caine115
F THE ACC ..|.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
by caine115 on Feb 24, 2012 4:42 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Pussification
of America continues. @ussies.
Next thing you know they’ll ban mid-field pre-game fights.
Blazenole's comment might be
a bit simplistic. Players are much bigger, faster and stronger than when the rules were first drawn up. I’ve never suffered a concussion like the ones experienced by college football players and I won’t presume to say the rules shouldn’t change.
Should a guy’s brains be scrambled for life when he’s still playing for free? NFL? Maybe a different discussion ‘cause they’re getting paid, but even they’ve changed the rules.
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 24, 2012 4:53 PM EST reply actions
Sometimes simple is better
Risk is a fact of life and in football. Players are bigger and stronger but the protection and equipment have come light years in development and in technology.
Also, the rules have changed primarily due to LIABILITY and lawsuits and to a lesser degree for safety. On the field and off. In football and in life.
true you can choose...
but that does not mean the rules have to be static. You’re talking about asking guys who are 18 to come up with a reasonable appreciation of the risks and implications of a concussion. If I were a parent, I’d want the NCAA to at least think about such things.
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 24, 2012 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
As that parent you should ensure your 18 year old has an appreciation of the risks and implications of a concussion as well.
I also think the rules should evolve just as the measurables of the players has but educating players and their parents/support systems about the risks would be better than those same parents simply waiting on the NCAA to do something.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
by Jamil Dawson on Feb 24, 2012 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
A novel proposition
18 year olds who think they’re immortal. Seriously, are you going to pretend that’s not a factor? Do you know anything at all about human nature?
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 24, 2012 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
It's more common sense than novel.
We know the athletes, whether 18 or 38, are going to play. They will do whatever it takes to get on and remain on the field. That’s how they’re wired. The people those athletes listen to need to be knowledgable about concussions as well. That process should begin at the lowest levels.
If you’re a parent and you’re content to put all of this on the NCAA and do nothing more, you are failing your child.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
by Jamil Dawson on Feb 24, 2012 5:30 PM EST up reply actions
If you're the NCAA
and you leave it to the parents, you’re failing the players.
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 24, 2012 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
Wow
I said I also agree the rules should evolve. Educating players’ parents is in addition to that which is why I used “as well” more than once. I never disagreed with you.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
by Jamil Dawson on Feb 27, 2012 8:54 AM EST up reply actions
Ironically
I’d like to see the stats that support their argument for changing the rules. They said returns are where most injuries occur, well duh. Statistically, it is the only play where you have 11 on 11 moving the most from a greater distance. Further, rules (blocking, etc.) have reduced injuries on other plays.
Kinda like the stat that says most car accidents happen within 3 miles of one’s house.
Finally, so if injuries drop on kick-offs, and only then the most injuries occur on tackling, then they’ll say we need to stop tackles and go to flags because most injuries occur then. See a pattern?
that's a little absurd, isn't it?
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 24, 2012 5:05 PM EST reply actions
If your goal is to eliminate concussions, where does it end?
I think some of the hits refs, conferences, and the NFL deem illegal are absurd as they are inherently apart of the game.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
by Jamil Dawson on Feb 24, 2012 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
If the NCAA really wanted to elimited concussions, they'd eliminate football (and wrestling, and gymnastics, and everything else in which concussions regularly happen)
Because the NCAA isn’t eliminating concussions, we can conclude that eliminating concussions isn’t the purpose of this action.
Because the NCAA isn’t eliminating these sports*, we can conclude that eliminating concussions isn’t the purpose of this action.
So, um, when are getting a forum that allows editing of posts?
Who said...
the goal is to eliminate concussions?
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 24, 2012 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
I boo both of you gentelmen :-)
The NCAA has admitted (in their own literature) to creating several rules designed to prevent the injury. Once they occur, there are certainly plans in place to ensure they athlete doesn’t return prematurely but never think they don’t want to eliminate them completely.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
by Jamil Dawson on Feb 27, 2012 9:03 AM EST up reply actions
Over/under on Hopkins kick-off fair catches *not* in the endzone?
2011 winner of the DocHoliday2 MS Paint/Photoshop Award. So I've got that going for me.
2?
Don’t know that it will be that many. Depends on how many games we’re kicking off in a late game scenario in the lead by less than a TD. Other than that scenario, I think we’ll see a bunch of high kicks landing near the goal line +/- 3-4 yards.
I think it would be too easy to just boot it through the endzone every time. I think bouncing, end over end kicks or high arching pooch kicks would be more effective. Why be a brute and automatically give it to them at the 25?
Another option is whether it has to be kicked from a tee? From your 35 to their 25 is only 40 yards. I would venture to guess most college kickers could kick it 50 with hang time so that potentially forces a fair catch at the opponents 15 rather than the 25.
Speaking as someone who has had far too many concussions for a single person including two on kick returns, I am in favor of this rule. Using your brain a little here is potentially better IMO that just kicking it through the uprights.
I was going to say...
I’d like to hear from someone who has had a concussion on one of these plays.
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 24, 2012 5:47 PM EST up reply actions
I was a “front line” guy on kickoff returns. And perhaps I wasn’t big enough to be a true “wedge” and still wasn’t fast enough to get downfield properly and set, but the contact between the “wedge busters” and “wedge” was brutal for me. First I had to wait until I ensured there was no onside kick, then turn and sprint to form a wedge. By this time the wedge busters had a 10 yard sprint on my. By the time you got set in your wedge and turned around, you, or perhaps mostly I, got my ass knocked off. I have always thought, from an admittedly biased point of view, that kickoffs were extremely dangerous. I don’t know that this necessarily stops it because there are two options:
So who knows what will happen.
by ttubasketball on Feb 24, 2012 6:02 PM EST up reply actions
I just don't think we'll see that many fair catches at the 15.
To me, if you’re putting that much air under the ball, you’re giving the return guys enough time to run under the ball, and I just don’t see many fair catches in that case.
No doubt they could get under the ball, as they do with punts, but when the kickoff team is right in their face they likely won’t attempt a return.
by ttubasketball on Feb 24, 2012 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
I really don't like the 25 yard line thing.
I’m not as bothered by the other two changes.
Overall, it doesn’t make sense to me to say “Kickoff returns are too dangerous. Let’s not eliminate the problem. Let’s just have fewer of a play that we recognize is too dangerous.” To me, it’s all or nothing: either the play is too dangerous to be within the limits of the game, or it is not. If it’s too dangerous, it should be eliminated or changed in a meaningful way. This doesn’t reach the threshold for meaningful change to me.
Putting the touchback for kickoffs at the 25 and for punts and fumbles at the 20 is confusing and inconsistent. It won’t be confusing for people who read this site, but for plenty of people it will be one of those things they just can’t remember about the game.
Also, this would seem to have an impact on things like how many yards in offense can be gained by a team or player, and how many points are scored. The impact of this is unlikely to be factored into historical records, thus meaning we once again end up comparing apples and oranges.
Agree. If they absolutely had to make a change, they should have put the kickoff at the 35 and left touchbacks alone.
Most of us were probably introduced to CFB when it was kickoffs from the 35 anyway, so no big response from fans.
by 38Noles on Feb 24, 2012 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yup, the 25 thing bugs me.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Agree on the 25 yard line issue
I guess it would give the return team more reason to stay in the end-zone, but it will give the KO team equal reason for more KOs in the 0-5 yard line range.
On the kickoff return thing, I remember reading somewhere (maybe even here)
if you really wanted to get rid of kickoff returns because of how dangerous they were, they had a suggestion where you got the ball back on your 20 after you scored, but the down was 4th and 15, which led to more punts replacing kickoffs while leaving the option of a fake punt to replace onside kicks or simply going for it with 2 minutes left.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
I think that was Greg Schiano’s idea. Seemed too radical to me.
by 38Noles on Feb 24, 2012 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I heard about that today.
Will never happen IMO. Much too crazy. Jesus won’t allow it
Formerly known as Randall W. Spetman.
Are you saying Jesus can't hit a curveball??
"D.RUSSO IS THE MAN" -DA-2
Follow me on Twitter for all the outrageous sh!t I can't say on Tomahawk Nation...
Follow @DRusso97
If KOs are that dangerous
Why not go Canadian and have three downs? That should reduce the scoring, shouldn’t it? = fewer KOs.
LOS
All the more reason fro him to move to offense, there will not be as many opportunities for him to showcase his talents.
Having him play defense is like Anquan Holding being in a Jeff Bowden offense…..waste of talent.
by patriotnole on Feb 25, 2012 9:16 AM EST via mobile reply actions
kicker and 5 yards ruining start
Is the kicker constrained to 5 yards running start? Kickers usually line up about 4 yards for a field goal and 10 yards for a kick off. The 5 yard rule, if applied to kickers, may shorten their max distance. Most college kickers can kick the ball 55-60 yards with a 4 yard approach. The use of a tee would add a few extra yards. Elite kickers with elite coverage will go for high kicks that land inside the 5.
by bigkoi on Feb 25, 2012 9:58 AM EST via mobile reply actions
a little bit of that could be solved by rounding the approach
starting out even more to the left, but then of course you’re more in danger of hooking the kick out of bounds.
I'm hoping this will encourage more on-side kickoff attempts.
>------::----::------->Spearing 'em and Scalping 'em like it's 1999
I'm not so sure this Jimbo fella is the right man for the job.
In 2009 our best defensive play was the onside kick and our best defensive lineup was the onside kickoff lineup.
You are more than the choices that you've made, You are more than the sum of your past mistakes, you are more than the problems you create, you are more, You've been remade - Tenth Avenue North
it appears...
That kick-offs do not have to be done from a tee, but the only alternate is to drop-kick it, which seems to mean the ball has to hit the ground first (http://bit.ly/cB3OZX). Scroll down to FR-51 for the rules for kickoffs and then to the bottom of page FR-50 for the definition of a drop kick.
So much for punting.
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 25, 2012 1:56 PM EST reply actions
Drop kicks?
Returning to rugby. You can get good hang time on a rugby ball with a drop kick. A Rugby ball is rounder and shaped better for kicking and bouncing. Not sure if a football would be easy to drop kick based on it’s shape being streamlined for the passing game.
That's my impression, too
I think a football is just too difficult to control to do drop-kicks, plus I think it’s asking an awful lot to assume you can get as much wind underneath it compared to a straight punt.
I once sought to be above reproach, then I discovered being beneath contempt was much less work
by NoleFanMark on Feb 25, 2012 2:52 PM EST reply actions
Who remembers 1984?
Concussions weren’t the issue. Too many kickers busting it out the back of the end zone was. Kickoffs were from the forty that year. A ball that landed out of the back of the end zone was put at the thirty! I can still hear our coach explaining to our All American kicker that he wanted him to kick it sixty nine yards! That rule quickly died.
I am all for our returnees bringing it out from seven yards deep and taking a chance.
It's what we learn after we know it all that counts. John Wooden






























