11/17/24
August 15, 2011
Bears refuse to bend to new kickoff rule, told by league to stop mid-game: How far will the NFL go to ruin tradition, with this rule teams like Oakland will never have to cover a kick off.
Tradition? Kickoffs were from the 40 for decades before it was moved to the 35, then the 30, as soccer-style kickers became more prevalent.
I love the note about Oakland: I saw Janikowski's opening kickoff go through the uprights. Now if we can move the goal posts back to the goal line, get more scoring and fewer punts from inside the opponents' 35-yard line.
posted by jjzucal at 11:04 AM on August 15, 2011
If the league is concerned about player safety here, then an appropriate response would be to eliminate kickoffs all together. I'm not saying I support that, but rather that this rule change is dumb.
posted by bender at 03:13 PM on August 15, 2011
Now if we can move the goal posts back to the goal line, get more scoring and fewer punts from inside the opponents' 35-yard line.
Sounds like someone is itching to watch some CFL games...
posted by grum@work at 04:21 PM on August 15, 2011
I think changing the rules for safety concerns is wise, but some type of compensation for teams like the Bears & Browns who have tried to emphasize the kick return game seems fair. I have no idea how anyone could do that, but it does seem like this rule kind of negates a strength of a few teams, strengths that were developed before the rule change.
Someone on ESPN implied that this was Lovie not so subtly letting the league know he didn't appreciate how the new rule affected his team. Interesting theory, wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
posted by brainofdtrain at 07:46 PM on August 15, 2011
Sorry, what's the tradition here?