Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I've often wondered why there have never been any comprehensive changes to the rules regarding kickoff returns from the end zones and kicks for extra points at least in college and high school football.  Since many if not most of the kick offs now go into the end zone and extra point kicks are routinely made it would seem that kickoff returns should be similar to that of the NFL where a player can do a run back from the end zone. It certainly would make the game more exciting as run backs are one of the most interesting plays in football. As far as kicking extra points are concerned maybe they could be made more difficult or just do away with kicking for extra points and only allow rushing or passing for extra points. Would like to hear opinions and/or recommendations pro and con regarding this topic.


Posted
8 minutes ago, Proseteye said:

I've often wondered why there have never been any comprehensive changes to the rules regarding kickoff returns from the end zones and kicks for extra points at least in college and high school football.  Since many if not most of the kick offs now go into the end zone and extra point kicks are routinely made it would seem that kickoff returns should be similar to that of the NFL where a player can do a run back from the end zone. It certainly would make the game more exciting as run backs are one of the most interesting plays in football. As far as kicking extra points are concerned maybe they could be made more difficult or just do away with kicking for extra points and only allow rushing or passing for extra points. Would like to hear opinions and/or recommendations pro and con regarding this topic.

With the emphasis that leagues have been placing on making the game safer for the players, I would be surprised if the kickoff is not phased out in the next couple of years. Athletes are getting stronger and faster every year and with that, they chance of serious injury increases each year. Take two strong, fast athletes running full speed at each other from 60-70 yards away and you have a recipe for disaster on every kickoff. After a score, just place the ball on the 20 and let the offense start from there; much safer. The NFL has already addressed the kick for the extra point by moving the kick further away. Doing the same with high school would make the extra point less automatic.

Posted

I agree with you guys on the kickoffs.   Given the emphasis on safety, and the propensity for injury on kickoffs, I see them doing away with kickoffs before they change the rule to allow kicks into the end zone to be returned . . . but I don't see them doing away with kickoffs any time soon -- in large part because no one has really come up with an acceptable replacement for the onside kick as a means of trying to get the ball back after scoring a late TD in a close game. 

As for extra points, it's only automatic if you have a good kicker, a decent long-snapper and a decent holder.  I've seen several extra points missed already this year (more so at the JV level, but also at the V level).  Kicking for extra points isn't that common in youth leagues; typically, you don't see kicking until high school.   Kicking for extra points is a good training ground and a great way to develop the kickers, the holders and the long-snappers . . . you know, those guys that you then count on to walk out onto the field and produce a game-winning 35-yard FG. 

Posted

I think kickoffs will get phased out too. Player safety is always going to be the most important thing in high school sports - as it ought to be.

As for kicking extra points, I can't imagine a scenario where they move the ball back or anything right now. Some schools have teams who can't even line-up a field goal unit, let alone get a kid who can kick the ball accurately from 25-30 yards out. I just think it would help the better programs and hurt the worse ones disproportionately. But, I could also just be an old, crazy guy.

Posted
11 hours ago, Proseteye said:

I've often wondered why there have never been any comprehensive changes to the rules regarding kickoff returns from the end zones and kicks for extra points at least in college and high school football.  Since many if not most of the kick offs now go into the end zone and extra point kicks are routinely made it would seem that kickoff returns should be similar to that of the NFL where a player can do a run back from the end zone. It certainly would make the game more exciting as run backs are one of the most interesting plays in football. As far as kicking extra points are concerned maybe they could be made more difficult or just do away with kicking for extra points and only allow rushing or passing for extra points. Would like to hear opinions and/or recommendations pro and con regarding this topic.

Player safety will prevent a rule change for allowing free kicks (kickoffs) to be returned out of the end zone in NFHS rules. In fact, I would not be surprised if free kicks were completely eliminated in High School and Youth Football rules within 5-10 years. 

Posted
18 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

Player safety will prevent a rule change for allowing free kicks (kickoffs) to be returned out of the end zone in NFHS rules. In fact, I would not be surprised if free kicks were completely eliminated in High School and Youth Football rules within 5-10 years. 

You rarely see high school kickoffs reaching the end zone, at least at the games I've seen lately. The kid with a strong leg is a blessing for a team, but rare. I think you'll see kickoffs eliminate at the youth level and high school within the the next year or two. 

Posted
5 hours ago, HornetFan said:

You rarely see high school kickoffs reaching the end zone, at least at the games I've seen lately. The kid with a strong leg is a blessing for a team, but rare. I think you'll see kickoffs eliminate at the youth level and high school within the the next year or two. 

Youth football, I would agree that kickoffs will be eliminated within a year or two. High School Football might take a little longer. 

Posted

Again, I don't see kickoffs being eliminated until somebody comes up with a replacement for the on-side kick.  There has to be some mechanism, regardless of how risky, to enable a team to be able to immediately gain possession of the ball after scoring.  I know some ideas have been floated around, but nothing has stuck yet. 

Posted
52 minutes ago, Perspective said:

Again, I don't see kickoffs being eliminated until somebody comes up with a replacement for the on-side kick.  There has to be some mechanism, regardless of how risky, to enable a team to be able to immediately gain possession of the ball after scoring.  I know some ideas have been floated around, but nothing has stuck yet. 

I can't remember exactly what the proposed alternative was, but college football was studying a "one play" scenario where the trailing team would have an opportunity. They could easily keep the on-side kick while ending all other kickoffs. On-side kicks are never a surprise when used as a last resort at the end of a game. They could limit it to the last two minutes and make the team declare their intent. At least you wouldn't have players running full speed for 40-50 yards and colliding with injury potential at the highest level.

Posted
1 hour ago, HornetFan said:

I can't remember exactly what the proposed alternative was, but college football was studying a "one play" scenario where the trailing team would have an opportunity. They could easily keep the on-side kick while ending all other kickoffs. On-side kicks are never a surprise when used as a last resort at the end of a game. They could limit it to the last two minutes and make the team declare their intent. At least you wouldn't have players running full speed for 40-50 yards and colliding with injury potential at the highest level.

I remember the Philadelphia Eagles proposed an alternative to onside kicks: 

To provide an alternative to the onside kick that would allow a team who is trailing in the game an opportunity to maintain possession of the ball after scoring (4th and 15 from the kicking team’s 25-yard line).

Posted
1 hour ago, OHS_Kboys said:

I remember the Philadelphia Eagles proposed an alternative to onside kicks: 

To provide an alternative to the onside kick that would allow a team who is trailing in the game an opportunity to maintain possession of the ball after scoring (4th and 15 from the kicking team’s 25-yard line).

Thanks; that's the one I remember seeing. It's actually a better chance for the trailing team. Fourth and 15 is a lot easier to make than recovering an on-side kick. And, if you don't make the 1st down, you would have lost anyway.

Posted
On 10/20/2020 at 11:33 AM, skyway said:

Safety is the primary concern over kick returns. It's the most dangerous play in the sport. The next major rule change likely to occur is the elimination of the kickoff all together.

And say bye bye to the onside kick.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


  • Posts

    • I suddenly wish Bridgewater had known he was breaking the rules and kept it on the DL.  He obviously cares a lot about that program and those kids.  Hate to see a guy who cares like that get taken down while the true cheaters are out there doing their thing.
    • Yes, the free market should be allowed to draw the lines between amateurism and professionalism. The beauty of playing strictly for the love of the game will certainly be allowed to persist. And, kids and adults alike play A LOT of games for fun as it is. See adult rec leagues, intramurals etc. This includes those who've been able to become wealthy through playing the sport as well!  I think that, eventually, people like most all of us are going to recognize that it is preposterous to have teenagers getting paid to play high school sports, and/or get a free college education along with the extra compensation. Most of us have been fans of the game and of the school, not the "star" athletes. In the long run, I don't think there will be much of a market for paid teenager athletes. But, if someone is willing to part with their $ to allow a kid to be less poor, and that means that School A easily crushes the competition, I don't think that's a bad thing. It IS a thing that will cause a great many people to lose interest. And that will in turn diminish the market, which will of course mean kids aren't making any money anyway. At issue, as I keep harping on, is the fact that the "big time" sports world where NIL money is available is an entirely different, beast of an animal that K-12 schools and even universities are not equipped to manage. Nor should they be. Big time, for profit sports should be separated from schools. The mission of the two entities is competely misaligned. 
    • It is somewhat understandable for a guy who's passionate about the sport, and who reached very close to the pinnacle of it, to be dismissive of the many dimwits making the rules who have none of the above characteristics. And, he may also be considering the possibility that calling attention to the (perhaps) absurd nature of the rules and/or the dearth of funding in high school football may be worth it in the big picture. He's almost certainly going to have the opportunity to coach at the higher levels, and is not likely to be at Norhwestern for very long, anyway. He may make a bigger impact long-term/big picture doing this sort of thing than just winning a couple state titles and jetting.
    • I think the argument is this:  if 'free adults are allowed to give gifts to poor kids who happen to be good at sports,' we move from an amateur environment into a professional environment.   Historically, high school sports, college sports and even the Olympics were reserved solely for amateur athletes.  Within the last couple of decades, the barriers for professionals started to erode for the Olympics.   You may recall that Jim Thorpe won gold medals in track in the 1912 Olympics, but was stripped of those medals because he had played minor league (or "semipro") baseball prior to participating in the Olympics.   Ultimately, those medals were restored a few years ago.  The USA Olympic basketball team used to be comprised only of college players.  Now, it's all pros (with one or two college stars).  Within the last 5-10 years, NIL changes have permitted college athletes to receive compensation. Before then, the rules in place for decades allowed college student-athletes to receive room, board and tuition.  The $100 post-game handshakes from alums in the locker room and brown paper bags filled with money - although they happened everywhere - were illegal (and arguably still are; they just don't happen as much because the athletes can receive money legally through NIL). The NIL world is quickly filtering down to the high school level.  However, the rules in most all states, and certainly in Florida, are rooted in the concept that only amateur athletes can compete in high school sports.   And if you allow athletes to receive gifts, or otherwise compensate them or their families, such athletes are no longer considered amateurs.   Simply put, the rules has always been that if you get compensated to do play a sport, you are considered a professional.  And professionals cannot participate in amateur sports.  Again, the rules in place (FHSAA Rules) are rooted in a clear distinction between amateur sports and professional sports.  There was a clear line that is slowly becoming more and more blurred. If you want the argument as to why the rule makes sense, I think it is this:   there is a certain beauty in amateur sports, knowing that everyone who is playing is playing for the love of the game and not for money.  Everything changes once you start compensating athletes.  As I have stated before, the concept of compensation is a slippery slope.  What do you allow and what don't you?   FHSAA rules prohibiting impermissible benefits were written before Uber even existed. But the rule is pretty clear:  if you give something to football players that you don't give to all other students, that's an impermissible benefit - especially if the benefit is given to entice a kid to come to your school.   If you allow schools/coaches/alums to compensate kids to play sports, then you take away the somewhat-level playing field.  And, over time, certain schools will dominate high school sports because they will have the financial wherewithal to attract the most talented athletes.  While this might be good for the handful of select, talented athletes, everyone else suffers.   I guess the real question is whether we just want to eliminate the distinction between amateur athletics and professional athletics altogether and simply allow the free-market system to play out for all athletes and all schools?  If you're inclined to answer this question with a "yes," I have only six words for you:  be careful what you wish for.   
    • Yes of course big shot, how dare anyone try to help some young man out with a generous offer from his own pocket! Did the new pinstripe suits arrive yet from Brooks Brothers, F. Lee Bailey, Clarence Darrow Jr?!  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...