NFL No more ambush, new rule forces teams to let the other team know they are doing an onside kick (2 Viewers)

[mikedre]

NGL, I hear all the time that there are tons of injuries on kickoffs, making changes like this necessary, but I honestly can’t even think of any offhand, and let’s just say I’ve watched a ton of football in my life.

Why am I not seeing them?

Have you ever seen the phantom holding calls that we get flagged for on any 4th down and forever? I haven't seen any, so I doubt that you would have seen tons of injuries.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

The onside kick was already dead.

but the new rules that establish 3 different touchback 'zones' are just silly. I know they are trying to create more returns but I'm 90% sure its just going to result in another layer of penalty flags (moving too early) and refereee huddles.

Because if there's one thing the NFL game needs more of, it's referee screen time.

 

[Stalwart385]

Hate this.

I hated it a little less when I read you get a 6 on 4 advantage when declaring.

Still hate it though.

 

[tarusman28]

If Goodell is going to do this then why don't the NFL make a rule where both teams tell each other what plays they are going to run and when they will run them, all for player safety.

I noticed they didn't say this rule will be a one year trial period, just a straight rule change.

 

[tarusman28]

The onside kick was already dead.

but the new rules that establish 3 different touchback 'zones' are just silly. I know they are trying to create more returns but I'm 90% sure its just going to result in another layer of penalty flags (moving too early) and refereee huddles.

Because if there's one thing the NFL game needs more of, it's referee screen time.

They are taking the game out of the teams hands and putting it in the NFL. You all are witnessing it, Goodell wants complete control of the games.

 

[26ISTHEMAN]

I'm less surprised by these idiotic rules when I remind myself that the commissioner is a clown.

 

[Consigliere]

It’s like they want to de-legitimize every aspect of the Saints’ post-season success..

Win overtime with FG - out

Ambush - out

Pass interference review - “test period”

 

[St.Dan]

Another reason to “check out” of the modern-day NFL.

 

[Saint Jack]

It’s like they want to de-legitimize every aspect of the Saints’ post-season success..

Win overtime with FG - out

Ambush - out

Pass interference review - “test period”

Yeah. They wanted to get back at the Saints sooo bad, they waited FIFTEEN YEARS!

 

[Grumpy Old Manatee]

Yeah your article didn't touch on where the majority of the viewership is located. Because NHL isn't the national draw that other major league sports is, I know it was hard for you to find anything. And while it's not the NYT, Wikipedia does contain useful information....like the fact that NHL is most popular in the northeast.

Wasn’t that hard at all. There are 6 NHL teams in the Northeast. NY (x3) NJ, Boston and I’ll give you Philly as a consolation; heck, I’ll even give you DC and Toronto as I’m feeling generous.

The “article” you alluded to cited Pittsburgh and Minnesota. Western Pa and Minnesota are not in the Northeast. By your misinformed assumption, no one in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Nevada, Arizona, California, Washington state, Colorado, Carolina or Tennessee view NHL hockey?

The point of the article I posted was to point out that the NHL is all over the place when it reports viewership. “We don’t always calculate regional sports networks, streaming, etc.”. Obviously, that’s a league problem, not a you problem. Is it raking in mass viewership? No. but is its interest as regionalized as you claim? Absolutely not.

I’ve derailed this thread enough (sorry OP), but I’m more than willing to start a “Today I Learned Geography” thread on EE if that will be of any help to you.

 

[livefromDC]

Wasn’t that hard at all. There are 5 NHL teams in the Northeast. NY (x2), NJ, Boston and I’ll give you Philly as a consolation; heck, I’ll even give you DC, Buffalo and Toronto as I’m feeling generous.

The “article” you alluded to cited Pittsburgh and Minnesota. Western Pa and Minnesota are not in the Northeast. By your assumption, no one in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Nevada, Arizona, California, Washington state, Colorado, Carolina, Tennessee view NHL hockey.

The point of the article I posted was to point out that the NHL is all over the place when it reports viewership. “We don’t always calculate regional sports networks, streaming, etc.”. Obviously, that’s a league problem, not a you problem.

I’ve derailed this thread enough (sorry OP), but I’m more than willing to start a “Today I Learned Geography” thread on EE if that will be of any help to you.

It's not geography, it's where are the majority of the fans located? So what San Diego has a professional football team and Mississippi does not. Guess which places has more fans per capita?

The entire country is a ratings bonanza for the NFL, that's simply not true for hockey outside of couple regions, particularly the Northeast and sure the upper Midwest. This is a silly argument.

 

[VPCajun]

This is all so stupid

<<teams kicking off from the opponent's 40-yard line>>

Surely that is misworded.

That would put the ball being kicked off 40 yards from the receiving team's goal line.

 

[Rouxble]

<<teams kicking off from the opponent's 40-yard line>>

Surely that is misworded.

That would put the ball being kicked off 40 yards from the receiving team's goal line.

Seems misworded, but with the rest of the proposed rule changes it makes more sense. I think it would just look better if they kicked from the 50, but that aside, these new rules almost force a returnable ball by introducing a "target zone" from the goal line to the 20:

1. If the ball does not cross the 20 in the air, the receiving team gets the ball at the 40.

2. If the ball crosses the goal line in the air, the receiving team gets the ball at the 35.

3. If the ball first hits the ground in the target zone and rolls in the end zone, the receiving team gets the ball at the 20.

Putting players on the same side of the field to start will shorten the distance that players are running and reduce speed at impact as a result.

 

[blotch1]

The new rule is retroactive going back to the 2009 season. Therefore Roger Goodell has awarded the Superbowl win to the Indianapolis Colts as a result of the Saints' illegal onside kick.

 

[sammymvpknight]

But I'll be honest: I'm not sure how long it will outdraw every other sport if they take all the fun of out of watching it.

I'd rather be at a hockey game than a football game 100 times out of a 100, but I will readily admit hockey does not translate to television anywhere nearly as well as the other major sports.

And as much as I used to dislike baseball, I'd rather watch a baseball game now than an NFL game because 1) I don't trust the integrity of the NFL and 2) the rule changes already implemented make it a less interesting game than it used to be.

Live hockey >>>>> football. 100% agreed. I wish I grew up a hockey fan.