-
Roach: Kickoff rule didn't remove danger
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nf...ory?id=6255378
Nick Roach still has kickoff concerns
CHICAGO -- For all the rhetoric surrounding special teams rules changes aimed at improving player safety, the NFL failed to address the most hazardous aspect for any member of an NFL kickoff team, according to Bears linebacker Nick Roach.
"I think the most dangerous thing on a kickoff isn't the distance you have to cover, it's the type of blocks that are allowed on the kickoff return team," Roach told ESPNChicago.com on Thursday. "You'll see a lot of trap blocks, where say I'm the third guy running down from the sideline on the right side -- running down the field and thinking nobody is blocking me because I see a wedge forming in front of me about twenty yards away. But then a guy on the kickoff return team will come from across the field, the complete other side, to blindside me from my inside out. "Those are by far the most dangerous hits. It's just like a complete blindside shot when you are wide open running down the field in a total sprint. You never see that coming and they totally take you off your feet sometimes." And Roach knows the dangers of being on the kickoff team. The linebacker suffered a concussion covering a kickoff during the Bears' first preseason game of the 2009 season in Buffalo. NFL owners voted Tuesday to move kickoffs up to the 35-yard line starting next season to increase the number of touchbacks and decrease the number of injuries on kick returns. Under the new rules, coverage players are only allowed to take a five-yard running start -- compared to a 10-to-15-yard head start under the old rules -- before the kicker makes contact with the ball. The types of devastating blocks on kickoffs described by Roach, however, remain legal. "It's just like a crack-back block, and those, for whatever reason, are legal from whatever distance," Roach said. "You figure a guy gets a 20-yard head start coming directly at you, and you're not looking, some real damage is going to be caused by that. "They can knock you into other people, knock you into the wedge. You're starting to see a lot more of those types of blocks, which is more dangerous than anything else. Guys will be looking at you like they are going to block you, then they'll bump out to block the person next to you, all the while another member of the return team is sprinting at you full speed to knock you out." As far as Roach's concussion, he said it was kind of a fluke. "We just kind of hit helmet-to-helmet, that's how that happened," Roach said. "That was kind of a fluke. "But I feel like they are going after things that really aren't the most dangerous aspects of special teams. Moving the ball up or shortening up the takeoff distance, I just really don't think those are the biggest problems."
-
-
I still say that the major impetus came because many owners believed that teams like the Bears, who have exceptional KR's, have a competitive advantage over teams who don't. This rule change does little if anything for player safety but it assures that there will be less opportunities for guys like a Devin Hester to hurt you big time in just one play.
Anyone who believes that bullshit about it came about over player safety if not examining the facts. In this era of the salary cap owners want to protect their high dollar players from injury and that I believe. But.....ST's are usually stocked with the lowest cost players they have so there's little or no risk to losing anyone making over $1 mil a year.
It's not about safety. It's all about the perception of a competitive imbalance. The "have nots" don't want the "haves" to be able to beat them so easily with ST's.
-
Here's another opinion as to why the rule changes regarding kick off returns were made. It makes some sense but what they did doesn't really fix the problem. It just appears to have had something done about it. Did the owners just do it to dodge future liability? Maybe.
*When the NFL tells us that safety considerations were behind the new kickoff rules, this is what it means: there have been an inordinate amount of head injuries on kickoffs (the league won’t reveal the exact number), and if the NFL did nothing about it, it would leave itself legally vulnerable. Just think about what concussions might be leading to. CTE. Lou Gehrig’s disease. Alzheimers. Twenty years from now, there could be a parade of players bringing lawsuits against the league if nothing had been done to make kickoffs safer. I’m hearing a number of prominent agents have begun keeping meticulous records of any symptoms and treatments their clients are having as a result of head injuries. And we all can figure out why.
Quoted from an NFP Sunday Blitz article 3/27/11.
-
Think of all the broken ankles that will be saved when Hester can't run the ball back for a score.
-
High Fives / Like - 2 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
4th and 26 
Think of all the broken ankles that will be saved when Hester can't run the ball back for a score.
Oh so that's what they meant by cutting down on injuries huh? 
-
I don't know, soul. I think you have preconcieved skepticism about it. Lowering the number of returned kicks obviously reduces the chances for injury.
-
Originally Posted by
blinddeafmute I don't know, soul. I think you have preconcieved skepticism about it. Lowering the number of returned kicks obviously reduces the chances for injury.
I will merely echo the words of Josh Cribbs: "Football is a gladiator sport." I need not say any more than that to articulate what I feel is the equivalent of castrating the rules of the game. Then again, this rule was apparently in the books back in the early 1990s. I think our punt return game, which is where Hester does his most damage, will sustain us, and I really feel that he could still return a kick off all the way for a touchdown. If you have exceptional speed like Hester and Cribbs do, no rule is going to be able to keep you down for long.
-
Originally Posted by
blinddeafmute I don't know, soul. I think you have preconcieved skepticism about it. Lowering the number of returned kicks obviously reduces the chances for injury.
The key word here is chances. I think it's the NFL who has the preconcieved notion, not me. They haven't presented any convincing data that the rule change would reduce injuries, only the theory that it will. There wasn't any documented evidence presented to the committee that they were able to base their opinions on.
To me it's certainly not a cinch that the rule changes will do what they expect it to do. What if this year the number of injuries actually rises? Will they move the ko's back to the 30 again? 
-
Originally Posted by
soulman The key word here is chances. I think it's the NFL who has the preconcieved notion, not me. They haven't presented any convincing data that the rule change would reduce injuries, only the theory that it will. There wasn't any documented evidence presented to the committee that they were able to base their opinions on.
To me it's certainly not a cinch that the rule changes will do what they expect it to do. What if this year the number of injuries actually rises? Will they move the ko's back to the 30 again?
Who knows, but to jump to the conclusion that they are trying to take away any advantage from good return teams sounds like CT hogwash to me.
And its all chances. Helmets reduce the CHANCE of injury, 16 game seasons provide less CHANCE for injury, helmet to helmet penalties reduce the CHANCE for injury.
They didn't need a stat sheet to make it a viable decision. Moving the ball up provides a greater CHANCE for touchbacks, which would lesson the returned kicks, which takes away chances for injury.
You really have a thing for NFL owners...
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
blinddeafmute Who knows, but to jump to the conclusion that they are trying to take away any advantage from good return teams sounds like CT hogwash to me.
And its all chances. Helmets reduce the CHANCE of injury, 16 game seasons provide less CHANCE for injury, helmet to helmet penalties reduce the CHANCE for injury.
They didn't need a stat sheet to make it a viable decision. Moving the ball up provides a greater CHANCE for touchbacks, which would lesson the returned kicks, which takes away chances for injury.
You really have a thing for NFL owners...
I don't trust their motives any more than the players do.....
I don't disagree that it may reduce the chance by the mere fact that there will be less kicks returned. The same could be said for auto accidents if there were less cars or miles driven. And if we just put the ball on the 20 to start with there'd be none, right?
Sorry BDM, not trying to be an a$$hole but when something comes down from the NFL like this it usually has more meaningf than meets the eye.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
