Kind of why I am in favor of just placing the ball. Save the 10 seconds or so wasted on a kick. If you have maybe 6 kickoffs in a game, you waste a minute of actual play.
I'd like that extra minute sitting there at the end of the game rather than watching guys run out to where you are going to place the ball more often than not.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
I did a search for ProCap, and got a number of good articles. The biggest con is the increased friction of soft surface increases the potential for spinal injuries.
"What they found was precisely on-point with football’s current fear, that the softness actually distributes pressure to the neck, which can cause horrendous spinal injuries."
... the friction generated by a soft outer shell could lead to a neck injury." [/color]
There are anti-friction coatings available that could lessen or eliminate this issue...
32...I've thought about different ways to improve upon the basic design of the ProCap...
...I came up with the same idea of adding a layer of padding to the outside, but also add a layer of "hard shell" material on top of the outer padding.
Engineering would need to adjust the thickness of each layer with a goal of keeping the overall size and weight of existing helmets while building "a layering design" of 1. inside padding 2. a layer of hard shell material 3. then the outer padding 4. and finally a layer of hard shell material.
Again, adjusting the thickness of each layer to achieve the goal of producing the best, most effective helmet that meets all concerns would be challenging, but I'm confident, it can be done.
Kind of why I am in favor of just placing the ball. Save the 10 seconds or so wasted on a kick. If you have maybe 6 kickoffs in a game, you waste a minute of actual play.
I'd like that extra minute sitting there at the end of the game rather than watching guys run out to where you are going to place the ball more often than not.
Yeah either make it a play worth watching or get rid of it...
I kinda felt the XFL had a good idea on their hands. and they made the kickoff actually worth something.. (it also behaved more like a Punt)...
but if you're not going to adopt something like that.. axe it entirely
Peen, w8... Can you cite "one example" of players suffering such an injury while using the ProCap?
From your own linked article-
"There are also claims–though no studies that I could find–that the friction generated by a soft outer shell could lead to a neck injury."
Making a claim and proving a claim...two different things!
I read a post that mentioned the ProCap. I'd never heard of it, so I took 15-20 minutes to find and read a few articles. The one I linked pointed out the increase of shear force with two soft surfaces impacting each other with velocity. It made sense, so I added it to the discussion.
If you want to take the time necessary to research what actual injuries have been documented, feel free. It doesn't interest me enough to take the time.
1. #GMstrong 2. "I'm just trying to be the best Nick I can be." ~ Nick Chubb 3. Forgive me Elf, I didn’t have faith. ~ Tulsa 4. ClemenZa #1
... the friction generated by a soft outer shell could lead to a neck injury." [/color]
There are anti-friction coatings available that could lessen or eliminate this issue...
32...I've thought about different ways to improve upon the basic design of the ProCap...
...I came up with the same idea of adding a layer of padding to the outside, but also add a layer of "hard shell" material on top of the outer padding.
Engineering would need to adjust the thickness of each layer with a goal of keeping the overall size and weight of existing helmets while building "a layering design" of 1. inside padding 2. a layer of hard shell material 3. then the outer padding 4. and finally a layer of hard shell material.
Again, adjusting the thickness of each layer to achieve the goal of producing the best, most effective helmet that meets all concerns would be challenging, but I'm confident, it can be done.
I'm not a proponent of any hard padding. A key design feature, particularly helmets, would be (IMO) its' ability to diffuse or disperse energy of the impacting surfaces. I do like the effort you are putting into this issue...good work.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
I did a search for ProCap, and got a number of good articles. The biggest con is the increased friction of soft surface increases the potential for spinal injuries.
"What they found was precisely on-point with football’s current fear, that the softness actually distributes pressure to the neck, which can cause horrendous spinal injuries."
From Peen..."I was just going to add that. The problem is if the materials more or less stick to each other, that is a big problem.
You might solve the concussion problem, but create a bigger problem when players start severing their spinals cords just below the neck."
Peen, w8... Can you cite "one example" of players suffering such an injury while using the ProCap?
From your own linked article-
"There are also claims–though no studies that I could find–that the friction generated by a soft outer shell could lead to a neck injury."
Making a claim and proving a claim...two different things!
Mac, we have gone around and around on this. I don't dismiss your idea. I think it might help. We have never had two players in the NFL going at it with soft shell.
Soft on soft is going to stick to some degree. That isn't good. That increases the time for the shock to work down the neck towards the spine.
Look at rugby players. They don't wear helmets. I think the more padding you put in the helmet, the more bold a player becomes.
My thinking is reduce the padding and size and players are going to quit leading with their head. That is what it amounts to. You don't need to change the equipment, you need to change the player. You can tackle a player without having the mentality of knocking them out.
As long as the NFL fosters that environment, no helmet is going to help.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
... the friction generated by a soft outer shell could lead to a neck injury." [/color]
There are anti-friction coatings available that could lessen or eliminate this issue...
32...I've thought about different ways to improve upon the basic design of the ProCap...
...I came up with the same idea of adding a layer of padding to the outside, but also add a layer of "hard shell" material on top of the outer padding.
Engineering would need to adjust the thickness of each layer with a goal of keeping the overall size and weight of existing helmets while building "a layering design" of 1. inside padding 2. a layer of hard shell material 3. then the outer padding 4. and finally a layer of hard shell material.
Again, adjusting the thickness of each layer to achieve the goal of producing the best, most effective helmet that meets all concerns would be challenging, but I'm confident, it can be done.
I'm not a proponent of any hard padding. A key design feature, particularly helmets, would be (IMO) its' ability to diffuse or disperse energy of the impacting surfaces. I do like the effort you are putting into this issue...good work.
32..don't get me wrong, I like your idea of "anti-friction coatings" to address the NFL's concerns over soft shell helmets.
I have only one concern, the safety of "ALL" football players.
We are just two football fans having "a discussion" about different ideas concerning the quality of football helmets from a safety POV...and that is a good thing.
The NFL turned their back on any idea of a soft shell helmet, even though they had already allowed the use of the ProCap soft shell for a number of years and the ProCap did help players who suffered frequent concussion, continue playing football, at the highest possible level.
So why isn't the NFL pursuing this line of thinking and encouraging the concept of the helmet they had already used and the reports from those who used a soft outer shell were very encouraging...the ProCap did reduce the incidence of concussion and the device was tested in a way that no other helmet has ever been tested...by players who played the game for years, without any other safety concerns.
Why has the NFL turned it's back on the safest helmet ever used in the NFL?
I did a search for ProCap, and got a number of good articles. The biggest con is the increased friction of soft surface increases the potential for spinal injuries.
"What they found was precisely on-point with football’s current fear, that the softness actually distributes pressure to the neck, which can cause horrendous spinal injuries."
From Peen..."I was just going to add that. The problem is if the materials more or less stick to each other, that is a big problem.
You might solve the concussion problem, but create a bigger problem when players start severing their spinals cords just below the neck."
Peen, w8... Can you cite "one example" of players suffering such an injury while using the ProCap?
From your own linked article-
"There are also claims–though no studies that I could find–that the friction generated by a soft outer shell could lead to a neck injury."
Making a claim and proving a claim...two different things!
Mac, we have gone around and around on this. I don't dismiss your idea. I think it might help. We have never had two players in the NFL going at it with soft shell.
Soft on soft is going to stick to some degree. That isn't good. That increases the time for the shock to work down the neck towards the spine.
Look at rugby players. They don't wear helmets. I think the more padding you put in the helmet, the more bold a player becomes.
My thinking is reduce the padding and size and players are going to quit leading with their head. That is what it amounts to. You don't need to change the equipment, you need to change the player. You can tackle a player without having the mentality of knocking them out.
As long as the NFL fosters that environment, no helmet is going to help.
Peen...read my post to 32 above...
So we can mark you down as one who supports two hand tap..or flag football...RATHER THAN, traditional Pro football as it has been played for the last 99 years.
I would not mind the onside kick alternative, except, a team only needs 10 yards for a first down, and during an onside kick, the ball only has to travel 10 yards, so why 4th and 15? It should be 4th and 10. If you don't get the first down, you're basically giving the other team 3 points, of course, if you don't get the first down, you're probably done anyways. lol
I would not mind the onside kick alternative, except, a team only needs 10 yards for a first down, and during an onside kick, the ball only has to travel 10 yards, so why 4th and 15? It should be 4th and 10. If you don't get the first down, you're basically giving the other team 3 points, of course, if you don't get the first down, you're probably done anyways. lol
You have to factor in the difficulty of actually recovering the onside kick, thus the 15 yards. If you actually wanted to equal the odds, it might be 4th and 20. Maybe even 30 when you have to factor in some goofy ref throwing a pass interference flag.
It just doesn't happen very often.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
The more I think about it, this just gives the refs one last chance to "throw" a game. Forget it. There is at least 1 ref on every crew that works for the mob.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Can we also revert back to the old Kick Return rules? Anyone?????????? The NFL straight up ruined that part of the game and still hasn't taken responsibility for it.
I would not mind the onside kick alternative, except, a team only needs 10 yards for a first down, and during an onside kick, the ball only has to travel 10 yards, so why 4th and 15? It should be 4th and 10. If you don't get the first down, you're basically giving the other team 3 points, of course, if you don't get the first down, you're probably done anyways. lol
You have to factor in the difficulty of actually recovering the onside kick, thus the 15 yards. If you actually wanted to equal the odds, it might be 4th and 20. Maybe even 30 when you have to factor in some goofy ref throwing a pass interference flag.
It just doesn't happen very often.
Ty peen for a very good point. It is much harder to recover an onside kick, I was only comng from the standpoint that the ball only has to travel 10 yards to be a live ball. Still, you're right, it is very hard for the kicking team to recover the onside kick. So, I suppose 4th and 15 is more than fair. lol
Ya know, it's funny you mention the mob, I heard a radio intervie from a Tampa station about 12 or 13 years ago, it was an alleged former mobstr (not a boss, but someone who was in) he said football was often fixed by the mob, regular season games anyways, he did say playoff and Super Bowl were too high profile to really mess with. I don't know if he was telling the truth or not, but ya never know, it is possible, after all, all 3 other major sports have had their issues with crooked refs/players. LOL
Is it me...I saw a lot of Run Backs last season. Teams are doing the short high kicks and our coverage teams did a good job keeping it under 20 yard line. And we ran it back pretty good.
But we saw a lot of Run Backs I thought.
jmho
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off! Go Browns! CHRIST HAS RISEN! GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
The key to this onside change is that each team can only do it 2x per game. That is the part that keeps getting left out, so it's not something teams will just use every kick.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/sports/nfl-4th-and-15-onside-kick BY LUIS PAEZ-PUMAR / MAY 24, 2020 1:29 PM The NFL is on the verge of changing one of the fundamental strategies for trailing teams ahead of the upcoming 2020 season. If a proposal gets approval from all relevant parties, teams will be able to choose to forego onside kicks twice per game in favor of a “4th and 15” play in hopes of retaining the ball.
The change would see the scoring team attempt to gain 15 yards in one play in order to keep the ball. The logic behind the change, beyond giving trailing teams a different way to keep the ball, is that this allows both teams to engage in a normal football activity, rather than the weirdness that can come from onside kicks. Offensive teams can really on their units that just scored, while defensive teams won’t have to rely on a good bounce from the onside kick to stop their opponents.
As NBC Sports points out, this does put the defenses in a tough spot, though. Not only do they have to go back out onto the field for one more play after just surrendering a score, but if they fail to stop the offense from picking up the 15 yards, they will then have to go back out onto the field for another drive.
That should help increase the success odds for the offenses; onside kicks had a 16.3 percent success rate from 2013 to 2017, while plays in which an offense needed 15 yards for a first down succeeded 15.9 percent of the time during the same period. However, that does not account for how the new rule change would affect tired defenses, as well as the increases in offensive yardage in recent years, so the change should see more ball retention from scoring teams.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/sports/nfl-4th-and-15-onside-kick BY LUIS PAEZ-PUMAR / MAY 24, 2020 1:29 PM The NFL is on the verge of changing one of the fundamental strategies for trailing teams ahead of the upcoming 2020 season. If a proposal gets approval from all relevant parties, teams will be able to choose to forego onside kicks twice per game in favor of a “4th and 15” play in hopes of retaining the ball.
The change would see the scoring team attempt to gain 15 yards in one play in order to keep the ball. The logic behind the change, beyond giving trailing teams a different way to keep the ball, is that this allows both teams to engage in a normal football activity, rather than the weirdness that can come from onside kicks. Offensive teams can really on their units that just scored, while defensive teams won’t have to rely on a good bounce from the onside kick to stop their opponents.
As NBC Sports points out, this does put the defenses in a tough spot, though. Not only do they have to go back out onto the field for one more play after just surrendering a score, but if they fail to stop the offense from picking up the 15 yards, they will then have to go back out onto the field for another drive.
That should help increase the success odds for the offenses; onside kicks had a 16.3 percent success rate from 2013 to 2017, while plays in which an offense needed 15 yards for a first down succeeded 15.9 percent of the time during the same period. However, that does not account for how the new rule change would affect tired defenses, as well as the increases in offensive yardage in recent years, so the change should see more ball retention from scoring teams.
I wonder how many teams would have tried a 4th and 15 over an onside kick?
Blocking those who argue to argue, eliminates the argument.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
