It’s Official: Kickoffs at 35, Touchbacks at 25
By Paul Myerberg // Feb 24, 2012
Two weeks ago, the N.C.A.A. Football Rules Committee forwarded five recommendations, led by an extreme alteration to the current and longstanding kickoff rules, to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel. Today, the panel approved each of the recommendations but one: according to the N.C.A.A. release, the lone proposal that did not meet approval was one that provided additional protection to a potential punt returner. The proposals that passed, and will be in effect at the start of this coming season, involve kickoffs, in-play helmet loss, blocking below the waist and shield blocking on punt returns. Each will alter play, but none will shift a team’s approach on either side of the ball more so than the changes made to kickoffs.
As noted earlier this month, when the Rules Committee first offered up its proposals for approval, the kickoff amendment drastically alters the existing rule. A team will now kick off from the 35-yard line, not the 30. However, kickoff teams may only get a five-yard head start on kicks, meaning potential tacklers must be no further back than the 30 when the kicker begins his approach to the football.
In that slight change, the N.C.A.A. hopes to limit the speed with which potential tacklers meet blockers or the ball-carrier. Altogether, the N.C.A.A. moved kickoffs up to the 35 in an effort to limit returns, which in turn will limit the number of injuries suffered on kickoffs.
“N.C.A.A. data indicates injuries during kickoffs occur more often than in other phases of the game,” the Rules Committee stated in its initial proposal. The most extreme rule change, moving touchbacks out to the 25-yard line, was also proposed as a way “to encourage more touchbacks.” However, a punt or fumble that goes into the end zone – and out the back of the end zone, for a fumble – will be placed at the 20-yard line, not the 25.
No other change will impact offenses and defenses alike more than this five-yard move. It leaves kickoff teams with the option of kicking short and relying on its cover men, five yards closer to the goal line, to get down and keep the opposition from returning the ball to the 25, where the ball would be placed after a touchback.
Florida State, for example, has a strong kicker, terrific coverage teams and a kickoff team littered with high school all-Americans. Why wouldn’t the Seminoles opt to kick the ball at or near the goal line, relying on its coverage team to keep returns from reaching the 20, let alone the 25? In essence, this rule might, in some cases, lead to more returns. More returns mean more collisions, which in turn might lead to more injuries.
Even if every team in the F.B.S. opts to kick the ball into the end zone and accept the touchback, the new rule will have a significant impact on each side of the ball. Offensive statistics will take a slight dip, though scoring should improve – if nothing else, those five extra yards will put teams in place for more field goal attempts.
A second rule approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel states that a player who loses his helmet mid-play must return to the sidelines and miss the following play; this works like the current injury rule, where a player who must be helped off the field must sit out the ensuing snap. According to the current injury rule, a player cannot use a helmet malfunction for his team’s benefit: he can’t jerry-rig his helmet to fall off, earning his team a breather or, in some cases, a timeout.
But the rule itself remains open for some interpretation. The initial rule proposed by the Rules Committee stated that a player who loses his helmet “must not continue to participate in play to protect him from injury.” The N.C.A.A. does not specify whether a player who ignores this rule would be subject to penalty; if, for example, a player who loses his helmet on his way into the end zone would have his team’s touchdown taken off the board.
The Oversight Panel also added new wording in regards to blocking below the waist. The N.C.A.A. tweaked this rule heading into last season in an effort to formally confirm the instances when a block below the waist would incur a penalty. However, the rule change – strangely worded and difficult for referees to follow in the moments before the ball was snapped – did not do enough to address when, in fact, a block below the waist would draw a flag.
The proposal adopted by the Oversight Panel will streamline the existing rule, making it easier for referees to identify which players are eligible to block a defender below the waist: Such a block is now legal for all offensive players — with no specification on position, whether skill players or linemen — located inside the tackle box who are not in motion. It would be illegal for all other players, minus those who go right at a defensive player.
The final rule put into place will prohibit players from attempting to leap over the shield blocking scheme used by many teams in punt protection. Basically, the scheme places two or three blockers right in front of the punter; opposing rushers attempt to defeat this scheme by leaping over the blockers, which sometimes flips players into the air and onto their heads or shoulders. Rushers can still contact these blockers, of course, but cannot vault themselves into the air. This rule makes perfect sense.
Tags: Florida State, N.C.A.A. Football Rules Committee, N.C.A.A. rulebook, Playing Rules Oversight Panel
Home
Comments
Leave a Comment
Follow us
RSS | 
Twitter
Directing linesmen to activiely enforce “off-side” infractions on kick-offs would have made more sense. If you replay kick-offs in “slo-mo” , you will see an infraction on least 72.38% of the them. Officials probably do not call it becuase it would appear to be nit-picking. Perhaps a few more nits need to be picked. And the last rule change (vaulting) “makes perfect sense?” To who?? The kicker who doesn’t want his punt blocked?
Paul: I have seen a lot of football. I’ve never seen a player leap over the protectors to block a punt. Not saying it’s never happened, but I’ve seen guys attempt it hundreds upon hundreds of times without any luck. On the other hand, I’ve seen many players flip over the protectors and fall on their upper body. Just seems as if outlawing it doesn’t hurt anybody, but actually does improve player safety.
Ok…kick off team 5 yards closer. Kicker doesn’t have to kick as far so rather than kicking a touch back and send the ball to the 25, he kicks it Higher, just short of the goal line. Now…5 yards closer to the returner, longer hang time could equate to poor field position for the receiving team and MORE big hits…more injuries. It just me?
In Arkansas they can vault over punt protectors to bock a kick, without using their hands, and land on their feet. Go Devil Dogs!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u-ERexS-0s
Sweet! I hear they are getting indoor plumbing in Arkansas soon too! Congratulations Arkansas!
Touchbacks to 25 = Inanity.
Plumbing = commie government handout.
The only one of the rule changes involving kick-offs that actually makes sense is moving the kickoff to the 35.
Moving the touchback to the 25 makes no sense whatsoever. Right now I would estimate that kickoffs which land in the endzone area and are returned average a return to about the 22 (I have no stats, this is just my impression). So what the rule is trying to do is encourage kick returners to take more touchbacks because it would give them, on average, an extra three yards over a return which is likely to get them just past the 20. The problem is that returners only control whether they take the ball out of the endzone or not. Kickers decide whether or not the ball goes into the endzone in the first place. And if the returns won’t average getting to the 25, and I believe they won’t with the starting line now at the 35, then kickers have a motivation to not kick touchbacks. I suppose this could be mitigated somewhat by the new 5 yards from the line rule for the kickoff team.
This rule would reduce the speed of the coverage team when it crosses the line of scrimmage, the 35, but it certainly won’t reduce the speed of the coverage team as they intercept the ball carrier. If you can’t reach full speed in 40 yards of sprinting then you don’t belong on the coverage team. Football players should be able to reach full speed in 20 yards, so this rule will not decrease speed downfield. However it may increase the amount of time it takes for coverage to get downfield by reducing the initial speed. This may make it harder to cover kickoffs, the reasoning being to keep the current motivation for kickers to kick touchbacks. However being five yards closer is enough of an offset to being only five yards behind the line that I think those two changes cancel each other out in terms of coverage strategy. Then the 25 yard rule goes too far, and teams will be motivated not to kick touchbacks, eliminating the entire reason for all of the rules changes. Get rid of the 25 yard touchback rule, keep the other changes, and you might see a decrease in returns simply because of more kickoffs landing deeper in the endzone. But keep that rule and kickers will intentionally not kick touchbacks, and you will probably see an increase in returns.
That’s my prediction.
All in the safety of the player? Hogwash! The NCAA is nothing more than big brother feeding the paying customer their own agenda in the name of safety. Interpetation is by far more dangerous than changing the kicking rule, helmet rule, or any other rule. How many times have fans sat and watch fouls taking place with out the call? Happens in every game. So until big brother (NCAA) addresess these issues their claim in safety is nothing more than rhetoric. When the NCAA starts cracking down on the officiating crews to eliminate their own bias and call games in the same mannor across the board, allowing teams to challenge their calls with the ability to make them overturn the ruling; in the “name of safety” is nothing more than than the NCAA’s self percieved importance.
Leave the damn game play alone! Damn NCAA always changing things they dont need to.
“The N.C.A.A. does not specify whether a player who ignores this rule would be subject to penalty; if, for example, a player who loses his helmet on his way into the end zone would have his team’s touchdown taken off the board.”
Actually the NCAA does specify this and it is a rule that has been around a while. If the runner’s helmet comes off the ball is dead (which means no touchdown). If you write an article critizing rule changes you may want to know the existing ones first.