After reading many kernels, considering the rule changes, and noting the comments about correlation, I wanted to discuss symptoms vs source. Hoping to get your opinion on this matter as well.
\n\nSome popular rule change proposals are fair catch incentives and initial formation alignment.
\n\nI feel that fair catch incentives are likened to treating a symptom (in this case concussions). Having incentives for the receiving team will most likely increase fair catch events. Increased fair catch event will most likely lead to a decrease in concussions. This may be a good solution but does it address the underlying issue?
\n\nThe underlying issue I believe is unbalanced mismatches that result in injury. The NFL has taken action against unbalanced mismatches before. Most recently, the NFL took action regarding “Wedge Blocks” on kickoffs.
\n\n“No wedge blocks are permitted. A wedge block is defined as “two or more players intentionally aligning shoulder-to-shoulder within two yards of each other, and who move forward together in an attempt to block for the runner”
\n\nThese blocks created an unbalanced mismatch and were useful and beneficial for the receiving team.\nThe coverage units took note on how advantageous this was. To counter this, they designated “Wedge Busters” on the coverage. The primary job of this player(s) was to break apart the wedge so other defenders could make a tackle. As you may have guessed, wedge busters had a higher likelihood of injury. Along with this change and other 2018 rules to the kickoff, the NFL addressed unbalanced mismatches.
\n\nNow getting back to the punts. The unbalanced mismatch points the amount of coverage players designated to block the punt team gunners. Data suggests that more players a coverage team assigns to blocking these gunners increases the likelihood of concussion and penalty situations.
\n\nThese cover guys can be likened to a “Wedge Block”. However, where the increased injury risk comes into play is the remaining players on the field. If a return team has 5 players tied up in the play (1 guy to catch the ball, and 4 players to block the 2 gunners) there are 6 players left to block the remaining 9.
\n\nWith these players moving down the field in various waves and speeds, it’s a chaotic place to be.
\n\nThese unbalanced blocking ratios lead to different blocking angles directions.\nI believe addressing this underlying issue with enhancements that promote equal gunner unit vs line unit blocking ratios is consistent with was the NFL has done in the past and how they should address moving forward. (Treating the source rather that alleviating the symptom)
\n\nWould love to hear your thoughts as well
", "messages": [ { "id": "455518", "postDate": "01/14/2019 05:05:42", "content": "After reading many kernels, considering the rule changes, and noting the comments about correlation, I wanted to discuss symptoms vs source. Hoping to get your opinion on this matter as well.
\n\nSome popular rule change proposals are fair catch incentives and initial formation alignment.
\n\nI feel that fair catch incentives are likened to treating a symptom (in this case concussions). Having incentives for the receiving team will most likely increase fair catch events. Increased fair catch event will most likely lead to a decrease in concussions. This may be a good solution but does it address the underlying issue?
\n\nThe underlying issue I believe is unbalanced mismatches that result in injury. The NFL has taken action against unbalanced mismatches before. Most recently, the NFL took action regarding “Wedge Blocks” on kickoffs.
\n\n“No wedge blocks are permitted. A wedge block is defined as “two or more players intentionally aligning shoulder-to-shoulder within two yards of each other, and who move forward together in an attempt to block for the runner”
\n\nThese blocks created an unbalanced mismatch and were useful and beneficial for the receiving team.\nThe coverage units took note on how advantageous this was. To counter this, they designated “Wedge Busters” on the coverage. The primary job of this player(s) was to break apart the wedge so other defenders could make a tackle. As you may have guessed, wedge busters had a higher likelihood of injury. Along with this change and other 2018 rules to the kickoff, the NFL addressed unbalanced mismatches.
\n\nNow getting back to the punts. The unbalanced mismatch points the amount of coverage players designated to block the punt team gunners. Data suggests that more players a coverage team assigns to blocking these gunners increases the likelihood of concussion and penalty situations.
\n\nThese cover guys can be likened to a “Wedge Block”. However, where the increased injury risk comes into play is the remaining players on the field. If a return team has 5 players tied up in the play (1 guy to catch the ball, and 4 players to block the 2 gunners) there are 6 players left to block the remaining 9.
\n\nWith these players moving down the field in various waves and speeds, it’s a chaotic place to be.
\n\nThese unbalanced blocking ratios lead to different blocking angles directions.\nI believe addressing this underlying issue with enhancements that promote equal gunner unit vs line unit blocking ratios is consistent with was the NFL has done in the past and how they should address moving forward. (Treating the source rather that alleviating the symptom)
\n\nWould love to hear your thoughts as well
", "rawMarkdown": "After reading many kernels, considering the rule changes, and noting the comments about correlation, I wanted to discuss symptoms vs source. Hoping to get your opinion on this matter as well.\n \nSome popular rule change proposals are fair catch incentives and initial formation alignment.\n\nI feel that fair catch incentives are likened to treating a symptom (in this case concussions). Having incentives for the receiving team will most likely increase fair catch events. Increased fair catch event will most likely lead to a decrease in concussions. This may be a good solution but does it address the underlying issue?\n\nThe underlying issue I believe is unbalanced mismatches that result in injury. The NFL has taken action against unbalanced mismatches before. Most recently, the NFL took action regarding “Wedge Blocks” on kickoffs.\n\n“No wedge blocks are permitted. A wedge block is defined as “two or more players intentionally aligning shoulder-to-shoulder within two yards of each other, and who move forward together in an attempt to block for the runner”\n \nThese blocks created an unbalanced mismatch and were useful and beneficial for the receiving team.\nThe coverage units took note on how advantageous this was. To counter this, they designated “Wedge Busters” on the coverage. The primary job of this player(s) was to break apart the wedge so other defenders could make a tackle. As you may have guessed, wedge busters had a higher likelihood of injury. Along with this change and other 2018 rules to the kickoff, the NFL addressed unbalanced mismatches.\n\nNow getting back to the punts. The unbalanced mismatch points the amount of coverage players designated to block the punt team gunners. Data suggests that more players a coverage team assigns to blocking these gunners increases the likelihood of concussion and penalty situations.\n\nThese cover guys can be likened to a “Wedge Block”. However, where the increased injury risk comes into play is the remaining players on the field. If a return team has 5 players tied up in the play (1 guy to catch the ball, and 4 players to block the 2 gunners) there are 6 players left to block the remaining 9.\n\nWith these players moving down the field in various waves and speeds, it’s a chaotic place to be.\n\nThese unbalanced blocking ratios lead to different blocking angles directions.\nI believe addressing this underlying issue with enhancements that promote equal gunner unit vs line unit blocking ratios is consistent with was the NFL has done in the past and how they should address moving forward. (Treating the source rather that alleviating the symptom)\n\nWould love to hear your thoughts as well", "votes": null }, { "id": "455543", "postDate": "01/14/2019 06:20:28", "content": "I follow Michael Lopez on Twitter and he's made some recent posts on how the new kickoff rules are influencing onside kicks (fewer surprise onside kick events, no change in expected onside kicks). Whether this has resulted in fewer concussions I'm not sure, but I believe the change in formation rules would have something to do with the new behavior. There were several changes though so it would take some time to figure out which change has the greatest effect. No running start may also have an influence. Would be great data to comb through.
\n\n@StatsbyLopez: \nhttps://twitter.com/StatsbyLopez?s=09
\n\n2018 kickoff rules changes: \nhttps://www.si.com/nfl/2018/09/07/nfl-kickoff-rule-changes-explained-onside-return-clarified
", "rawMarkdown": "I follow Michael Lopez on Twitter and he's made some recent posts on how the new kickoff rules are influencing onside kicks (fewer surprise onside kick events, no change in expected onside kicks). Whether this has resulted in fewer concussions I'm not sure, but I believe the change in formation rules would have something to do with the new behavior. There were several changes though so it would take some time to figure out which change has the greatest effect. No running start may also have an influence. Would be great data to comb through.\n\n@StatsbyLopez: \nhttps://twitter.com/StatsbyLopez?s=09\n\n2018 kickoff rules changes: \nhttps://www.si.com/nfl/2018/09/07/nfl-kickoff-rule-changes-explained-onside-return-clarified", "votes": null }, { "id": "455739", "postDate": "01/14/2019 13:21:49", "content": "I think there are at least 2 major underlying issues. One is long punt returns, defining long in seconds instead of yards. I had meant to explore the time dimension, but I ran out of time. The longer the punt return runs, the more the angles of attack for the blockers change and the more likely that a bad collision will happen. In some cases, the punt returner is deliberately trying to manipulate the tacklers angle of attack. That's why they often change directions.
\n\nThe second one is group tackling. Most of the tackling concussions involved more than 2 people. One tackler would hit another tackler or the returner would be put in an awkward position by one tackler before being hit by another.
\n\nAny rules trying to attack those two issues would drastically change the dynamics of the game.
", "rawMarkdown": "I think there are at least 2 major underlying issues. One is long punt returns, defining long in seconds instead of yards. I had meant to explore the time dimension, but I ran out of time. The longer the punt return runs, the more the angles of attack for the blockers change and the more likely that a bad collision will happen. In some cases, the punt returner is deliberately trying to manipulate the tacklers angle of attack. That's why they often change directions. \n\nThe second one is group tackling. Most of the tackling concussions involved more than 2 people. One tackler would hit another tackler or the returner would be put in an awkward position by one tackler before being hit by another. \n\nAny rules trying to attack those two issues would drastically change the dynamics of the game.", "votes": null }, { "id": "455815", "postDate": "01/14/2019 16:36:36", "content": "If you have a cough that could be caused by any number of underlying viruses, do you take readily available cough medication or start trying to cure every virus you might have? Sometimes treating symptoms is the right thing to do. If concussions are a symptom as you suggest, but they are the only symptom we are concerned about, then finding an effective treatment for them has the same practical impact as curing the underlying virus.
", "rawMarkdown": "If you have a cough that could be caused by any number of underlying viruses, do you take readily available cough medication or start trying to cure every virus you might have? Sometimes treating symptoms is the right thing to do. If concussions are a symptom as you suggest, but they are the only symptom we are concerned about, then finding an effective treatment for them has the same practical impact as curing the underlying virus.", "votes": null }, { "id": "455889", "postDate": "01/14/2019 19:37:23", "content": "Good point, the data does suggests plays with higher fair catch scenarios have fewer concussions. The impact of providing a fair catch incentive vs a formation change may have just as much impact in the aggregate.\nHowever, if teams choose not to elect for a fair catch on a punt, it seems the underlying issues, behaviors, and situations are still ripe for penalties and concussions.
", "rawMarkdown": "Good point, the data does suggests plays with higher fair catch scenarios have fewer concussions. The impact of providing a fair catch incentive vs a formation change may have just as much impact in the aggregate.\nHowever, if teams choose not to elect for a fair catch on a punt, it seems the underlying issues, behaviors, and situations are still ripe for penalties and concussions.", "votes": null }, { "id": "455955", "postDate": "01/14/2019 21:41:30", "content": "I agree that an ideal solution would make players safer on returns. A purely avoidance-based strategy does nothing to reduce the concussion rate on plays where a return actually occurs.
", "rawMarkdown": "I agree that an ideal solution would make players safer on returns. A purely avoidance-based strategy does nothing to reduce the concussion rate on plays where a return actually occurs.", "votes": null }, { "id": "458090", "postDate": "01/18/2019 18:55:02", "content": "So, actually a significant majority of individuals who received concussions during plays were the tacklers and the tackled. What you are suggesting, however, is that \" [...] where the increased injury risk comes into play is the remaining players on the field. If a return team has 5 players tied up in the play (1 guy to catch the ball, and 4 players to block the 2 gunners) there are 6 players left to block the remaining 9\"
\n\nAdditionally, it is difficult, if not improbable to control all behaviors on active players during a game. A fair catch incentive (with conditional terms) both combats the majority of players which receive the highest density of concussions and is empirical/easily quantifiable. While players could certainly choose to forego a fair catch incentive, it's highly unlikely. A fair catch incentive which gives the average gain of player returns 1. limits risk of lower yardage gain during return 2. Is more time-efficient and 3. is more player-energy efficient.
", "rawMarkdown": "So, actually a significant majority of individuals who received concussions during plays were the tacklers and the tackled. What you are suggesting, however, is that *\" [...] where the increased injury risk comes into play is the remaining players on the field. If a return team has 5 players tied up in the play (1 guy to catch the ball, and 4 players to block the 2 gunners) there are 6 players left to block the remaining 9\"* \n\nAdditionally, it is difficult, if not improbable to control all behaviors on active players during a game. A fair catch incentive (with conditional terms) both combats the majority of players which receive the highest density of concussions and is empirical/easily quantifiable. While players could certainly choose to forego a fair catch incentive, it's highly unlikely. A fair catch incentive which gives the average gain of player returns 1. limits risk of lower yardage gain during return 2. Is more time-efficient and 3. is more player-energy efficient.", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 455543, "author_name": "strangemane", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/14/2019 06:20:28", "content": "I follow Michael Lopez on Twitter and he's made some recent posts on how the new kickoff rules are influencing onside kicks (fewer surprise onside kick events, no change in expected onside kicks). Whether this has resulted in fewer concussions I'm not sure, but I believe the change in formation rules would have something to do with the new behavior. There were several changes though so it would take some time to figure out which change has the greatest effect. No running start may also have an influence. Would be great data to comb through.
\n\n@StatsbyLopez: \nhttps://twitter.com/StatsbyLopez?s=09
\n\n2018 kickoff rules changes: \nhttps://www.si.com/nfl/2018/09/07/nfl-kickoff-rule-changes-explained-onside-return-clarified
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 455739, "author_name": "ericfreeman", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/14/2019 13:21:49", "content": "I think there are at least 2 major underlying issues. One is long punt returns, defining long in seconds instead of yards. I had meant to explore the time dimension, but I ran out of time. The longer the punt return runs, the more the angles of attack for the blockers change and the more likely that a bad collision will happen. In some cases, the punt returner is deliberately trying to manipulate the tacklers angle of attack. That's why they often change directions.
\n\nThe second one is group tackling. Most of the tackling concussions involved more than 2 people. One tackler would hit another tackler or the returner would be put in an awkward position by one tackler before being hit by another.
\n\nAny rules trying to attack those two issues would drastically change the dynamics of the game.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 455815, "author_name": "hamelg", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/14/2019 16:36:36", "content": "If you have a cough that could be caused by any number of underlying viruses, do you take readily available cough medication or start trying to cure every virus you might have? Sometimes treating symptoms is the right thing to do. If concussions are a symptom as you suggest, but they are the only symptom we are concerned about, then finding an effective treatment for them has the same practical impact as curing the underlying virus.
", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 455889, "author_name": "swagdude2", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/14/2019 19:37:23", "content": "Good point, the data does suggests plays with higher fair catch scenarios have fewer concussions. The impact of providing a fair catch incentive vs a formation change may have just as much impact in the aggregate.\nHowever, if teams choose not to elect for a fair catch on a punt, it seems the underlying issues, behaviors, and situations are still ripe for penalties and concussions.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 455955, "author_name": "hamelg", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/14/2019 21:41:30", "content": "I agree that an ideal solution would make players safer on returns. A purely avoidance-based strategy does nothing to reduce the concussion rate on plays where a return actually occurs.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 458090, "author_name": "kawilhelm18", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/18/2019 18:55:02", "content": "So, actually a significant majority of individuals who received concussions during plays were the tacklers and the tackled. What you are suggesting, however, is that \" [...] where the increased injury risk comes into play is the remaining players on the field. If a return team has 5 players tied up in the play (1 guy to catch the ball, and 4 players to block the 2 gunners) there are 6 players left to block the remaining 9\"
\n\nAdditionally, it is difficult, if not improbable to control all behaviors on active players during a game. A fair catch incentive (with conditional terms) both combats the majority of players which receive the highest density of concussions and is empirical/easily quantifiable. While players could certainly choose to forego a fair catch incentive, it's highly unlikely. A fair catch incentive which gives the average gain of player returns 1. limits risk of lower yardage gain during return 2. Is more time-efficient and 3. is more player-energy efficient.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "455518": "After reading many kernels, considering the rule changes, and noting the comments about correlation, I wanted to discuss symptoms vs source. Hoping to get your opinion on this matter as well.\n \nSome popular rule change proposals are fair catch incentives and initial formation alignment.\n\nI feel that fair catch incentives are likened to treating a symptom (in this case concussions). Having incentives for the receiving team will most likely increase fair catch events. Increased fair catch event will most likely lead to a decrease in concussions. This may be a good solution but does it address the underlying issue?\n\nThe underlying issue I believe is unbalanced mismatches that result in injury. The NFL has taken action against unbalanced mismatches before. Most recently, the NFL took action regarding “Wedge Blocks” on kickoffs.\n\n“No wedge blocks are permitted. A wedge block is defined as “two or more players intentionally aligning shoulder-to-shoulder within two yards of each other, and who move forward together in an attempt to block for the runner”\n \nThese blocks created an unbalanced mismatch and were useful and beneficial for the receiving team.\nThe coverage units took note on how advantageous this was. To counter this, they designated “Wedge Busters” on the coverage. The primary job of this player(s) was to break apart the wedge so other defenders could make a tackle. As you may have guessed, wedge busters had a higher likelihood of injury. Along with this change and other 2018 rules to the kickoff, the NFL addressed unbalanced mismatches.\n\nNow getting back to the punts. The unbalanced mismatch points the amount of coverage players designated to block the punt team gunners. Data suggests that more players a coverage team assigns to blocking these gunners increases the likelihood of concussion and penalty situations.\n\nThese cover guys can be likened to a “Wedge Block”. However, where the increased injury risk comes into play is the remaining players on the field. If a return team has 5 players tied up in the play (1 guy to catch the ball, and 4 players to block the 2 gunners) there are 6 players left to block the remaining 9.\n\nWith these players moving down the field in various waves and speeds, it’s a chaotic place to be.\n\nThese unbalanced blocking ratios lead to different blocking angles directions.\nI believe addressing this underlying issue with enhancements that promote equal gunner unit vs line unit blocking ratios is consistent with was the NFL has done in the past and how they should address moving forward. (Treating the source rather that alleviating the symptom)\n\nWould love to hear your thoughts as well", "455543": "I follow Michael Lopez on Twitter and he's made some recent posts on how the new kickoff rules are influencing onside kicks (fewer surprise onside kick events, no change in expected onside kicks). Whether this has resulted in fewer concussions I'm not sure, but I believe the change in formation rules would have something to do with the new behavior. There were several changes though so it would take some time to figure out which change has the greatest effect. No running start may also have an influence. Would be great data to comb through.\n\n@StatsbyLopez: \nhttps://twitter.com/StatsbyLopez?s=09\n\n2018 kickoff rules changes: \nhttps://www.si.com/nfl/2018/09/07/nfl-kickoff-rule-changes-explained-onside-return-clarified", "455739": "I think there are at least 2 major underlying issues. One is long punt returns, defining long in seconds instead of yards. I had meant to explore the time dimension, but I ran out of time. The longer the punt return runs, the more the angles of attack for the blockers change and the more likely that a bad collision will happen. In some cases, the punt returner is deliberately trying to manipulate the tacklers angle of attack. That's why they often change directions. \n\nThe second one is group tackling. Most of the tackling concussions involved more than 2 people. One tackler would hit another tackler or the returner would be put in an awkward position by one tackler before being hit by another. \n\nAny rules trying to attack those two issues would drastically change the dynamics of the game.", "455815": "If you have a cough that could be caused by any number of underlying viruses, do you take readily available cough medication or start trying to cure every virus you might have? Sometimes treating symptoms is the right thing to do. If concussions are a symptom as you suggest, but they are the only symptom we are concerned about, then finding an effective treatment for them has the same practical impact as curing the underlying virus.", "455889": "Good point, the data does suggests plays with higher fair catch scenarios have fewer concussions. The impact of providing a fair catch incentive vs a formation change may have just as much impact in the aggregate.\nHowever, if teams choose not to elect for a fair catch on a punt, it seems the underlying issues, behaviors, and situations are still ripe for penalties and concussions.", "455955": "I agree that an ideal solution would make players safer on returns. A purely avoidance-based strategy does nothing to reduce the concussion rate on plays where a return actually occurs.", "458090": "So, actually a significant majority of individuals who received concussions during plays were the tacklers and the tackled. What you are suggesting, however, is that *\" [...] where the increased injury risk comes into play is the remaining players on the field. If a return team has 5 players tied up in the play (1 guy to catch the ball, and 4 players to block the 2 gunners) there are 6 players left to block the remaining 9\"* \n\nAdditionally, it is difficult, if not improbable to control all behaviors on active players during a game. A fair catch incentive (with conditional terms) both combats the majority of players which receive the highest density of concussions and is empirical/easily quantifiable. While players could certainly choose to forego a fair catch incentive, it's highly unlikely. A fair catch incentive which gives the average gain of player returns 1. limits risk of lower yardage gain during return 2. Is more time-efficient and 3. is more player-energy efficient." }, "source": "meta" }