NFL Wider Field

[Texas Aggie]

This would have the OPPOSITE effect of making the game safer. Wider open areas would lead to collisions by players running faster. Thus, more injuries are likely.

[Matt-MI]

I think most of the new NFL stadiums would be hard pressed to give up 35' from the sidelines

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Matt-MI

I think most of the new NFL stadiums would be hard pressed to give up 35' from the sidelines

And that, right there, is why this will never happen. If you widen the inbounds area of the playing field, you have to narrow the OOB/sideline areas. In the few NFL stadiums I've been in, there's not a lot of extra space on the sidelines right now anyway.

The other option would be to remove the first few rows of seats, which would A) be rather expensive on the construction side, although it's a one-time expense, and B) result in fewer high-priced seats available for paying customers (and no owner would go for this).

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

And that, right there, is why this will never happen. If you widen the inbounds area of the playing field, you have to narrow the OOB/sideline areas.

Or they grandfather the old fields in effect by adopting the same types of field dimension rules most other large-field games have, i.e. minimum & maximum, rather than exact, dimensions. And just build the new stadiums bigger.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Matt-MI

I think most of the new NFL stadiums would be hard pressed to give up 35' from the sidelines

That's why this didn't happen a century ago. The Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee was looking at ways to open up the game, and a leading proposal (promoted by Walter Camp, among others) was to widen the field. However, the cement had just been poured for what became Harvard's Soldier Field, which didn't have any more room, so it didn't pass. Instead we got the forward pass.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

This would have the OPPOSITE effect of making the game safer. Wider open areas would lead to collisions by players running faster. Thus, more injuries are likely.

I think THIS point, and the point being made by those in favor of this (more space means less collisions in total) are both true, with the effects of these cancelling each other out and the overall total effect would be negligible.

[Robert Goodman]

I don't see why widening the field would result in any increase in the relative velocity of opponents hitting each other; I don't even see why it wouldn't result in a reduction of same. I mean vector-wise, which is the right way to think about it.

Consider for example what it would be like if the field were only 10 ft. wide. Practically all the motion of opposing players would be directed against each other. Give them more space to run sideways, and more of that motion will be so directed, rather than forwards. They'll get up to higher speeds, probably, but at lower relative velocity.

[Texas Aggie]

I think if you go watch 6 man football at the high school level in the states that play it (Texas is one; a couple of other states play it as well rather than 8 man played elsewhere), you'd see the collisions I'm speaking of. You have players running full speed and no downfield blockers to either slow them up or cause them to run around the blockers, making for potentially pretty rough collisions. Put 2 or more guys at the size and speed of NFL players and you could have a disaster.

Think about how NFL defensive coordinators will scheme a wider field. More zones and more safeties. The hits may be legal, but as we know, injuries happen more on legal hits than they do on illegal ones.

I'm just suggesting they think about this.

[Robert Goodman]

Then I suppose the other way to reduce high speed collisions would be a shorter field, but it'd probably have to be a lot shorter to have much effect.

[maven]

I have some other ideas for reducing the energy of collisions:

Longer grass/turf
No shoes allowed
Sumo suits
Increase the number of players per team to 33
Play in a swimming pool

Others?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by maven

I have some other ideas for reducing the energy of collisions:

Longer grass/turf
No shoes allowed
Sumo suits
Increase the number of players per team to 33
Play in a swimming pool

Others?

Yeah, thicker, softer padding on everything, including the outsides of helmets. It doesn't technically reduce the energy of the collision, but dissipates it over a longer time or impact. The main problem is that the better you protect the head, the greater the danger to the neck.

Or you outlaw pads & helmets entirely, and the players may (or may not) reduce the energy of their collisions.

Softer playing surface, as you suggest, might help too, as in mandatory muddy field. Wrestling mats would be very effective but very expensive; used as is for football, they'd probably need replacing every game.