njbuff Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) If the rule goes thru............ In the 4th and 15 situation, DO NOT make PI an automatic first down in this instance. If the penalty occurs before the 15 yards, it should only mean you keep the try and it is still 4th and 15. Why should a trailing team be rewarded. Edited May 22, 2020 by njbuff 2
billsfan89 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Make it a 4th and 20 and I think this rule works, inside kicks are no longer feasible. 1
BuffaloRebound Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 If the refs weren’t awful, I’d be for it. From a player safety standpoint, probably better for the players to get rid of onside kicks where players get a 10 yard runway to lay out a stationary target who’s looking fur the ball.
Putin Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Just Joshin' said: Not a fan. An on side kick under the old rules had a 25% success rate. A 15 yard pass play must have better odds. If this is done, the yardage needs to be increased to 20 or more. The penalty issue is also legit - a poor PI call can flip the game. Yes it could happen regardless but when losing possession it is a double hit. I hate it , so many freakin rule changes you will need a manual just to keep up with the game , but I agree with you it should be 20 yards or more Edited May 22, 2020 by Putin 1
KD in CA Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 More utter nonsense brought to you by idiots who need to ruin everything. 1 1
Prickly Pete Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, LB48 said: League Owners will consider this rule change in their upcoming Virtual Meeting. Teams could still onside kick, but if this proposal was adopted, they also would have the opportunity to convert a 4th-and-15 scenario at their own 25-yard line to retain possession. Teams could use the 4th-and-15 attempt only twice per game. Gaining 15 or more yards, presumably by passing the football, is certainly easier than executing a successful onside kick. What's your opinion?? It's a terrible idea. A team should not be given the ball back in succession. They have to take it back. Making the game "more exciting" is a terrible excuse. It's been the most successful sport for a long time. It doesn't need to cheapen possessions to keep fans interested. If they are so concerned about injuries, they should go the other way, and make it a penalty to NOT kick the ball further downfield, and basically eliminate the on-side kick. These "once or twice a game" rules are really gimmicky, and cheapen the game. Teams play all game long under a set of rules, then out of the blue.... "It's time to Spin The Wheel for bonus points. Yay!" Edited May 22, 2020 by Prickly Pete 2
Ethan in Cleveland Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 If you make a rally in the 9th inning, you still only get three outs. The shot clock doesn't change and a golfer than it is one shot back doesn't get to hit from the red tees on the 72nd hole. Why make it easier for a team that is losing? How is that fair to the team that is ahead? Leave it alone. The coaches and teams just need to adjust by managing the clock and using their time outs more wisely when attempting a comeback. 2
Warcodered Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 21 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said: If you make a rally in the 9th inning, you still only get three outs. The shot clock doesn't change and a golfer than it is one shot back doesn't get to hit from the red tees on the 72nd hole. Why make it easier for a team that is losing? How is that fair to the team that is ahead? Leave it alone. The coaches and teams just need to adjust by managing the clock and using their time outs more wisely when attempting a comeback. Football has never been as rigid as either of those sports, there used to be a way for teams to have a chance, a difficult one, to get the ball back after scoring. With the rule change to kickoffs the chance has dropped way down and this is just an idea to get closer to what was there before.
GETTOTHE50 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Possession should be determined after a kicking of the football. Unless it is a turnover of course. 1
Zerovoltz Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 The following is NOT a typo: Pat Mahomes QBR on 3rd and 15 or more is 99.9 (also, this stat alone, should demonstrate just how awesome Mahomes is) The rest of the entire NFL QBR on 3rd and 15 or more is 4.7 KC would just score and go for the "onside" conversion everytime.
Motorin' Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 41 minutes ago, GETTOTHE50 said: Possession should be determined after a kicking of the football. Unless it is a turnover of course. I agree. Maybe if they're going to rule that the kicking team can't run until the ball is kicked, the kicking team should have the option to move the kickoff back to the 30 but still require the receiving team lineup on their side of the 50. That way both teams have the same distance to travel to get to the 40 yard line and recover the onside kick?
Putin Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Zerovoltz said: The following is NOT a typo: Pat Mahomes QBR on 3rd and 15 or more is 99.9 (also, this stat alone, should demonstrate just how awesome Mahomes is) The rest of the entire NFL QBR on 3rd and 15 or more is 4.7 KC would just score and go for the "onside" conversion everytime. Yes Mahomes walks on water !!!! Edited May 22, 2020 by Putin 1
Doc Brown Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) So, let's say a team's down 4 at their own 10 yard line. It's 4th and 20 and they have no timeouts left. Wouldn't they just take a safety and then hope to get the onside kick? I'm sure the NFL thinks this through and comes to the right conclusion like they always do. I mean, the challenge rule for the PI worked to perfection last season. Edited May 22, 2020 by Doc Brown
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 7 hours ago, section122 said: Nightmares of "pass interference" being called to benefit certain teams with this scenario. Anytime you are adding the refs to end of game scenarios you are opening a giant can of worms. In theory I like the idea. In reality it sounds terrible. Get back to me when BB and the Evil Empire have figured out all the angles...?
GunnerBill Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 I don't like it. The numbers suggest expected onside kicks have gone from around 17% success probability to around 10% since the rule change a few years ago. To be honest I could live with that but even if you decide you can't then why not just go back to the old onside? It was made impossible because of the rules preventing overloading which were designed to make normal kick offs safer. The rule change pretty much did away with the concept of the surprise onside anyway so why not just say like how a team now has to declare that it is going for two (whereas before they could fake XP) that a team must declare if it is going to onside kick? On those plays you can allow the overload and you can institute a law that says an onside that travels more than 25 yards is immediately a dead ball and a spot foul to avoid teams declaring an onside and then kicking deep with the overload. I know they got rid of the running start too and I'd keep that even for onsides but allowing the overload would put more bodies back in the vicinity and create more possibility for a deflection. 1
Niagara Dude Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 7 hours ago, LB48 said: League Owners will consider this rule change in their upcoming Virtual Meeting. Teams could still onside kick, but if this proposal was adopted, they also would have the opportunity to convert a 4th-and-15 scenario at their own 25-yard line to retain possession. Teams could use the 4th-and-15 attempt only twice per game. Gaining 15 or more yards, presumably by passing the football, is certainly easier than executing a successful onside kick. What's your opinion?? No thanks, keep it the way it is 1
Prickly Pete Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 2 hours ago, Doc Brown said: So, let's say a team's down 4 at their own 10 yard line. It's 4th and 20 and they have no timeouts left. Wouldn't they just take a safety and then hope to get the onside kick? I'm sure the NFL thinks this through and comes to the right conclusion like they always do. I mean, the challenge rule for the PI worked to perfection last season. Belichick would.
Johnnycage46 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 9 hours ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said: I seriously hate these silly things. It’s football. I don’t want the kick off to go away. I don’t want the extra point to go away. I don’t want the onside kick to go away. Play Football. You want to be safer? Fine. I have no issue with intelligent solutions towards the goals of safety. Don’t change the actual plays in the game please. Yeah and they should never have added the forward pass damn it! I say keep the integrity of the game and leave the plays in the game alone!! 3 hours ago, Zerovoltz said: The following is NOT a typo: Pat Mahomes QBR on 3rd and 15 or more is 99.9 (also, this stat alone, should demonstrate just how awesome Mahomes is) The rest of the entire NFL QBR on 3rd and 15 or more is 4.7 KC would just score and go for the "onside" conversion everytime. God you must be bored.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 the odds are not much different than recovering an onside kick https://operations.nfl.com/stats-central/stats-articles/why-fourth-and-15-from-the-25-insight-into-the-nfl-s-experiment-with-an-onside-kick-alternative/ Accounting for do-overs, we settled on the following chart to compare Denver’s proposal of a fourth-and-15 with the historical onside kick recovery rate of 13.2%. Kicking teams historically recovered onside kicks between 15% and 20% of the time in a given season. In 2018, in part to changes on the kickoff play, that number dropped below 10%.
eball Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 9 hours ago, msw2112 said: I'm more of a traditionalist, so I don't like it. The on-sides kick is an important part of the game that has always been. If the new rule passes, however, I could learn to like it. I think this is probably a great example of confirmation bias. While you think this is “an important part of the game that has always been” I’m willing to bet that in reality, the data would show it has a negligible impact on the game and is typically just a waste of time. At least this play would create “actual” excitement and keep the end of games in doubt.
Recommended Posts