hjnick Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 The NFL has neutered the onside kick rules so now it's virtually impossible to get an onside kick. They need to change it somehow. I think a 4th and 20 would be better, but they also need to figure out the foul/first down problem.
HappyDays Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 I like the idea. Onside kicks are stupid. I would just add the caveat that all penalties are up for review on that play. No one wants to see a BS pass interference give a team an extra drive. If they allow penalty reviews it would be fair. Honestly I'd be okay if they took kicking out of the game entirely aside from punts and kickoffs. Let a team elect to take 3 points inside the 25 yard line. This will encourage more 4th down attempts between the 50 and the 25 and we don't have to pretend field goal kickers are football players. On the same note get rid of the extra point. Make a TD worth 7 points with the ability to risk 1 point on a 2 point conversion.
Talley56 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Not a fan. The general argument for those in favor of the rule seems to be that the current probability of recovering an onside kick is too low. The thing is, I honestly think it should be low. Scoring a TD and then following that by getting the ball back on the ensuing kickoff should take a miracle IMO. 4
RangerDave Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 I've often wondered why a team attempting an onside kick does not kick it hard directly at one of the opposing players who is only 30 feet away. If you have your team ready for all bounces, or ready in case it misses and goes downfield, I would think you would have the advantage. It might force teams to move further away from the kicker, increasing the chances of a successful recovery. Alternatively, if the kicker pooch kicked the ball to a specific spot over the head of the first line of opposing players, say the number 50 on the left side of the field, the kicking team would know where to send all of their players and would surprise the receiving team. Again, a small advantage.
Doc Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, Talley56 said: Not a fan. The general argument for those in favor of the rule seems to be that the current probability of recovering an onside kick is too low. The thing is, I honestly think it should be low. Scoring a TD and then following that by getting the ball back on the ensuing kickoff should take a miracle IMO. Yup. And an onside kick fits within the existing rules, i.e. a KO becomes live after 10 yards. I see no reason to create artificial situations to allow a team to potentially win a game when they had most of the game to try and do so. 1
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Make it 20 yards to convert and it adds a ton more strategy to games. I would seeing teams try this early in games. You could come out in your kickoff team and audible to run a play against their kick return team. It would be awesome. Teams barely recover onside kicks anyways. And if you played, you know how dangerous onside kicks are. It was just a chance to murder or get murder. 1
NoHuddleKelly12 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Talley56 said: Not a fan. The general argument for those in favor of the rule seems to be that the current probability of recovering an onside kick is too low. The thing is, I honestly think it should be low. Scoring a TD and then following that by getting the ball back on the ensuing kickoff should take a miracle IMO. ^^^^This. The low probability only serves to heighten the drama/elation when it does work. 3
Warcodered Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 NFL owners to vote on sky judge, onside kick alternative May 28 https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-owners-to-vote-on-sky-judge-onside-kick-alternative-may-28 With the NFL trying to start the season on time, owners will consider a slate of rules changes, highlighted by a proposal for a sky judge to help officiating and another to give teams an option to an onside kick. Owners are expected to vote on rules during a May 28 virtual meeting.
Doc Brown Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 On the one hand I love the idea of taking the fate of a game out of a kicker's hands. Moving back the extra point was and still is a horrible move. On the other hand, this feels to gimmicky. They're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist as it should be a low percentage play. 2
buffalo2218 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Only issue I have with this is too much of a chance of a ticky tack penalty giving the offense a first down. Imagine a bogus PI call 1
Protocal69 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Bills couldn’t stop a 3-18 in the clutch in the playoffs. 4-15 would be no problem for the opposition.
Rubes Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 The question comes down to this: is the goal to increase the chances of the losing team getting another chance? Or is it to reduce concussions and other injuries? If it's the latter, I guess I understand. But I don't know that I've seen that many injuries on these plays. Still, I wouldn't like it. If it's the former, WTF? I think most of us agree that it should be an incredible long shot to get the ball back. Nobody wants to see the scales tipped too far in one direction.
wagon127 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) 16 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. Thats exactly what the 4th and 15 is, more actual football. The onside kick is basically impossible, and even if you did recover it, its nothing but a lucky bounce. 2 hours ago, Talley56 said: Not a fan. The general argument for those in favor of the rule seems to be that the current probability of recovering an onside kick is too low. The thing is, I honestly think it should be low. Scoring a TD and then following that by getting the ball back on the ensuing kickoff should take a miracle IMO. 4th and 15 is a low probabilty. Thats why teams never attempt them, except in the most desperate of circumstances. Edited May 22, 2020 by wagon127
Straight Hucklebuck Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Another artificial situation added to the game. So like overtime, instead of just playing football, it’s now the game isn’t over if you kick a field goal first. Take a knee, get 25% of the field handed to you instead of 20%. Take out kicking the onsides and just hand the ball to the offense. 1
Beast Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 I wonder what will be next to be eliminated. Running plays? Kickoff returns? Advancing the ball after a catch? 1
BobbyC81 Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 20 hours ago, ChasBB said: According to the article on NFL.com, over the past two seasons, on-sides kicks have been successful 10.4% of the time (higher than I expected, honestly). According to Football Outsiders, the average rate of success of a 4th-and-15 scenario is 12.5%. So, effectively, the proposed rule change increases the odds of keeping the football by only 2.1%, but teams risk giving the opponent the ball on the 25-yd line (instant field goal range for the opponent) instead of somewhere closer to mid-field with a failed on-sides kick. I don't know if the proposed rule change really provides enough incentive to try it, so I don't see it so much as a "reward" for the trailing team - it's a very risky thing to try. On the other hand, if your QB has a hot hand in the 4th suddenly, maybe you try it in those situations. Not sure I like it, but not dead-set against it, either. I would add a couple of requirements - you must have just scored a TD on the previous play and not a field goal to "earn" the right to attempt the 4th-and-15 and it should not be an option on an opening kickoff of either half. Actually, I wouldn't allow it in the 1st half at all (not that teams would even consider that). Going for the 4th and 15 would depend on time remaining. If a team still has 3 timeouts to stop the clock and there is enough time left to get the ball back, I wouldn’t risk leaving the opponent at your 25. If it’s a last hurrah, definitely take the ball.
Steve Billieve Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 23 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. This is such a great take liking it just isn't enough.
Prickly Pete Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) When we were kids we used to play "Canadian Rules" football, where if you caught the ball on the first bounce, it was a reception. Think about it...... Or how about this... Each team can have a 12th player on the field for just one play each half. I think it would make things more exciting, and add another layer of strategy. Or have a kickoff where, if the receiving team doesn't catch the ball (must travel 20 yards in the air), the kicking team receives 2 points. Maybe give them the ball too. Sure makes kickoffs Must-See-TV. There are just so many ways to fix up this incredibly popular sport. Edited May 23, 2020 by Prickly Pete 1
Recommended Posts