Should the NFL eliminate the onside kick?

[Buffalo03]

22 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

Gee....instead of dreaming up completely assinine rules, how about letting guys get a running start on kickoff teams to make onside kicks possible?   

Asinine? Really? I think people pretty much shut down any rule that the NFL tries proposing simply because they are afraid of change. There is nothing asinine about a 4th and 15 play

[prissythecat]

21 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

The 7.5% is somewhat misleading because of how little it was attempted. There were a grand total of 4 successful attempts last season. That number is far too low. By my calculation 256 regular season games were played. That means an onside kick was converted in 1.5% of NFL games last season. 

 

Why would you use 256 as your denominator when not all of those games had an onside kick .  Your math makes no sense.  

 

Percentage success is defined as   # successful attempts / # total attempts.        

[Buffalo03]

14 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Kicking to the opposing team after a score is a basic football rule.

Changing it by having a team being "forced" to put their defense back out goes against that basic concept.

And?

[quinnearlysghost88]

54 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

Since the onside kick has become a near impossibility for the kicking team to recover, unless it's a surprise onside. They need to put in a rule that eliminates the onside kick and replace it with a 4th and 15. If a team scores they would have the option of kicking the ball off or having a 4th and 15 at their own 35 yard line. If they get the first down the drive keeps going like normal. If they fall short, the other team takes over where they missed from. They can even make it more interesting and make it to where each team only gets two 4th and 15's a game. This would be way better than doing an onside kick which has become nearly impossible for the kicking team to recover. Would anyone be on board with this? It's actually something Steve Tasker said that the NFL Competition committee has had discussions about in the past

Last year, onside kick recoveries were at 8%. A 4th and 15 has a much higher % of conversion than recovering an onside kick.

 

Questions:

 

Why are we rewarded the losing team with another possession?

What if the defense intercepts it and takes it in for a TD? Does that count?

What if there is an illegal hands penalty? Are they awarded a first down? 

What if the offense takes a penalty? The defense can just decline and take the ball on the 35?

 

 

Here's Slate's take on the rule. PS they mention on the team's own 30, not 35. 

https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/nfl-kickoff-rule-change-4th-and-15-play.html

[pimp on da' net]

1 hour ago, Buffalo03 said:

Since the onside kick has become a near impossibility for the kicking team to recover, unless it's a surprise onside. They need to put in a rule that eliminates the onside kick and replace it with a 4th and 15. If a team scores they would have the option of kicking the ball off or having a 4th and 15 at their own 35 yard line. If they get the first down the drive keeps going like normal. If they fall short, the other team takes over where they missed from. They can even make it more interesting and make it to where each team only gets two 4th and 15's a game. This would be way better than doing an onside kick which has become nearly impossible for the kicking team to recover. Would anyone be on board with this? It's actually something Steve Tasker said that the NFL Competition committee has had discussions about in the past

I like the 4th & 12 version starting at the 28 yd line used by AAF...one caveat any pass interference or illegal contact (5yd holding) are not automatic 1st down unless the infraction happens past the line to gain for a 1st down on the play. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

9 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

Why are we rewarded the losing team with another possession?

What if the defense intercepts it and takes it in for a TD? Does that count?

What if there is an illegal hands penalty? Are they awarded a first down? 

What if the offense takes a penalty? The defense can just decline and take the ball on the 35?

 

 

Here's Slate's take on the rule. PS they mention on the team's own 30, not 35. 

https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/nfl-kickoff-rule-change-4th-and-15-play.html

 

What a horrible article. If...and this is a HUGE if...the NFL implements something like this, I'd have one foot out the door.

 

 

[PetermansRedemption]

16 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

 

Why would you use 256 as your denominator when not all of those games had an onside kick .  Your math makes no sense.  

 

Percentage success is defined as   # successful attempts / # total attempts.        

Because I’ve already beat the drum ad naseum of the 4 successful conversions on 53 attempts. In this post I was illustrating how infrequent the play is. Read the entire thread and you’ll be up to speed ?

Edited March 22, 2019 by Bills2ref

[Formerly Allan in MD]

While you're at it, take the "foot" out of "football."

[Buffalo03]

10 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

Last year, onside kick recoveries were at 8%. A 4th and 15 has a much higher % of conversion than recovering an onside kick.

 

Questions:

 

Why are we rewarded the losing team with another possession?

What if the defense intercepts it and takes it in for a TD? Does that count?

What if there is an illegal hands penalty? Are they awarded a first down? 

What if the offense takes a penalty? The defense can just decline and take the ball on the 35?

 

 

Here's Slate's take on the rule. PS they mention on the team's own 30, not 35. 

https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/nfl-kickoff-rule-change-4th-and-15-play.html

It's not another possession, it's another play with a shot at keeping possession if they convert. So just because they are losing they shouldn't get the chance to gain 15 yards on another play? Under that logic it makes no sense to even let them attempt an onside kick now because technically that gives them another chance at recovery and maintaining possession. Maybe the winning team should stop them on defense. It adds more excitement to the game. I don't know about you, but onside kicks are boring as hell to me unless it's a surprise onside and with the low recovery rate and all this preaching about player safety, eliminating it is the better option

[nucci]

I can understand the safety part but I miss kick returns and onsides kicks....I remember getting pumped up for the opening kickoff.....now it's just a touchback...takes away a bit of the excitement at the start

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

It's not another possession, it's another play with a shot at keeping possession if they convert. So just because they are losing they shouldn't get the chance to gain 15 yards on another play? Under that logic it makes no sense to even let them attempt an onside kick now because technically that gives them another chance at recovery and maintaining possession. Maybe the winning team should stop them on defense. It adds more excitement to the game. I don't know about you, but onside kicks are boring as hell to me unless it's a surprise onside and with the low recovery rate and all this preaching about player safety, eliminating it is the better option

 

Curious...are you under the age of 30?

 

 

[prissythecat]

3 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

Because I’ve already beat the drum ad naseum of the 4 successful conversions on 53 attempts. In this post I was illustrating how infrequent the play is. Read the entire thread and you’ll be up to speed ?

 

Ah so you really didn't have a point.  Got it.

 

I actually read the thread.   You had stated early on that the onside kick was a zero percent proposition . But then someone correctly pointed out that last season about 8% of the onside kick attempts were successful so that immediately refuted your weak argument.  Then to try to save yourself,  you came up with a bogus stat comparing successful attempts to number of games played,  something which no mathematician or statistician would ever do.       

 

That pretty much sum things up?

[Buffalo03]

4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Curious...are you under the age of 30?

 

 

No, I'm not. What does that have to do with anything?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Buffalo03 said:

No, I'm not. What does that have to do with anything?

 

Because, you typically find these kind of opinions on the sport among young people without much experience in watching actual football.

 

[Buffalo03]

15 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

What a horrible article. If...and this is a HUGE if...the NFL implements something like this, I'd have one foot out the door.

 

 

What I'm referring to is not like what is being described in this article. The article makes it sound as though the scoring team automatically gets the ball back. I'm not for that all. What I'm proposing is they can have the option of kicking it off or going for the 4th and 15 and it's only limited to two 4th and 15's a game so if you go for them earlier in the game you're basically screwed the rest of the way. The article is in no way what I'm referring to

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Buffalo03 said:

What I'm referring to is not like what is being described in this article. The article makes it sound as though the scoring team automatically gets the ball back. I'm not for that all. What I'm proposing is they can have the option of kicking it off or going for the 4th and 15 and it's only limited to two 4th and 15's a game so if you go for them earlier in the game you're basically screwed the rest of the way. The article is in no way what I'm referring to

 

Oh. I see, so you wouldn't advocate for the removal of the kickoff. OK.

 

 

I'd honestly like to see them go back to the original kickoff rules. Won't ever happen because the owners are cowardly, but hey.

 

 

[Buffalo03]

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Because, you typically find these kind of opinions on the sport among young people without much experience in watching actual football.

 

I have plenty of experience of watching football. Have been since I was 5. I'm now 33. And the rule I'm proposing is not the same as what was proposed in the arricle posted above and it is a better option than the onside kick the way it is now

[Gugny]

6 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Because, you typically find these kind of opinions on the sport among young people without much experience in watching actual football.

 

 

We're Bills fans.  We haven't seen actual football since the 90s.

[Buffalo03]

7 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Oh. I see, so you wouldn't advocate for the removal of the kickoff. OK.

 

 

I'd honestly like to see them go back to the original kickoff rules. Won't ever happen because the owners are cowardly, but hey.

 

 

Yeah, no removing the kickoff would be extremely stupid. I would not watch the NFL anymore if they did that

[Jay_Fixit]

1 hour ago, frostbitmic said:

Restore the onsides kick to the way it used to be.

They’re called Onside Kicks.

 

Just like there is no such thing as Offside. It’s actually called offside.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

1 hour ago, nedboy7 said:

Why not eliminate scoring. That way eneyone is a winner. 

Should I make cupcakes for the postgame?  ?

[quinnearlysghost88]

46 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

So just because they are losing they shouldn't get the chance to gain 15 yards on another play? 

There's a difference between putting your kicking team out there and trying to bounce a football correctly and having your team recover it vs. putting your offense on the field and running a set play. 

[row_33]

2 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

Why not eliminate scoring. That way eneyone is a winner. 

 

the Bills could make the playoffs every year

 

[klos63]

1 hour ago, frostbitmic said:

Restore the onsides kick to the way it used to be.

You would have to change all kickoffs then.

[Utah John]

A team builds a 10 point lead, the other team scores a TD with 20 seconds left, has a 4th and 15 and tries a pass play where there's a BS pass interference or defensive holding, followed by a hail mary.  59 plus minutes of winning overshadowed by some foolishness.

 

OK, you say, don't let PI or DH calls change things.  Suddenly it's fair game for the defense to do whatever it wants to, if it's necessary to stop the 4th and 15.  

 

This will be a total mess.  No thanks.  If you're losing at the end of the game, it isn't the end that's to blame, it's the other 59 minutes.

[nickrage]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

Here's my idea:

 

Make every NFL player sign a piece of paper that states, "I will not sue the NFL if I am injured while playing, or suffer any long-term negative health-related effects of playing after I exit the league."

 

Then let them play the ***** game if they so choose.  The way it's supposed to be played.

 

 

This

[Ironsdad]

Bring back the old onside kick

[nedboy7]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

Here's my idea:

 

Make every NFL player sign a piece of paper that states, "I will not sue the NFL if I am injured while playing, or suffer any long-term negative health-related effects of playing after I exit the league."

 

Then let them play the ***** game if they so choose.  The way it's supposed to be played.

 

 

 

Or the NFL can support their workers and spend some of their billions helping them out when they can’t think or move at age 50?  

Edited March 22, 2019 by nedboy7

[Gugny]

Just now, nedboy7 said:

 

Or the NFL can support their workers and spend some of their billions helping them out when they can’t thinj or move at age 50?  

 

Absolutely agree.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Why punish the team that has built a two score lead throughout the majority of the game by making it easier for losing team to make a comeback?

[Beast]

How about naked cheerleader mudwrestling?

 

The cheerleader that pins her opponent team gets the ball.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Binghamton Beast

[Buffalo03]

7 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:

 

Just eliminate tackling. Pulling a towel from a waistband will be the new NFL paradigm in about 20 years, with the way things are headed....

Comparing eliminating an onside kick to tackling? I have no words for this

[HOUSE]

4 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

Why not eliminate scoring. That way eneyone is a winner. 

[Mat68]

The change of possession after a score needs to be re-evaluated.  The move for saftey has caused the kickoff to the verge of extinction.  Makes the on side kick half as likely as it once was.  It also has completely removed the suprise on side kick.  That play imo won the Saints the superbowl.  Anything involving the offense making 1 play to retain possession becomes to gimmicky and takes away from the game.  Remove the tee and move the kickoff up another 10 yards.  Let the return stand where they want.  Kicking off the ground will limit the hang time and make the play happen quicker.

[VirginiaMike]

3 hours ago, Augie said:

Maybe I’m in the minority, but I’m not buying it. 

I'm with you.  I don't link putting, what I would call, and artificial play in the game.  That's like the idiotic overtime rule in college. 

The onside kick-off follows the same rules as a regular kick-off so I am not sure how you outlaw it.  There isn't a special rule for an onside kick that is different than a regular kick

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 hours ago, billykay said:

If you want late game comebacks, the NFL should adopt the college rule where the clock stops on first downs until the chains are moved.

 

I’d hate to see a move that makes the game get even longer 

[Forward Progress]

The purest in me misses the old (now considered unsafe) rules around kick-offs.  I miss the excitement of the kick-off return as it used to be a big play and an impactful part of the game for teams with superstar kick returners.   Kick-offs have simply become a time to hit the washroom, and reload on snacks and drinks because the play is so boring.

 

On-side kicks have now suffered the same fate with the odds of recovery to low to justify attempting except when there is no other choice.

 

The Bills fan in me thinks this rule change could benefit us.  We have a big-armed quarterback who gets his yards in big chunks.  A rule-change to the 4th and 15 model would benefit the Bills more than it would a dink-and-dunk team that moves the ball in high-percentage, low yard plays.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

3 hours ago, Gugny said:

Here's my idea:

 

Make every NFL player sign a piece of paper that states, "I will not sue the NFL if I am injured while playing...

That’s outrageous, egregious, preposterous!

*

Why not bring back the onside kick, but make the receiver shout “ally ally in free!” upon receiving the ball?   First down for the receiving team at that point.  And before you ‘pooh pooh’ that, remember it would eliminate any chance of the dreaded ‘Music City Miracle’.

[Nextmanup]

6 hours ago, Bangarang said:

Get rid of kickoffs. Get rid of punting. Get rid of divisions. 16 team conferences with the best 6 records from each going to the playoffs. 

 

I’m ready for my commissioner’s check now.

If the teams were smarter than they are, they'd get rid of a lot of the punting themselves.  Don't need a rule for that.  In fact, it's better the way it is, gives a smart team room for a competitive advantage.  At least for a while.

 

I like the idea of conferences and the best 6 records advance to the playoffs.  The divisional structure is kind of antiquated.

 

That move would also greatly help out Buffalo, at least as long as NE remains unbeatable.

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

6 hours ago, Augie said:

Why? 

...will flags match uniform colors or all be neon orange?.......could get Maybelline or MaxiPads as major sponsors.....

Edited March 22, 2019 by OldTimeAFLGuy