New rule to replace onside kick?

[frostbitmic]

Two questions on this...

 

Q1. Has a study been done comparing the rate of injury between the old style of onside kick and 4th and 15 plays ? ... I can't recall ever seeing a serious injury on an onside kick.

 

Q2. If under the proposed new rule you choose to kick off, how far does the ball have to travel before it isn't considered an onside kick ?  20 yards ? ...50 yards ? ...out of the end zone?

 

If they pass this rule I think they need to make defensive penalties on the 4th and 15 play reviewable.

[Tcali]

4th and 15 from 35 is too easy. make it 4th and 20. For the rule to work the attempt should fail 80% of the time.

4 hours ago, goober said:

Interesting idea but I don’t like the concept of some iffy defensive holding call nowhere near the play making it an automatic first down.  

good point

[Bing Bong]

This has been proposed before. I forgot who. Like Greg Schiano or something. But I love the idea of a 4th and long play. Just turn it into normal football instead of some bizarre play.

 

 

Onside kick is the "ugliest stupid looking spectacle in organized sport in which dice is played with human bodies" lol

Edited March 25, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Bing Bong]

4 hours ago, tcampbell104 said:

its better than the onside kick now

Onside kick is the "ugliest stupid looking spectacle in organized sport in which dice is played with human bodies" - Jon Boise, SBNation

[Chicken Boo]

On 3/24/2019 at 1:37 PM, prissythecat said:

 

 

Did Maybin ever play at 238 pounds ?   Didn’t he take weight gainers to reach that weight ? I remember he had issues with being way too light to play . 

 

He got up to 250lbs, if I remember correctly.

[stosh64]

On 3/23/2019 at 9:09 PM, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

I wish they would just bring regular kick offs back and leave it alone. It’s one of the most exciting plays in the game when it’s done correctly and it was responsible for some of the greatest plays in nfl history. Don’t touch the onside kicks and don’t keep trying to take away the kick off. These guys know the risk when they sign up. Play football or don’t. Stop trying to make it an arcade game. Bring the kickoff back. Make football physical again

I couldn't agree more.

They keep ******* with the rules trying to make it more SJW friendly and they will kill it just like nascar did.

[LABILLBACKER]

On 3/23/2019 at 8:34 PM, klos63 said:

I just despise that rationale.  They take a career threatening risk because if they want a chance to make the team, they will do it. Doesn't mean it's fair or right.  Reasonable people don't want players risking serious injury for their entertainment. I know it's a physical game, I have no issues trying to make the game safer.

If you think football isn't physical, you have some major issues. You want to lose half your team with blown out knees throughout the season?

 But how are we supposed to quench our insatiable desire for blood & carnage?  JK......

[Buffalo03]

I love this rule. I actually made a post about it a few days ago and people lost their minds. 

[stosh64]

The 4th and 15 onside BS was shot down.  Good.

[Mr. WEO]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 8:33 PM, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

Onside kick is the "ugliest stupid looking spectacle in organized sport in which dice is played with human bodies" - Jon Boise, SBNation

 

 

The success rate of onside kicks is about 25%.  4th and 15 is 13%.  (Football outsiders 2011).

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[Bing Bong]

39 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The success rate of onside kicks is about 25%.  4th and 15 is 13%.  (Football outsiders 2011).

 

 

I think Jon Bois, and I agree, are just saying it's a stupid looking play. It's an oblong ball shaped to fly through the air being used in an archaic NFL kickoff rule stating that you can recover a ball over 10 yards away. So you purposefully kick the ball like crap for just over 10 yards towards like 16 dudes crashing towards a ball that doesn't roll right.

 

But anyways, I think a lot of those successful onside kicks are made up by surprise onside kicks that have pretty good odds, as opposed to desperation onside kicks teams have to make to mathematically win.  Removing those I think maybe the success got halved, closer towards your 13%.. the ChartParty video covers all of this. Heck, I'd say allow 4th and 10 instead of 4th and 15. Make it even more probably.

Edited March 26, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Chill]

Too many rule changes. Just let the game be. Every year they make the game worse. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

I think Jon Bois, and I agree, are just saying it's a stupid looking play. It's an oblong ball shaped to fly through the air being used in an archaic NFL kickoff rule stating that you can recover a ball over 10 yards away. So you purposefully kick the ball like crap for just over 10 yards towards like 16 dudes crashing towards a ball that doesn't roll right.

 

But anyways, I think a lot of those successful onside kicks are made up by surprise onside kicks that have pretty good odds, as opposed to desperation onside kicks teams have to make to mathematically win.  Removing those I think maybe the success got halved.. the ChartParty video covers all of this. Heck, I'd say 4th in 10. Make it even more probably.

 

How many onside kicks are "a surprise"?  They are only done teams in desperation in order to steal another possession.

 

Also, it's interesting that a play that has been around since the '20's is suddenly "stupid looking" to the football loving public.

[Bing Bong]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

How many onside kicks are "a surprise"?  They are only done teams in desperation in order to steal another possession.

 

Also, it's interesting that a play that has been around since the '20's is suddenly "stupid looking" to the football loving public.

This is fun. Debating over the onside kick. Let's spend time on this.

 

Saints vs Colts SB was a surprise.. they happen plenty of times. You just kick it when you don't necessarily need to. Cause your team's ready for it and the other team is not. Kind of like a fake punt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onside_kick

http://www.slate.com/id/2280272/pagenum/all

"An onside kick is considered successful if the kicking team regains the ball. Between 2001 and 2010, surprise onside kicks were successful 60% of the time, while expected onside kicks were successful less than 20% of the time." I literally just watched and linked a 20 minute video about kickoffs. Just go watch it.

 

And yes. It's probably ugly precisely because it's from the 1920s. That's why football looks completely different. People once considered the onside kick to be a more effective way to advance the ball than the forward pass... I don't even want to know what football looked like back then knowing that tidbit.

 

But if you find it to be a pretty play more power to you!

Edited March 26, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Bing Bong]

Kicks and punts are the last vestiges of whatever primordial sports ooze involving advancing a ball to some designated area evolved over centuries into American football, rugby and soccer

Edited March 26, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

This is fun. Debating over the onside kick. Let's spend time on this.

 

Saints vs Colts SB was a surprise.. they happen plenty of times. You just kick it when you don't necessarily need to. Cause your team's ready for it and the other team is not. Kind of like a fake punt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onside_kick

http://www.slate.com/id/2280272/pagenum/all

"An onside kick is considered successful if the kicking team regains the ball. Between 2001 and 2010, surprise onside kicks were successful 60% of the time, while expected onside kicks were successful less than 20% of the time." I literally just watched and linked a 20 minute video about kickoffs. Just go watch it.

 

And yes. It's probably ugly precisely because it's from the 1920s. That's why football looks completely different. People once considered the onside kick to be a more effective way to advance the ball than the forward pass... I don't even want to know what football looked like back then knowing that tidbit.

 

But if you find it to be a pretty play more power to you!

 

You “literally” just sited an instance where a team did an onside kick to start the second half.....a scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing, which is whether to replace the onside with a 4th and 15....IN AN OBVIOUS ONSIDE SITUATION.  Come on!  When a team is behind and time is running out and they just scored..it’s NEVER a surprise. 

 

Ugly play?  No,  that would be 4th and. 15.  An exercise in futility.

[Bing Bong]

I found a better argument to run with dude this one is all-time stupid. 

 

I'll table this for later but if you really love onside kicks and it's ties to 1920s football you might be better off being a rugby fan bud.

[Bing Bong]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

You “literally” just sited an instance where a team did an onside kick to start the second half.....a scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing, which is whether to replace the onside with a 4th and 15....IN AN OBVIOUS ONSIDE SITUATION.  Come on!  When a team is behind and time is running out and they just scored..it’s NEVER a surprise. 

 

Ugly play?  No,  that would be 4th and. 15.  An exercise in futility.

Buddy you know I know you're yanking my chain. You said the onside kick was 25% successful I told you to take out the surprise kicks and you asked what a surprised onside kick was to which I gave you one.. and now you are proceeding to say this has nothing to do with our conversation.

 

Onside kicks are less successful when the team knows about it. So when it's an obvious kick situation it's about the same as a 4th and 15.. which is thus how they chose the yardage.

 

As to your hatred of 4th and 15 plays. It's weird man. It's a very weird thing to find ugly. It's just a football down you see all the time. Full of miraculous catches and heart crushing incompletions.

 

Do you specifically hate the down and distance? Which one more? The 4th? The 15 yards? Because it sounds like you hate a normal football play to gain a necessary amount of yards

Edited March 27, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Dopey]

Boo, hiss. Boo, hiss. I just picture Brady, Brees, Mahomes and the like getting defensive holding or pass interference calls to make the game more "exciting". Plus, why give a team an extra offensive play? Just giving them that extra play coukd kill the momentum the opposing defense has worked hard to establish. And you know certain qbs would have an unfair officiating advantage.

[Mr. WEO]

19 minutes ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

Buddy you know I know you're yanking my chain. You said the onside kick was 25% successful I told you to take out the surprise kicks and you asked what a surprised onside kick was to which I gave you one.. and now you are proceeding to say this has nothing to do with our conversation.

 

Onside kicks are less successful when the team knows about it. So when it's an obvious kick situation it's about the same as a 4th and 15.. which is thus how they chose the yardage.

 

As to your hatred of 4th and 15 plays. It's weird man. It's a very weird thing to find ugly. It's just a football down you see all the time. Full of miraculous catches and heart crushing incompletions.

 

Do you specifically hate the down and distance? Which one more? The 4th? The 15 yards? Because it sounds like you hate a normal football play to gain a necessary amount of yards

 

 

The onside kick has a success rate of 25%.  

 

You mention the Saints surprise onside kick.  Yet we are talking about an option of intend taking a 4th and 15 as a rule change----which obviously has nothing at all to do with the Saint decision to open a half with an onside kick.

 

What on Earth is your point??