On-Side Kick Rule Option

[Estro]

9 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 don't like it at all.  The thought of losing a game when you were up 13 points late in the 4th because a team converted a 4th and 15 would drive me nuts.

 

With hays aid you are right if it does pass it needs to be more than 15 yards and the ball should be further back to further penalize the team attempting it.  

 

4th and 18 from your own 17 yardline seems better

[billsfanmiami(oh)]

12 minutes ago, eball said:

 

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.

I bet the Cowboys thought it was an important part of the game on MNF in 2007 

[Prickly Pete]

I think they should just come up with a new rule each season to add excitement!

 

How about a tip off like basketball, to begin each half?

 

How about tie games get decided by who can punt the ball the farthest? 

That would be awesome. 

You fuddy duddies don't understand that this game needs to constantly be ***** with in order to hold the youngsters attention.

 

Let's see....instead of a coin flip, how about "Rock, Paper, Scissors"?

 

Or an arm-wrestle between coaches to decide who gets to kick or receive? Boy, that could really make for some interesting strategies when hiring a coach, huh?

 

 

Someday these could be innovations not unlike the development of the forward pass for ***** sake!

 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Prickly Pete

[PIZ]

Hate it. You just know that the Bills would be in one of the games where this would come into play and we’d get screwed. 
 

 

[eball]

3 minutes ago, billsfanmiami(oh) said:

I bet the Cowboys thought it was an important part of the game on MNF in 2007 

 

Well, sure, anyone can pick a game in the past that was impacted by a successful onside kick.  That doesn’t mean it is statistically significant over the course of NFL history.

 

You guys are acting like a team converting this 4th and 15 equates to “instant points” and that is simply not the case.

[Prickly Pete]

52 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

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%.

 

 

 

There are other factors as well. I wonder what the 3rd/ 15 and 4th/15 success rates are in the final 7 minutes of  games are? I bet they are higher. The defenses are more worn out. 

 

This definitely favors good offensive teams. It will have an impact.

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Prickly Pete

[eball]

2 minutes ago, Prickly Pete said:

It will have an impact

 

And that, my friend, is the point.  Currently the onside kick has a negligible impact on the game and is a waste of time.  The NFL wants to institute a play that actually means something.

[Prickly Pete]

36 minutes ago, eball said:

 

And that, my friend, is the point.  Currently the onside kick has a negligible impact on the game and is a waste of time.  The NFL wants to institute a play that actually means something.

 

 

 

So would a "longest punt" competition.

 

And that would make punters FASCINATING.

 

But I still prefer the coaches arm wrestling.

 

 

How about this? If a team gets ahead by more than 14 points, the team that is down keeps the ball until they score. It will keep games close.

 

Don't step on this idea, it's "the next Forward Pass"....

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Prickly Pete

[HardyBoy]

10 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??

 

Do you keep the ball where you end up, or if you make it does it go back to the 25?

 

If it goes back to the 25 I'm much more ok with it than if you can score a td, especially since you can't advance an onside kick.

 

That said, make it the 40, since a kick has to go 10 (or 15 yards now) before it is a live ball. The only thing is that a kickoff is a live ball so you could theoretically get possession wherever on the field if the team doesn't touch it.

 

All that said, the idea of a free hail mary that you can score on by saying "onside kick attempt" is not right.

Edited May 22, 2020 by HardyBoy

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

11 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.

 

So much this it isn't funny.

 

[Jeebus]

10 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??

 

1 hour ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

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%.

 

 

First off, let me add I'm not crazy about this idea, but I can maybe see where they are going with this.  The biggest thing I don't like is starting at the 25.  An incomplete pass almost guarantees the other team at least 3pts because it pretty much puts them right at the field goal range of most kickers.

 

With the recent changes to onside kicks, it's harder than the "historical" average to recover one these days so I understand the search for a for viable option while considering the CTE fears.

 

If it's going to be a possibility, I'd say keep it at the 35 yard line.  But still, this is going to be very bias to the better offenses in the league.  A KC will do this much more often than say the Redskins, who don't simply have the firepower and will be the ones who need to do it.  Kicks made it a more level playing field.

 

 

[PromoTheRobot]

11 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??

 

I like our odds with Josh Allen throwing.

[Doc]

Dumb idea.  Leave it the way it is.

[That's No Moon]

11 hours ago, coloradobillsfan said:

don't like it.  it's a desperation measure that should be difficult. 

It should, but they've made an onside kick pretty much impossible to recover these days so there should be some other option now.  

 

The thing that might need some tweaking is what happens on penalties.  On an onside kick it's virtually impossible for the receiving team to get a penalty that would result in the kicking team getting the ball.  On a 4th and 15 there are lots and lots of things that can happen to get a free first down or even something like an offside penalty would then make it 4th and 10.  Given that the play is almost certain to be a pass, DPI, holding, hitting a defenseless receiver and roughing the QB all come to mind and we've all seen really lousy calls made in all of those areas.

[Lv-Bills]

Absolutely hate it.  Should be way more difficult than a 4th and 15.

[Mr. WEO]

Terrible idea.  First possession awarded on the inevitable PI call will make this more obvious.

[jwhit34]

Instead of this change, what if they changed the formation rule to allow up to 8 players on one side and you're called for an illegal formation penalty only if the ball is not touched within 15 or maybe 20 yards of where it is teed up. If the kicking team does onside kick it will be touched within that yardage so no penalty. If the kicking team fakes and kicks deep, it's a penalty and ball is automatically spotted at the opponents 40 yard line. 

[Dr. K]

My two cents: I hate this idea. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

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%.

 

 

So this is obvious: If they are serious, then they need to revert to the old rules, concussions be damned.

 

[BuffaloBillies]

Very contrived and forced. Like the NBA in-bounding up near the basket at end of game. Don't like it at all.

[hjnick]

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]

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]

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.

[RangerDave]

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]

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.

[C.Biscuit97]

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. 

[Warcodered]

 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

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.

[Warcodered]

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]

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.

[buffalo2218]

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

[Protocal69]

Bills couldn’t stop a 3-18 in the clutch in the playoffs. 4-15 would be no problem for the opposition.

[Rubes]

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.

 

[purple haze]

15 yards is too short.  Should be 20 or 25.  

[wagon127]

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]

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. 

 

 

 

[Beast]

I wonder what will be next to be eliminated.

 

Running plays?

 

Kickoff returns?

 

Advancing the ball after a catch?

[BobbyC81]

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]

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]

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