Owners approve a change to the onside kick rule

[LabattBlue]

17 hours ago, The Red King said:

If they cared about safety, why not use the 4th and 15 suggested variant?  Would be exciting, and no more dangerous then any other normal play.

This!!!   Not sure why this has not been implemented yet.   It is a no brainer IMO.  

Edited 10 hours ago by LabattBlue

[Ethan in Cleveland]

19 hours ago, transient said:

Having to declare it before a trailing team uses it relegates it to nothing more than a desperation play, like a Hail Mary. They need to find a way of making it useable again without restriction, or eliminate it altogether. It used to be part of the game strategy, now it's a perfunctory thing to do in a 1 score game before the trailing team ultimately loses.

Why? 

Why make it easier for a losing team to make a comeback?  

I never understood the rationale for this.  You are beating a team for 58 minutes by two scores and give up a late score in garbage time.  Now you have to defend a potentially dangerous play and leave your starters on the field longer.  

 

[billsfan89]

11 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

Why? 

Why make it easier for a losing team to make a comeback?  

I never understood the rationale for this.  You are beating a team for 58 minutes by two scores and give up a late score in garbage time.  Now you have to defend a potentially dangerous play and leave your starters on the field longer.  

 

As fans we like to see exciting comebacks, but from a competitive standpoint any attempt to get the ball back after scoring because you are down late should be a low percentage play. ?Yes it should be possible but it also shouldn't be anything more than a 5-10% chance.

 

I've supported the idea of allowing teams down in the 4th quarter the opportunity to do a 4th and 20-25 play from the 30 yardline but while I think 4th and 20 or 25 yard play has a similar conversion percentage to the current onside kick (roughly 5-7%) what I don't like is the idea of a tired defense who just gave up a late score being put back on the field I also don't like the idea of a flag on a defensive holding call or a BS roughing the passer awarding a possession. There's already so much in the refs hands, say what you will about onside kicks but the refs enforce them well for the most part. 

 

For now I don't see the problem of just keeping it as it is, 50 onside kicks were attempted last season with 3 being recovered, that's a 6% recovery rate which seems like a "fair" conversion percentage low but not impossible. 

[transient]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

Surprise onside kicks were extremely rare anyway, though.

Surprise onsides kicks were often the most effective, though. Think of the Saints-Colts SB. Payton's surprise onside kick to start the second half turned the tide of that game. It was a high-risk strategy that paid off. Under the current rules it is no longer part of the game. I find that to be unfortunate.

 

37 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

Why? 

Why make it easier for a losing team to make a comeback?  

I never understood the rationale for this.  You are beating a team for 58 minutes by two scores and give up a late score in garbage time.  Now you have to defend a potentially dangerous play and leave your starters on the field longer.  

Do you think it is less dangerous now that it has to be declared ahead of time? It's something that used to be somewhat suspenseful and meaningful previously that is absolutely useless in it's current iteration, which is why I think they should either fix it or get rid of it.

[Bookie Man]

Just make kickoffs the old way again.

[T.E.]

19 hours ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

Everyone saying declaring it kills it…how many surprise onside kicks were there really? I bet It was once a month in the league at best. Just guessing but come on. Plus no matter how unlikely it is to be recovered.

I mean, it probably won one team a Super Bowl.

[MJS]

1 hour ago, transient said:

Surprise onsides kicks were often the most effective, though. Think of the Saints-Colts SB. Payton's surprise onside kick to start the second half turned the tide of that game. It was a high-risk strategy that paid off. Under the current rules it is no longer part of the game. I find that to be unfortunate.

Yes, but we are talking about only a handful of plays in the entire history of the game. It didn't happen often.

 

I'd rather just go back to the old kickoff rules and move the kicker back 10 yards so it is not as likely to kick it out of the end zone. But the player safety thing is always talked about these days. I just think that football is a dangerous sport and you sign up for that when you play. The new kickoff is just kind of dumb.

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

53 minutes ago, T.E. said:

I mean, it probably won one team a Super Bowl.

Yes, that was the 1 time everyone thinks of. How many other times has it mattered? One instance in how many kickoffs? That’s my point. At least they are still doing it. The thought of that 4th and 15 instead of an onside kick makes me sick

[Mango]

22 hours ago, transient said:

Having to declare it before a trailing team uses it relegates it to nothing more than a desperation play, like a Hail Mary. They need to find a way of making it useable again without restriction, or eliminate it altogether. It used to be part of the game strategy, now it's a perfunctory thing to do in a 1 score game before the trailing team ultimately loses.

 

Maybe we remove kicking all together. Make all kicks a throw. Any completed pass of at least 40(?) yards you get to keep the ball. That way the receiving team doesn't know if it is a "kickoff" or onsides kick. 

Also narrow the goal posts to like 3 feet. 

Don't yell at me, I am just an ideas guy. 

[BillsFan130]

20 hours ago, The Red King said:

If they cared about safety, why not use the 4th and 15 suggested variant?  Would be exciting, and no more dangerous than any other normal play.

With the bills struggles to get off the field on 3rd and 4th downs, I hope this doesn't become a rule lol.

 

Josh Allen wouldn't see the field all game 

Edited 7 hours ago by BillsFan130

[RobbRiddick]

22 hours ago, transient said:

Having to declare it before a trailing team uses it relegates it to nothing more than a desperation play, like a Hail Mary. They need to find a way of making it useable again without restriction, or eliminate it altogether. It used to be part of the game strategy, now it's a perfunctory thing to do in a 1 score game before the trailing team ultimately loses.

Remember this in Super Bowl XXX? Great moment. I really thought those vile cow folk were going to lose

 

 

[BillsShredder83]

4 hours ago, LabattBlue said:

This!!!   Not sure why this has not been implemented yet.   It is a no brainer IMO.  

I like this 4th n 15, but feel the number is off. 10-15% conversion should be the goal.... I don't think 15yards is going to be even close to the right number. No stats in front of me, educated guess on feel.... 

 

I'd peg 15yards at ~20ish %. 

20yards is 15%

22yards is my sweet spot...

 

25 is too far, but 20 is like 3rd and 10 after a hold. We see it get converted at an ok'ish rate. Just my opinion 

[richardb1952]

However it is finally decided, it will somehow negatively affect the Bills in a playoff game.

[Brand J]

9 hours ago, finn said:

Before the rule change, the success rate of online kicks was like 15% AND teams didn't need to declare them. That gave the option real excitement. But at 6%, everyone knowing it's coming? No, that's pointless. They need to think out of the box, something equivalent to pulling the goalie in hockey. High risk high reward. Maybe an 75-yard field goal attempt.

I said that if they go the difficult kicking route, rather than a FG, I’d like to see the punter stand at the 50 yard line, all by himself, and have to punt the ball inside the opponent’s 5 yard line to win back possession. He can coffin corner the kick or it would have to come to a rolling stop. Anything short of the 5 or in the endzone is a failed attempt. Would be exciting to watch and make the punter more meaningful at least. 

[Buffalo716]

On 5/22/2025 at 2:47 PM, Gugny said:

Kinda like when a team is winning with, say, 13 seconds left.  A squib kick is a 100% given.  

 

Squib kicks typically result in the opposing team having the ball at around the 25 or 35 

 

And you can still fair catch them draining no time

[Gugny]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Squib kicks typically result in the opposing team having the ball at around the 25 or 35 

 

And you can still fair catch them draining no time

Sure.