That might work. I'd be interested to know what percentage teams might recover it successfully under that system. If it's around 20 percent, I think we should go for this. If it's something like 50 percent, I think that's too high. Of course we don't have any stats to let us know.
^ This
I don't think it would be that high. Isn't there only like 5 yards between the kicking team and the receiving team? That's a small window to hit, and there would be risk involved. If the kicking team doesn't place the ball between the 40 and 35, then they would have missed the landing zone and the receiving team gets the ball at the 40 (like they do when teams miss the landing zone now). That would add a level of precision to the effort because NFL kickers would have to practice getting the ball over their teammates and not past the receiving team. Ideally, they would want it to hit between them and take a hop.
It was the saints that did it.
Looking at the current NFL kickoff rules, the only modification I'd make to what I posted is the ball having to travel 10 yards. Since there is only 5 yards between the kicking team and receiving team, I think the kicking team should be able to recover the ball as soon as it hits.
The more you describe this, the more I think it could work. Maybe they could test it in preseason or something. What you describe sounds like it would have far less than a 50% conversion rate. I'd bet it would be about 20. I wonder if they should consider doing it as a punt instead. Teams could try to punt it up high to give them time and then hopefully it lands in what I guess we would call the "recovery zone."
That sucks really bad, I don't like it at all
You bring up an important point. At what point does a rule change water down the game to the point where it's no longer worth playing? If they wanted, they could build a super computer and an NFL application like Madden, except much more sophisticated. Then they make electronic duplicates of all of every team's players, and then just have the computer simulate all the games. That would result in zero injuries, but no fan would go for that and the league would go bust.
The only thing I don't like about that is it removes the surprise element. You put the punter out there and you know it's an onside kick. If you do it the way I've described, then it looks like a regular kickoff until the kicker tries to place it in the recovery zone. (I like that name for it.)
You know I thought about that, and you have a valid point. I had an idea. Maybe it could be kickoffs as the league currently does them, with your onsides idea, but they're given the option to kick off a tee or to do it like a punt. Then it becomes standard for the punter to the the holder for the kicker. If they want a surprise fake, they could snap it to the punter, then, instead of holding it for the kicker, he stands up and punts it. I know it's a bit complicated, but maybe it could work. What do you think?
Not sure. It does seem more complicated, and it seems to introduce the idea of having a 12th "active" player on the field since the holder could punt the ball. I think if the league were to do something like I'm suggesting, it would need to be kept simple. Either the kicker puts it in the recovery zone and it's an onside kick or he doesn't. If he does, it's an onside kick and the teams can scramble for the ball. If he doesn't, then it's simply a kick that didn't land in the landing zone and is the receiving team's ball on the 40.
The punter/holder would have to be one of the 11 members of the team. I would not be good with letting the kicking team have 12. Then you would have to let the receiving team also have 12. Not a good idea. My thought is maybe the league could have teams test this and see if it could work.
What is this? Australian rules? How about just bring back the onsides kick? I have no idea why they needed to get rid of it.
