New 4th and 15 onside kick rule?

[windward]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/23/a-closer-look-at-the-onside-kick-alternative/

Since certain people are taking this idea and adding nonsense that won’t be part of the rule change to fuel their constant paranoid induced posts.

 

[lostar2009]

Yea but they weren’t down 17 points. Read the rules.

Doesn't matter don't like it.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I’m kind of agreeing with the sentiment that it’s weird for a sports league to create a comeback mechanic. I mean what’s next, Aaron Boone runs out of the dugout after a game ending strikeout and tells the umpire he’s going to play his “Babe Ruth” card from his MLB Magic deck that gives him one more at bat?
At least an onside kick is part of the game and can be done at any time.

 

[Jake]

I don’t see why this is an issue.

A ton of games in the NFL already come down to the last minute or go to OT.

There really isn’t some dramatic need to provide teams an opportunity to get back into a game.

They want to get rid of kickoffs entirely, as they've done in the Alliance (which is where this proposed rule originated).

The onside kick is the only obstacle standing in the way.

 

[coult44]

In your scenario, that defense gave up a score just before that play, and then gave up a score right after that play. So I wonder how great their defense really was for the full game.

Also, I can turn that around. "Imagine a team playing great defense for a full game and then the special teams botches one onside kick recovery that cost them the game." It's not clear to me that that's any better.

An onside kick botch would still be better than a botched pass interference call because it would be players and not refs

 

[Diehardblues]

I have to agree. And if this rule is passed, for the teams with a dynamic passing attack, I’d go for the onside kick after every touchdown. 4th and 15 is definitely makeable.

If they really want to make the percentages the same, they should make it at least like 4th and 20.

Obviously like others you didn’t read the rules.

You can only go for it when you’re down at least 17 points with under 5 minutes to play.

 

[Cowboys22]

It is beyond ridiculous to invent a new way for teams down by two scores to get two straight possessions in order to catch up or win. It should come naturally within the rules just as the onside kick did. It is up to teams to come up with a new way to implement the onside kick and give themselves a chance to get the ball. It should in no way be up to the league to further *******ize the game with each new rule change. Maybe it just becomes the norm that if you are down by two scores with 3 minutes or less to go, then you will and deserve to lose the game. If you didn’t want to take that out of the game, then you shouldn’t have messed with the kickoff in the first place.

 

[HungryLion]

They want to get rid of kickoffs entirely, as they've done in the Alliance (which is where this proposed rule originated).

The onside kick is the only obstacle standing in the way.

Fair enough. Get rid of kickoffs. That’s fine.

But there was only 3 onside kicks recovered last off season. And the games and league were just fine. I don’t see the drastic need to allow teams to get the ball back through a gimmick.

If they want the ball back, force a turnover or make the offense go 3 and out.

 

[Diehardblues]

They want to get rid of kickoffs entirely, as they've done in the Alliance (which is where this proposed rule originated).

The onside kick is the only obstacle standing in the way.

Right. Although if you’re down less than 17 points onside kick would be only option to retain possession.

 

[Diehardblues]

There wasn’t a single game we had this year where the rule would have came into play.

And only two games where it could have. Our 40-7 win over Jax or our 23-0 loss to Colts.

 

[_sturt_]

But there was only 3 onside kicks recovered last off season. And the games and league were just fine. I don’t see the drastic need to allow teams to get the ball back through a gimmick.

If they want the ball back, force a turnover or make the offense go 3 and out.

I think the middle ground is that some of us just want to see the game not lose that aspect, as it appears it did with the new rule change this season... and so, we'd like to see something swing the pendulum back to something closer to how it was.

The AAF thing isn't it, though.

 

[Diehardblues]

The game has been forever tarnished by other rule changes in recent years. It’s all about the entertainment value now. True football purist gave up years ago.

And our Cowboys with Jerry’s HOF contributions have led the way. It hasn’t been just about football for a long time now.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

What about going to the college rule for the last couple minutes of the game where the clock stops on first downs. The last 2 minutes or the last 5 minutes. Maybe only when the team that is losing has the ball. It would give the team that is losing a few more plays while they are on offense but still would allow the team that is winning to milk the clock.

 

[Diehardblues]

What about going to the college rule for the last couple minutes of the game where the clock stops on first downs. The last 2 minutes or the last 5 minutes. Maybe only when the team that is losing has the ball. It would give the team that is losing a few more plays while they are on offense but still would allow the team that is winning to milk the clock.

The clock stops for first downs the entire game in NCAA.

You also only need one foot in bounds and interference is only a 15 yard penalty. All rules which would be easy to implement. College is truly closer to the football game purist want .

The NFL continues to push the envelop to save itself from litigation and generate revenue attracting fringe fans.

 

[erod]

I may be drunk- but it’s hard to understand what you are writing.

Then, yeah, you're pretty much wasted. Basic English.

 

[erod]

If Gronk is healthy the Pats may never have to play a single down on defense.

He just retired, so.....

 

[pancakeman]

If Gronk is healthy the Pats may never have to play a single down on defense.

Guess you didn't read the news today.

 

[Diehardblues]

I’m kind of agreeing with the sentiment that it’s weird for a sports league to create a comeback mechanic. I mean what’s next, Aaron Boone runs out of the dugout after a game ending strikeout and tells the umpire he’s going to play his “Babe Ruth” card from his MLB Magic deck that gives him one more at bat?
At least an onside kick is part of the game and can be done at any time.

My only concern in the “ comeback mechanic” which by the way is an excellent phrase is how it effects the point spreads.

Although it’s rare for NFL spreads to be more than 7 points it could effect the over/ unders but nevertheless I think Sportsbook would have some concerns.

 

[JustChip]

Here are conversion rates since 2000 for 4th-and-long. I used 3-yard ranges, so 20 yards to go became 19-21 yards to go. I didn't include 3rd-and-long because too many of those aren't serious attempts to convert. I did not try to factor out surprise onside kicks, so the actual conversion rate for obvious onside kicks will be a bit lower.

Onside kicks (2018): 7.7%

15 yards to go: 23.5% (285 plays)
20 yards to go: 12.2% (131 plays)
25 yards to go: 13.3% (30 plays)

A couple things:

• Yeah, the conversion rate on 4th-and-15 might be a tad higher than ideal.
• The penalty thing is a straw man. Only 8 of these 446 plays were penalty conversions. No reason to worry about it.

4th-and-20 might be the best choice: a one-in-eight conversion chance sounds about right.

Good data....thank you.

What I take from it is no way should it be 4th and 15 - the conversion rate is just way to much greater than an onside kick.

And there's no significant statistical difference between 4th and 20 and 4th and 25 so there's similarly no reason to go to 4th and 25. I agree, 4th and 20 seems to be the best choice. I could live with that.

 

[TWOK11]

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/24/john-mara-is-only-competition-committee-member-opposed-to-onside-kick-alternative/

This is a terrible idea, and Dallas would have a huge disadvantage if passed. This favors teams with elite quarterbacks HUGELY.

Imagine Aaron Rodgers against the Dolphins. He'd have a 80% chance of converting the inside kick. Lol

Special teams should determine onside kicks, not quarterbacks.

Bad idea.

You think Aaron Rodgers, or any QB for that matter, could convert 15 yards in a single down 80% of the time?

Goodness how do some of you successfully dress yourselves every morning.