Onside Kick Options/Replacements

[LovinItAll]

Of course I'm elated that we recovered the kick and then won, but it took a choke job from the Falcons to allow it to happen. There was talk during the off-season about other options for trailing teams (4th and 15, for example), but we may have seen a great potential rule change yesterday:

- Force both teams to allow the ball to go 10 yards before touching it. Re-kick after penalty if the receiving team touches it early.

At least it would turn the onside kick into an interesting play again. That mini-scrum yesterday certainly wasn't viscous, so player safety shouldn't be a factor with this option.

Opinions?

 

[Aviano90]

They need to revert to the old kickoff rules if the kicking team plans to onside kick, if they can’t find a better solution. The kicking team is too disadvantaged under the current rule.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Of course I'm elated that we recovered the kick and then won, but it took a choke job from the Falcons to allow it to happen. There was talk during the off-season about other options for trailing teams (4th and 15, for example), but we may have seen a great potential rule change yesterday:

- Force both teams to allow the ball to go 10 yards before touching it. Re-kick after penalty if the receiving team touches it early.

At least it would turn the onside kick into an interesting play again. That mini-scrum yesterday certainly wasn't viscous, so player safety shouldn't be a factor with this option.

Opinions?

My opinion is your opinion doesnt matter especially when you have a snake as your avi

 

[AsthmaField]

They need to revert to the old kickoff rules if the kicking team plans to onside kick, if they can’t find a better solution. The kicking team is too disadvantaged under the current rule.

Yeah, that’s not a bad idea.

‘That might help teams without Greg The Leg.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Of course I'm elated that we recovered the kick and then won, but it took a choke job from the Falcons to allow it to happen. There was talk during the off-season about other options for trailing teams (4th and 15, for example), but we may have seen a great potential rule change yesterday:

- Force both teams to allow the ball to go 10 yards before touching it. Re-kick after penalty if the receiving team touches it early.

At least it would turn the onside kick into an interesting play again. That mini-scrum yesterday certainly wasn't viscous, so player safety shouldn't be a factor with this option.

Opinions?

Agreed! I love that!! Let it go 10 yards, and then it's anybody's ball.

 

[cern]

just have the lead and don't worry about onside kicks. but no complaints about yesterday's. a most unique kick. every kicker in the nfl is working on it now.

 

[OmerV]

I would prefer they go back to the kicking team getting a running start. The receiving team should have the advantage, and should be able to jump on it rather than it being likc a fumble where it's anyone's ball, but there should be something that gives the kicking team a chance. After all, that's the entire point of an onside kick. It's supposed to be a long shot, but at least still possible, therefore keeping a close game competitive and exciting for fans/consumers to watch. What happened yesterday is going to be even more rare under the new rules that it was before the rule change.

 

[TheCoolFan]

Yes that option would be the best way to save the onside kick, although it might be too advantageous to the kicking team. You still want something to be difficult for the kicking team to recover but not nearly impossible like the current format. I'm not a fan of the 4th and 15 option, that is way too easy for teams to convert or draw a penalty.

 

[LovinItAll]

I would prefer they go back to the kicking team getting a running start. The receiving team should have the advantage, and should be able to jump on it rather than it being likc a fumble where it's anyone's ball, but there should be something that gives the kicking team a chance. After all, that's the entire point of an onside kick. It's supposed to be a long shot, but at least still possible, therefore keeping a close game competitive and exciting for fans/consumers to watch. What happened yesterday is going to be even more rare under the new rules that it was before the rule change.

They're never going back to a running start. It's a violent play and the players don't like it. Still, there needs to be something other than an option that's successful just 6% of the time.

 

[Runwildboys]

I don't think making the odds even for both sides is the way to go. In the case of a team desperately trying to come from behind,that's essentially punishing the leading team for being in the lead. The team kicking the onside kick dug themselves a hole, and they should have to find their own way out of it.

As for any other onside kick situation, like trying to be tricky or whatever, the kicking team should still be at a disadvantage, since they're the ones opting to try trickery.

 

[GMO415]

You're about to pay your QB $40 million....give the ball to him and not your kicker or FB.

 

[Runwildboys]

They're never going back to a running start. It's a violent play and the players don't like it. Still, there needs to be something other than an option that's successful just 6% of the time.

Why? Honestly, the team that's leading made their own way, fair and square (presumably), so why should they be forced to give the other team a good opportunity to make up ground? If you wanna make it easier for the kicking team, okay, make it a little easier...but make the consequences for failure greater.

 

[LovinItAll]

You're about to pay your QB $40 million....give the ball to him and not your kicker or FB.

Sorry, what does that have to do with the onside kick rule?

Our $40m QB led us to victory from 20 down. That doesn't have anything to do with this thread, either.

 

[OmerV]

They're never going back to a running start. It's a violent play and the players don't like it. Still, there needs to be something other than an option that's successful just 6% of the time.

I agree they won't go back to it, I'm just saying that's my preference.

 

[LovinItAll]

Why? Honestly, the team that's leading made their own way, fair and square (presumably), so why should they be forced to give the other team a good opportunity to make up ground? If you wanna make it easier for the kicking team, okay, make it a little easier...but make the punishment for failure greater.

I'm not saying that I think the current rule is good. I don't. As a fan, I want the old onside kick rules reinstituted. It isn't going to happen, though. The rules committee isn't going to reinstate what was the most violent play in the game. Since they aren't going to do that, other options should be explored.

I also agree that the leading team should have the advantage, but a 94% advantage? I don't like that as a fan.

 

[Runwildboys]

I'm not saying that I think the current rule is good. I don't. As a fan, I want the old onside kick rules reinstituted. It isn't going to happen, though. The rules committee isn't going to reinstate what was the most violent play in the game. Since they aren't going to do that, other options should be explored.

I also agree that the leading team should have the advantage, but a 94% advantage? I don't like that as a fan.

Ya gotta admit, it made yesterday's win even more exciting to beat the odds. lol

I know what you're saying. It would be more interesting to keep that possibility of a come from behind win a bit more possible. I agree somewhat. Maybe do something that would bring the odds up to about 17 - 20%, but if you're gonna do that, I think if the kicking team fails to recover the ball, the other team starts at the kicking team's 25 yard line. That may not be a big deterrent at the end of the game, but it would certainly give them something to consider in other onside kick situations.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I don't think making the odds even for both sides is the way to go. In the case of a team desperately trying to come from behind,that's essentially punishing the leading team for being in the lead. The team kicking the onside kick dug themselves a hole, and they should have to find their own way out of it.

As for any other onside kick situation, like trying to be tricky or whatever, the kicking team should still be at a disadvantage, since they're the ones opting to try trickery.

McCarthy:

 

[fivetwos]

That 4th and 15 proposition isnt at all fair to a defense that's GASSED after just being out there for however long.

Forget the awful officiating factor

 

[JD_KaPow]

That 4th and 15 proposition isnt at all fair to a defense that's GASSED after just being out there for however long.

Forget the awful officiating factor

So make it 4th and 20. Make it whatever you want to get the conversion rate where you want it (10%? 15%?)

 

[fivetwos]

So make it 4th and 20. Make it whatever you want to get the conversion rate where you want it (10%? 15%?)

Percentages are fine, it just seems WAY more likely to convert a 15 yard pass these days than an onside kick ever was.