Rich Eisen just asked about my scenario

[theogt]

Brain Kinney just said on his national show that since 1994, only 26% of the time has a team won the coin toss and kicked a FG on their first possession.

We're making all these changes for that?

Oh yeah. Brett Favre.

The team winning the coin flip wins something like 60% of the time. It should be 50%. That difference is significant and unfair and should be rectified in some way. Overtime is one area in which I've always felt the game was flawed.

Yea i tried to look at the charts, but after about ten minutes i still couldn’t figure it out. Regardless, logic says surprise attacks give you an advantage over the unexpected.

What's interesting to me is that the percentages are pretty high for most of the graph except in the very extreme situations. Ultimately here it would end up playing to an optimal ratio of on-side vs. normal kickoffs, similar to run vs. pass ratios. Obviously passing has a higher yards per attempt than rushing, so in a void without adjustments by defenses, a team should pass every down. But obviously you can't do that, you have to run the ball to "keep a team honest." Thus, you'd have to make regular kickoffs to keep a team honest.

Then again, this situation comes up so rarely, over-time patterns for an individual team or coach will likely not be that extensive or helpful.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Right, but if what he was saying was accurate (I guess it was because he repeated it several times), only 26% of the time was the game won with a field goal. So the other times, a TD was scored.

I thought the whole idea behind this was that as good as kickers are from such long distance now, they didn't want a team getting a good return, getting a couple first downs, and kicking a 50-yard FG to end the game.

At least, that's what they've claimed.

 

[peplaw06]

The team winning the coin flip wins something like 60% of the time. It should be 50%. That difference is significant and unfair and should be rectified in some way. Overtime is one area in which I've always felt the game was flawed.

Well there's a flaw in home-field advantage as well. The accepted standard is that the home team averages 3 ppg more. Why don't we start all road teams with 3 points in playoff games?

 

[Gibby!]

Who in God's name is going to onside kick with a 3 point lead in overtime of a playoff game?

I mean come on. If someone actually has the stones to do that, then they should just go for it on 4th down instead of kicking a field goal. If you have that little faith in your defense, then go for the TD to put the game away.

And I can't recall ever seeing an injury on an onside kick.

Really?

Kellen Winslow Jr.

He missed his rookie year with a broken fibula sustained on an onside kick attempt against the Dallas Cowboys in Week 2.

http://www.footballbabble.com/football/fantasy-football/players/kellen-winslow/

 

[Biggems]

Who in God's name is going to onside kick with a 3 point lead in overtime of a playoff game?

I mean come on. If someone actually has the stones to do that, then they should just go for it on 4th down instead of kicking a field goal. If you have that little faith in your defense, then go for the TD to put the game away.

And I can't recall ever seeing an injury on an onside kick.

Sean Payton
Mike Martz
Andy Reid

 

[theogt]

Well there's a flaw in home-field advantage as well. The accepted standard is that the home team averages 3 ppg more. Why don't we start all road teams with 3 points in playoff games?

Because home field is a desired advantage that is the designed reward for a team having a better season.

Winning a coin flip that is precisely designed to be 50/50 should have no influence beyond that.

 

[Gibby!]

The previous rule gave an advantage to the coin toss winner in more ways than just giving them the ball first. A short drive of say 20 yards from the average 30 and a punt, pins the opponent inside the 15 a couple flukey plays or a 3 and out, and the coin toss winner now has the ball at the 50. Ten yards and the game is over. Is that really how playoff games should be decided?

 

[fannypack]

Really.

You are facing Peyton Manning.

He's torched your D all day long. You lost two key defenders to injuries during the game.

You won the coin toss. Got your FG.

You kick deep and he starts at the 20.

Ten plays later your defense was just sliced and diced once again and it's 1st and goal from the four yard line.

How tired is that defense who is now ready to lose the game because they are going to allow a TD.

Now think back.

You could have kept him on the sideline and never gave him a chance to score that winning TD.

And it's the AFC Championship game.

Even if you don't get the onside he still has to put the ball in the End Zone to beat you.

Really.

You are facing Peyton Manning.

He's torched your D all day long.

You kick an onside kick and they get the ball, you sacrifice a ton of field position.

He drives down for the game winner.

You avoid the onside kick, and you've left enough yardage for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh5D_TMGwjk

 

[peplaw06]

Because home field is a desired advantage that is the designed reward for a team having a better season.

Winning a coin flip that is precisely designed to be 50/50 should have no influence beyond that.

Point is there can be tons of advantages and disadvantages that present themselves at any given point before or during the game. We can't make everything totally equal.

The team winning the coin flip loses its advantage after the first possession. So if it's true that something like 25% of the overtime games are won on the first possession, then subsequent to that, it has no influence. This is not to mention the fact that so many variables come into play after the coin flip that affect the statistics.

After the team losing the coin flip has a possession, they shouldn't complain about any unfairness because they've had their shot.

I just don't see how this rule is going change much of anything at all, other than just complicating the process.

 

[31smackdown]

One additional reason to on side kick would be to avoid a return for a TD... well, unless you are the Eagles and kick it right to someone and don't try to tackle him

 

[links18]

Did they get rid of the Fair Catch Free Kick rule yet?

 

[dcfanatic]

Really.

You are facing Peyton Manning.

He's torched your D all day long.

You kick an onside kick and they get the ball, you sacrifice a ton of field position.

He drives down for the game winner.

You avoid the onside kick, and you've left enough yardage for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh5D_TMGwjk

My favorite part of you showing this video.

He's at the Saints 31 yard line when he snaps the ball.

Your point means nothing.

They could have kicked it onside, not recovered and that play still could have happened.

So what did you really lose by taking the chance in ending the game on one play?

Another point to be made.

He's already at the 31. If they were only down 3 they would be running to just make sure they first get into range to make sure the tie is already locked down.

They were down 7 points.

 

[aikemirv]

Exactly.

And if you already have your three on the board. And you know that all you have to do is stop them from scoring a TD to NOT LOSE then why would you not onside in the scenario I put up.

You give yourself one play to win the game. But even if you don't recover then the other team still has to score a TD to win. If they score a FG it's still only a tie game.

Then after that the first team to score wins.

Those kind of moves will never happen.

I have a 3 point lead so I am going to give the other team the ball IN FG range so they at worst can tie the score.

All of you guys who are coming up with onside kick scenarios based on this premise are just being ridiculous!

 

[ZeroClub]

I hope someone in the league office has remembered to set a restore point.

Otherwise, whoever follows Goodell is going to have one heck of a time undoing all of the garbage that happened under Goodell's watch.

 

[burmafrd]

Why didn't they look at why things changed after 94. I do believe that is when the kickoff was moved back to the 30. Solution: move it back to the 35.

 

[KJJ]

For the life of me, I don't understand why they have to stop play for an OT game. Just add another quarter and let the teams play through the way they do between the first and second or third and fourth quarters. Whoever has the most points after 5 quarters, or six quarters, or whatever, wins. No need for kickoffs, no need for evening out possessions. No need for extra time outs. Just let them play until someone wins.

The problem with allowing a team to pick up where they left off at the end of the 4th quarter is you won't have as many dramatic 4th quarter finishes. Some of the most exciting moments in football are when the clock is winding down and there's a dramatic score to pull out a win. Let's say a team is driving in a tie game and they're going against the wind. If they're allowed to pick up where they left off if the clock expires they may decide to milk the clock and allow it to run out so they can get the wind in the 5th quarter to set up for a FG. If a team that's driving in a tie game knows they can just pick right up where they left off once the clock runs out they won't feel the same urgency to make something happen before time expires.

Even with the new OT rule there's still a coin flip and if you lose the toss and your opponent scores a TD you lose or if they kick a FG you have to answer or it's over. A rule where a team can just pick right up where they left off would have teams playing for the extra quarter instead of showing some urgency to end it in regulation. I don't want to see a team shutting it down in a tie game as they're mounting a drive waiting for the wind or a better section of the field to attempt a FG in the extra quarter. You want to avoid OT if you can and the new rule still pressures the team with the ball to try and score to secure the win in regulation.

 

[KJJ]

Why didn't they look at why things changed after 94. I do believe that is when the kickoff was moved back to the 30. Solution: move it back to the 35.

If you move kickoffs up to the 35 again you would have the same problem that caused the league to move kicks back 5 yards. All we saw back then were kickers booting it through the endzone and touchbacks. Kickoff returns are an exciting part of the game that's why they moved KO's back to the 30 yardline to increase returns.

 

[Idgit]

The problem with allowing a team to pick up where they left off at the end of the 4th quarter is you won't have as many dramatic 4th quarter finishes. Some of the most exciting moments in football are when the clock is winding down and there's a dramatic score to pull out a win. Let's say a team is driving in a tie game and they're going against the wind. If they're allowed to pick up where they left off if the clock expires they may decide to milk the clock and allow it to run out so they can get the wind in the 5th quarter to set up for a FG. If a team that's driving in a tie game knows they can just pick right up where they left off once the clock runs out they won't feel the same urgency to make something happen before time expires.

Even with the new OT rule there's still a coin flip and if you lose the toss and your opponent scores a TD you lose or if they kick a FG you have to answer or it's over. A rule where a team can just pick right up where they left off would have teams playing for the extra quarter instead of showing some urgency to end it in regulation. I don't want to see a team shutting it down in a tie game as they're mounting a drive waiting for the wind or a better section of the field to attempt a FG in the extra quarter. You want to avoid OT if you can and the new rule still pressures the team with the ball to try and score to secure the win in regulation.

It's a fair point, but all you're really doing is pushing those finishes back to the end of the OT period. At some point in the game, there's a final score to win it all before time runs out. The only thing you'd miss out on is the unnecessary stoppage of play, the drama of the coin toss, and the wailing about how the overtime rules are unfair from fans of the losing team.

 

[jazzcat22]

I posted this to Rich Eisen on Twitter...

DCFanaticRadio

@richeisen OT Scenario - Team A gets kickoff. Kicks FG. Then does onside kick. They recover. Team B loses & still never had the ball. 37 minutes ago via web in reply to richeisen
---------------------------------

He just asked Rich McKay about it on NFL Network.

Game over was the answer.

So the game could end on a pile up scrum of bodies as all of these guys are fighting for that onside recovery.

In a playoff game!

And your telling me this isn't some scenario where a player can get a concussion?

I thought the NFL was all about stifling injuries.

Just throw 10 minutes on the clock and play an extra 'quarter'...

[youtube]hNQaGh4Etow[/youtube]

But what if a player loses his helmet before the ball is recovered....is the play dead? rekick?

 

[reddyuta]

to me this is a non issue because of a huge risk in successfully recovering on on side kick.no coach is ever going to try it in a playoff game.if the rules were extended to a regular season game then we might see a inferior team take the risk.