This tactic has always baffled me

[nathanlt]

Here's the scenario
3:00 or less in the 4th quarter.
A team who is trailing by less than a TD has just scored.

Why would they ever kick it deep?????

The clock dictates that their defense MUST get a stop, 3 and out, in order to win.
Who cares if that 3 and out happens at midfield or at the 20? Is that field position difference worth the minute or more taken off the clock?
Why not get one chance at an onside kick and use your whole playbook for 3 minutes?

It has never made sense to me.

 

[EST_1986]

Because a field goal can change a one possession game to a two possesion game

 

[Jenky]

Here's the scenario
3:00 or less in the 4th quarter.
A team who is trailing by less than a TD has just scored.

Why would they ever kick it deep?????

The clock dictates that their defense MUST get a stop, 3 and out, in order to win.
Who cares if that 3 and out happens at midfield or at the 20? Is that field position difference worth the minute or more taken off the clock?
Why not get one chance at an onside kick and use your whole playbook for 3 minutes?

It has never made sense to me.

Because most teams play conservative in that scenario and will probably go 3 and out. BUT if by chance you give them the ball at midfield and they get a couple of good runs, they'll be in FG range and that's game over folks.

 

[Jenky]

Because a field goal can change a one possession game to a two possesion game

Exactly.

 

[EST_1986]

This question baffles me to be quiet honest

 

[SibannacRex]

Here's the scenario
3:00 or less in the 4th quarter.
A team who is trailing by less than a TD has just scored.

Why would they ever kick it deep?????

The clock dictates that their defense MUST get a stop, 3 and out, in order to win.
Who cares if that 3 and out happens at midfield or at the 20? Is that field position difference worth the minute or more taken off the clock?
Why not get one chance at an onside kick and use your whole playbook for 3 minutes?

It has never made sense to me.

I think the percentage of recovering an on-side kick is just too low.

There's been talk of removing the kickoff entirely. This would eliminate the on-side kick. However, the alternative option would be that the team that recently scored would get the ball at their own 35 yard line with a "4th and 20" play. If it's late in the game and they want to keep the ball, they would simply go for the first down by running a single play to net them 20 yards. Otherwise, the other team gets the ball on the spot.

If this change is made, then going for it would be a much more compelling option than an onside kick.

 

[blumayne38]

This question baffles me to be quiet honest

Here's the scenario
3:00 or less in the 4th quarter.
A team who is trailing by less than a TD has just scored.

Why would they ever kick it deep?????

The clock dictates that their defense MUST get a stop, 3 and out, in order to win.
Who cares if that 3 and out happens at midfield or at the 20? Is that field position difference worth the minute or more taken off the clock?
Why not get one chance at an onside kick and use your whole playbook for 3 minutes?

It has never made sense to me.

nothing else matters...the situation in any instance is STOP then NOW or loose...now if they score it would be quickly, and hence then u still have a chance for a quick score and a onside kick.....as opposed KICKING DEEP and letting the run the clock .....but that dosent matter cuz whether or not your on there 20 or yours you stil HAVE TO STOP THEM REGARDLESS

 

[JBell]

True, a field goal can make it a two possession game. (if the hypothetical situation has you trailing by 6-8 points)

However, you're kicking it off from the 35 yard line. The ball has to travel AT LEAST 10 yards, and typically ends up getting recovered beyond those 10 yards. So the opposing team will start their drive roughly around midfield if they recover the onside.

You need a 3 and out regardless, so say they pick up 9 yards on a drive starting from the 50. They'd be at the 41, and no coach in their right mind would kick a FG from that distance, resulting in a punt (unless you're playing the Patriots or Saints, then expect them to go for it on 4th and 1).

I agree with OP, getting a shot at recovering an onside is worth the 30 yards of field position you lose by not kicking it off.

 

[Jenky]

True, a field goal can make it a two possession game.

However, you're kicking it off from the 35 yard line. The ball has to travel AT LEAST 10 yards, and typically ends up getting recovered beyond those 10 yards. So the opposing team will start their drive roughly around midfield.

You need a 3 and out regardless, so say they pick up 9 yards on a drive starting from the 50. They'd be at the 41, and no coach in their right mind would kick a FG from that distance, resulting in a punt (unless you're playing the Patriots or Saints, then expect them to go for it on 4th and 1).

I agree with OP, getting a shot at recovering an onside is worth the 30 yards of field position you lose by not kicking it off.

In your scenario, the team would punt the ball from midfield resulting in a touch back. The trailing team has to go 80 yards for a score.

In the kick it deep scenario, the receiving team will have better field position when a 3 and out occurs. If the kick is around the 20 yard line.

 

[Jenky]

Honestly, given the scenario, I would only do an onside kick if I KNEW my defense couldn't stop them no matter what.

 

[Tabascocat]

Seems like the smart tactic to me. Teams would normally play it safe and not risk a turnover in that situation. I mean, the defense has to get a stop anyways, so why risk stopping them at mid-field compared to their own 20 or so?

Try an onside kick and fail, chances are you are going to lose.

 

[Gibby!]

True, a field goal can make it a two possession game. (if the hypothetical situation has you trailing by 6-8 points)

However, you're kicking it off from the 35 yard line. The ball has to travel AT LEAST 10 yards, and typically ends up getting recovered beyond those 10 yards. So the opposing team will start their drive roughly around midfield.

You need a 3 and out regardless, so say they pick up 9 yards on a drive starting from the 50. They'd be at the 41, and no coach in their right mind would kick a FG from that distance, resulting in a punt (unless you're playing the Patriots or Saints, then expect them to go for it on 4th and 1).

I agree with OP, getting a shot at recovering an onside is worth the 30 yards of field position you lose by not kicking it off.

Its all about risk tolerance here, a punt from that distance (trailing teams 41) pins the trailing team inside their own 20, if the leading team does not gain the 15 to 20 that puts them in decent field goal range, resulting in a potential 80+ yard drive for the trailing team. Same scenario only a deep kick, 9 yards gained on a three and out punting from the 29, puts the the trailing team at around their own 40 instead. If I am a coach, and my defense is playing well enough to potentially force a 3 and out, my risk tolerance would prefer that that punt occur in their own territory, not mine. If they gain enough for a field goal, they kick off and potentially pin me deep again forcing a long drive with less time. Of course my team would just score on the kickoff return so there is no discussion .

 

[JBell]

Seems like the smart tactic to me. Teams would normally play it safe and not risk a turnover in that situation. I mean, the defense has to get a stop anyways, so why risk stopping them at mid-field compared to their own 20 or so?

Try an onside kick and fail, chances are you are going to lose.

False. If you don't recover the onside kick, the only thing you're guaranteed to lose is roughly 30 yards of field possession.

If you don't get a 3 & out you lose.

 

[JBell]

Honestly, given the scenario, I would only do an onside kick if I KNEW my defense couldn't stop them no matter what.

Its all about risk tolerance here, a punt from that distance (trailing teams 41) pins the trailing team inside their own 20, if the leading team does not gain the 15 to 20 that puts them in decent field goal range, resulting in a potential 80+ yard drive for the trailing team. Same scenario only a deep kick, 9 yards gained on a three and out punting from the 29, puts the the trailing team at around their own 40 instead. If I am a coach, and my defense is playing well enough to potentially force a 3 and out, my risk tolerance would prefer that that punt occur in their own territory, not mine. If they gain enough for a field goal, they kick off and potentially pin me deep again forcing a long drive with less time. Of course my team would just score on the kickoff return so there is no discussion .

Yeah I think how well your defense has been playing up to that point plays a big factor in deciding whether to kick the onside or not.

If the defense has been getting stops then I'm kicking it deep.

 

[Tabascocat]

False. If you don't recover the onside kick, the only thing you're guaranteed to lose is roughly 30 yards of field possession.

If you don't get a 3 & out you lose.

Just a general assumption. Time-outs and defensive play would be taken into consideration. Kick it deep, two first downs and a punt won't hurt ya(as long as clock management is fine). Try an onside kick, two first downs and they get a FG to go up by 2 scores; hence, a loss.

I would play the odds in most cases.

 

[TrailBlazer]

Number of timeouts you have left always comes into consideration

 

[KJJ]

Here's the scenario
3:00 or less in the 4th quarter.
A team who is trailing by less than a TD has just scored.

Why would they ever kick it deep?????

The clock dictates that their defense MUST get a stop, 3 and out, in order to win.
Who cares if that 3 and out happens at midfield or at the 20? Is that field position difference worth the minute or more taken off the clock?
Why not get one chance at an onside kick and use your whole playbook for 3 minutes?

It has never made sense to me.

It depends on their time out situation. If they have all 3 of their time outs left or even 2 of them then it makes a lot of sense to kick it deep if there's just under 3 minutes to play. The team that's leading by less than a TD is usually going to be very conservative to avoid a turnover which gives the trailing team an opportunity to get the stop and decent field position after the punt. With the legs FG kickers have today a majority have a chance from close to 60 yards out to win the game. If you onside kick in the situation you mentioned and the opponent gets the recovery it's pretty much game over because they'll be in FG range. If you stop them with less then a minute to go they'll kick the FG leaving you with under a minute to try and drive the field for a TD.

 

[joseephuss]

Just a general assumption. Time-outs and defensive play would be taken into consideration. Kick it deep, two first downs and a punt won't hurt ya(as long as clock management is fine). Try an onside kick, two first downs and they get a FG to go up by 2 scores; hence, a loss.

I would play the odds in most cases.

Very good explanation. I agree.

It also depends on how the whole game has been going up to that point. If it is a high scoring game where neither defense has done much then that may influence the decision as opposed to if it were a low scoring game where the defenses were playing well.

 

[Ashwynn]

Randall Williams...anyone?

If not, giving your opponent a short 40-50 yard field with 3 minutes to go is kinda silly if your trying to win a game.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

This question baffles me to be quiet honest