This tactic has always baffled me

[Toruk_Makto]

Also even if you do get the stop at midfield. You can be pinned deep and don't have a good shot at returning a punt like you would if they were punting from their territory.

 

[Idgit]

Also even if you do get the stop at midfield. You can be pinned deep and don't have a good shot at returning a punt like you would if they were punting from their territory.

I think this is the real reason. You don't do an onsides kick when it's expected and give up the ~30 yards of field position when they know it's coming and the probability for covering the kick is so low.

I actually like the OP's question here, though. I've wondered the same thing myself if the chance at keeping the ball is worth the field position you give up if you miss.

 

[nathanlt]

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.

There's no time for two first downs, most teams are in kill the clock mode anyway. 3 and out burns 1 minute, probably more. Playing the odds, that's going for the onside kickoff. Time will NOT allow for your opponent to even get ONE first down. So the time remaining DICTATES that you do the onside kickoff.

30 yards of field position is worth the extra minute of possession that you would have.

 

[Tabascocat]

There's no time for two first downs, most teams are in kill the clock mode anyway. 3 and out burns 1 minute, probably more. Playing the odds, that's going for the onside kickoff. Time will NOT allow for your opponent to even get ONE first down. So the time remaining DICTATES that you do the onside kickoff.

30 yards of field position is worth the extra minute of possession that you would have.

3 minutes isn't enough time to allow a team a first down or two while using timeouts? I see your point if it were under 2 minutes but three is plenty to kick it deep.

 

[nathanlt]

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.

The chance that you are going to lose is already there, you're trailing with very little time left, and are about to give your opponent the ball. Try to keep the ball. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHH!

 

[nathanlt]

3 minutes isn't enough time to allow a team a first down or two while using timeouts? I see your point if it were under 2 minutes but three is plenty to kick it deep.

I've seen it when teams have none, or only one timeout and try it. It's just stupid, to me, anyway.

 

[Jenky]

I've seen it when teams have none, or only one timeout and try it. It's just stupid, to me, anyway.

Assuming the ball is kicked deep and all 3 plays by the receiving team are runs:

1st down: 3:00 minutes - 40 seconds play clock = 2:20 minutes
timeout #1 called here
2nd down: ~2:15 minutes - 40 seconds play clock = 2:00 minute warning
3rd down: 2:00 minutes - 40 seconds play clock = 1:20 minutes
4th down: punt, other team gets ball with ~1:15 minutes left

Is a minute and 15 seconds not good enough to drive the length of the field? In this scenario only 1 time out is used. Imagine if a team had 3. You would have over 2+ minutes of time to drive the length of the field.

 

[Roadtrip635]

There's no margin for error. If they recover on the 45, they may not need a 1st down. If they pick up yards and end up with a 4th and 1 on the 36yd line, it gives them too many options. A 53 yd FG attempt is make-able by most kickers, punt to pin you deep with no timeouts or go for it and try to pick up that 1 yd, which may be well worth trying. If you kick it deep and you can hold them in their own territory to 4th and short, there is only one choice for them.

Granted, there are a bunch of factors to account for, but an onsides kick with all 3 TO's in that scenario really is an all or nothing gamble with really short odds.

 

[nathanlt]

There's no margin for error. If they recover on the 45, they may not need a 1st down. If they pick up yards and end up with a 4th and 1 on the 36yd line, it gives them too many options. A 53 yd FG attempt is make-able by most kickers, punt to pin you deep with no timeouts or go for it and try to pick up that 1 yd, which may be well worth trying. If you kick it deep and you can hold them in their own territory to 4th and short, there is only one choice for them.

Granted, there are a bunch of factors to account for, but an onsides kick with all 3 TO's in that scenario really is an all or nothing gamble with really short odds.

From the opposing viewpoint, I like this the best. I didn't state timeouts remaining, so that figures in a huge way. 1 timeout remaining, or none, for the trailing team, you take the onside every time.