Jump to content
Manny/Patrick

NFL to try new onside kick rule for pro bowl

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, renndawg37 said:

It's a horrible idea in my opinion. Leave it as it is. 

or just let guys run 5 yards on kickoffs where they are doing the onside within the last 4-5 minutes of the game. that way its back to the old onside kick rules in certain situations only 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea. It’s fun. I think there will still be teams that just go with the traditional onside kick for the ‘surprise’ factor but I think this will make things more entertaining. I also think that overall this will be used very rarely, even when compared to historical onside kick numbers. With a traditional onside kick, you can run it down 7 with 2:20 to go and a time-out and still potentially get the ball back down 7 even if it doesn’t work. With this, if you fail, you are going to be down at least 10 if you get the ball back. The other team is automatically within chip shot range the second the pass is incomplete. 
 

The biggest question I would have is about offensive penalties. If there is a hold or OPI, do you have to run it back and it becomes 4th and 25 or can you take 10 yards off the kickoff and kick it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah this is terrible, teams with bad defensive backs or lack of a pass rush would be at a heavy disadvantage. Good thing to owners declined it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, N4L said:

or just let guys run 5 yards on kickoffs where they are doing the onside within the last 4-5 minutes of the game. that way its back to the old onside kick rules in certain situations only 

Do XFL style, toss the ball downfield and let two guys sprint and recover it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of basically anything that eliminates the kickoff, but allows for a team attempting to come back attempts a high risk play to retain possession.

The kickoff is, without a doubt in my mind, the worst play in football.

Edited by PossibleCabbage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks.  can you imagine having a team with an extremely weak CB?  Their team could lose time of possession 55:00-5:00.

 

And the first time DPI continues a drive on a bad call people will go nuts, especially if it's against New Orleans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onside kick pre-rule change had about a 12-20 percent chance of hitting IIRC (overall close to 15 percent).   Now unless it’s ATL gadget kicker Koo it’s like 1 in 40.  The league clearly wants to restore the hope that trailing teams might catch up.   
 

As long as 4th and 15 has similar odds of converting and it doesn’t allow more than possession at their own 40 with a conversion, I’m not sure I get the angst.  If they allow any extra yardage beyond their own 40 / score to count on the play, I get the angst.   But if they limit the conversion to start at their own 40 it seems to recreate the impact of the old onside kick.  Without the safety issues.   
 

Now if they find this converts way higher than old onside kick conversions, then next year make it 4th and 20.   I’m guessing the 4th and 15 was chosen because the conversion rates were similar.  

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Onside kick pre-rule change had about a 10 percent chance of hitting IIRC.   Now unless it’s ATL gadget kicker Koo it’s like 1 in 50.   The league clearly wants to restore the hope that trailing teams might catch up.   
 

As long as 4th and 15 has similar odds of converting and it doesn’t allow more than possession at their own 40 with a conversion, I’m not sure I get the angst.  If they allow any extra yardage beyond their own 40 / score to count on the play, I get the angst.   But if they limit the conversion to start at their own 40 it seems to recreate the impact of the old onside kick.  Without the safety issues.   
 

Now if they find this converts way higher than old onside kick conversions, then next year make it 4th and 20.   I’m guessing the 4th and 15 was chosen because the conversion rates were similar.  

I don't have the stats to back it up, but I feel that 4th and 15 is bellow 10 percent conversion rate. 

The sample size is probably small, but still... 

The problem I have with it is that, it's apparently a low conversion play, teams will be trying to fish for penalties like there's no tomorrow. Will a holding penalty result in a 1st down like a normal play? 

The biggest concern with rules and officiating is PI and the way they weren't reviewing it, and so far, I've seen no one talking about changes to it. 

Onsides are broken and need fixing, but there are more important things to discuss. 

Honesty this just feels like a smokescreen and it's bizarre they are announcing it when there's still 1 game left to play. 

 

Edited by kramxel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kramxel said:

I don't have the stats to back it up, but I feel that 4th and 15 is bellow 10 percent conversion rate. 

The sample size is probably small, but still... 

The problem I have with it is that, it's apparently a low conversion play, teams will be trying to fish for penalties like there's no tomorrow. Will a holding penalty result in a 1st down like a normal play? 

The biggest concern with rules and officiating is PI and the way they weren't reviewing it, and so far, I've seen no one talking about changes to it. 

Onsides are broken and need fixing, but there are more important things to discuss. 

Honesty this just feels like a smokescreen and it's bizarre they are annoinging when there's still 1 game left to play. 

 

Yeah I hear the concern.  But if it’s 4th and 15 that’s easier to avoid.   The TEN-KC 3rd and 17 where DB took DPI was clearly bad awareness.   It’s still going to generate heat (as would illegal contact or roughing the passer, etc.). 
 

It’s also why I absolutely would push for a conversion only getting ball at own 40 - nothing more.  It will be bad enough if a penalty leads to a conversion.   The conversion to the 40 should be the best case scenario.   Even then there will be critics.  But it won’t impact win probability more than with a conversion the old way (onsides recovery).  That’s a major revision that’s needed to the present idea.  

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Broncofan said:

 

Derek Carr would throw it away.....twice.

 

I think the QB deserves some blame here. I could have made that play . btw, I never knew about this either, what a low point for the black hole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just allow the drop kick and remove the fair catch aspect

Punter pooches it way up high and everyone goes to catch it like it's a hail mary pass

Make them line up exactly as they do now

The reason they changed the original onside kick was because there were too many violent collisions when guys tried to pick up a bouncing ball as the lines ran into each other. The ball being airborne would eliminate most of that risk and it would become either a jump ball or a fumble scramble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Yeah I hear the concern.  But if it’s 4th and 15 that’s easier to avoid.   The TEN-KC 3rd and 17 where DB took DPI was clearly bad awareness.   It’s still going to generate heat (as would illegal contact or roughing the passer, etc.). 
 

It’s also why I absolutely would push for a conversion only getting ball at own 40 - nothing more.  It will be bad enough if a penalty leads to a conversion.   The conversion to the 40 should be the best case scenario.   Even then there will be critics.  But it won’t impact win probability more than with a conversion the old way (onsides recovery).  That’s a major revision that’s needed to the present idea.  

I like your idea of a convertion always leading to having the ball at their 40.

It doesn't limit the play itself, as teams can be beat deep, but limits the random factor. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×