Thelonebillsfan Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Right now there's no real alternative cause Onside kicks went from about a 22% conversion rate to a sub 10% conversion rate. There needs to be something done to address it so either they do this, or they go back to the old onside rules. Idk I don't love it or hate it, it just is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 4th and 15 has, obviously, a low sample size, but in the aggregate it's about the same conversion rate as onside kicks used to be so, it's basically a coin flip either way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyB Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 20 minutes ago, lavar703 said: That’s pretty much what he said. No it's not. He said after one team scores, the other team gets the ball. It may seem like a slight difference, but it is crucial. 12 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: As for the notion that this skews towards better teams, that's just a weird statement to me. It's not fair that a better team will have a better chance to win a game. It's not fair that better kickers get to kick the PAT from the same place as bad kickers. Now I will say, I agree with what some others have said: This should be a LOW percentage conversion across the league, so if 15 yards ends up getting converted at like a 25% clip, then move it to 18 yards, or 20, whatever. Find that sweet spot. Also, in the hopes that teams don't convert possession based on cheap, ticky-tack penalties, I hope it gets officiated kinda like a hail mary play, where the infraction better be EGREGIOUS I think one of the biggest questions is, is this a potential scoring play? Or is it only an either/or outcome: You convert possession and get the ball somewhere, or the other team is awarded possession at a designated spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 23 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: As for the notion that this skews towards better teams, that's just a weird statement to me. It isn't like the rule is going to be unfair. Everyone has an equal ability to convert, it's the same yardage for everyone. But yeah, being better at football is going to make you better at converting, yes. That's...how it should be? It's like saying the fact that you can kick a field goal and score 3 points is unfair, because it skews towards teams with better kickers. Like...yes? Obviously. Being better at something translates to being better at something. The good teams have the advantage in the game on timed downs because, well, they’re better. But there’s no written rules giving them that advantage, that’s just competition in sports. This would give a rule-advantage instead of just a competitive-advantage, in theory. Right now the change of possession after a score is a competition driven rule that tries to make it an even competition. You can onside kick, and that takes execution, but it’s pretty much entirely luck driven and has slim odds. Changing that for a 4th-and-15 is unquestionably going to benefit some teams more than others. I’m not a fan of the potential change. I think at the end of the day, teams are going to be far more successful on one-shot 15 yard plays than they’ve been at recovering an onside. I’m not looking to cheapen the comebacks, so I’ll pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 15 minutes ago, DannyB said: It's not fair that a better team will have a better chance to win a game. It's not fair that better kickers get to kick the PAT from the same place as bad kickers. There’s a difference between those, though. This is going from “you score, the other team gets the ball - fairness - unless you recover an onside kick with slim odds” to “a one time 15 yard play, then you keep the ball”. The change of possession rules are currently built in to be fair, whereas the possible change would be introducing advantages/disadvantages to a process that’s been pretty static. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyB Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 20 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said: There’s a difference between those, though. This is going from “you score, the other team gets the ball - fairness - unless you recover an onside kick with slim odds” to “a one time 15 yard play, then you keep the ball”. The change of possession rules are currently built in to be fair, whereas the possible change would be introducing advantages/disadvantages to a process that’s been pretty static. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying you think that the slight chance to gain possession after you score should essentially be the same for every team across the board? Like, the Bengals should have the same chance at re-gaining possession as the Chiefs do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, DannyB said: I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying you think that the slight chance to gain possession after you score should essentially be the same for every team across the board? Like, the Bengals should have the same chance at re-gaining possession as the Chiefs do? Considering the circumstances, yes. I have no idea why we should institute a real that gives a better team an even bigger advantage. If you’re the chiefs why wouldn’t you attempt this at least once a game? They can score so quickly that it almost negates the negative outcome if they fail. This will be a much bigger advantage than people seem to understand. Edited May 23, 2020 by lavar703 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedTheClock Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 45 minutes ago, lavar703 said: This will be a much bigger advantage than people seem to understand. No it won't. I'm not trying this in any scenario that I wouldn't normally onside kick in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 39 minutes ago, DannyB said: I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying you think that the slight chance to gain possession after you score should essentially be the same for every team across the board? Like, the Bengals should have the same chance at re-gaining possession as the Chiefs do? I’m not sure I understand your question. The Bengals shouldn’t have the same chance at the ball as the Chiefs if the Bengals just scored. However, the Bengals should have an equal chance to “double up” as the Chiefs do when the Chiefs score, which I don’t think would be the case with that rule change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 The onside kick does suck but 4th and 15 seems too short for me.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 25 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said: No it won't. I'm not trying this in any scenario that I wouldn't normally onside kick in. If you’re the chiefs, eagles or Bucs (explosive offenses) and you’re playing a team like the Bengals or Redskins and you scored first you wouldn’t just attempt a 4th and 15 to get the ball back? At worst your opponent ties the game but a bad team is most likely ending up with a field goal. So worst case scenario your opponent ties the game but best case scenario the more talented team converts the 4th and 15 scenario and scores again. I mean, this rule has the potential to give a team like the chiefs a 21-0 advantage before their opponent even touches the ball. Yes that’s a long shot to happen but the chance is still there and much more so than converting on onside kicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusMcFife Posted May 24, 2020 Author Share Posted May 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Thelonebillsfan said: Right now there's no real alternative cause Onside kicks went from about a 22% conversion rate to a sub 10% conversion rate. There needs to be something done to address it so either they do this, or they go back to the old onside rules. Idk I don't love it or hate it, it just is what it is. Just change the rule so the ball only has to travel 8 yards, not 10, before the recovering team can recover. That would boost the chances to around 15-20% I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedTheClock Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 7 minutes ago, lavar703 said: If you’re the chiefs, eagles or Bucs (explosive offenses) and you’re playing a team like the Bengals or Redskins and you scored first you wouldn’t just attempt a 4th and 15 to get the ball back? At worst your opponent ties the game but a bad team is most likely ending up with a field goal. So worst case scenario your opponent ties the game but best case scenario the more talented team converts the 4th and 15 scenario and scores again. I mean, this rule has the potential to give a team like the chiefs a 21-0 advantage before their opponent even touches the ball. Yes that’s a long shot to happen but the chance is still there and much more so than converting on onside kicks. If you’re a better team, why would you risk it? There is like a 10/15% chance of converting it at best. It would be royally stupid and coaches get fired over dumb decisions like that. No way would ANY team in the league use this with a lead. I’d be willing to bet that never happens as long as this rule exists...if it ever exists. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said: If you’re a better team, why would you risk it? There is like a 10/15% chance of converting it at best. It would be royally stupid and coaches get fired over dumb decisions like that. No way would ANY team in the league use this with a lead. I’d be willing to bet that never happens as long as this rule exists...if it ever exists. Why wouldn’t you risk it? If you’re the better team and by a lot what’s the worst that could happen? Especially if you got the ball first. Like I said, the scenario I presented is indeed a long shot but it absolutely has the potential to happen. And I do see your side of the argument as well, trust me I do. I just worry this rule would cause big issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceinthehouse Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 Nothing good can come from this rule. Onside kick is part of football. Quit screwing with the game. Can you imagine playing on the road... You're up 31 to 14 & the beginning of the 4th qtr. You bring in your backups so they can get some significant playing time. You've dominated all game with your starters. The opposing team scores a FG. 31 to 17 Chooses the 4th & 15 option, instead of onside kick. 1st play= Defensive Holding "Automatic 1st down" 1st & 10=pass 2nd & 2=run 1st & 10=pass 1st & 10=pass "TD" Xtra point good 31 to 24 Opposing team chooses the 4th & 15 option...again. 4th & 15=(Incomplete) Defensive Pass Interference "Automatic 1st down" 1st & 10= TD Xtra pt good 31-31 tie Your team not only got screwed on 2 controversial calls on defense, to put the game away. But your starting Offense NEVER got to see the ball, to challenge the opposing teams defense. Not because they recovered difficult onside kicks... But because their team was given the ball on 2 different possessions & the referee's were able to dictate & change the momentum of the game. Not because the opposing team earned it. Yes, I see where this rule is going. Just another way for the officials to decide the outcome of games. Leave the game alone. Make them onside kick it & get it back. I VOTE "NO" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.