New Proposal to replace onside kicks!!!

Ring 6 · Mar 24, 2019

PatsFanSince74 said:
Well, technically the team that just scored does have the ball. However, to maintain possession, under current rules, that team has to kick the ball off the ground for a distance greater than ten yards and recover that kick.

That said, I don't like this suggestion because it puts the other team (on "defense" in the "4th and 15" scenario) in an unfair situation.

The team with possession on offense has nothing to lose with aggressive play by receivers or blockers. They can push off, hold, do almost anything because they have everything to gain; if the penalty is called, they're no worse off than they were before. (I'm assuming that this is a situation where the "kicking" team has no choice but to score or lose the game.)

On the other hand, if a defender holds a receiver, is judged to have committed interference or done anything (like Roughing the Passer) that brings with it a 15 yard penalty or an automatic first down, they're screwed.

If they get called for holding the play is negated if they convert and then it’s 4th and 25. Sure they are worse off.

QuantumMechanic · Mar 25, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
If they’re smart, every team in the NFL will be hiring seven rocket scientists to scheme up 15-yard plays. This has potential to fundamentally change the game.

That's why the leading proposal says (a) it can only be used in the 4th quarter and (b) a team can only use it once per game. It also has the poison pill that if the "kicking" team commits a penalty on the play it cannot decide to kick after the penalty is enforced. So if you're caught holding, say, you're stuck with a 4th-and-25 from deep on your own side.

jrfitz06 · Mar 25, 2019

QuantumMechanic said:
That's why the leading proposal says (a) it can only be used in the 4th quarter and (b) a team can only use it once per game. It also has the poison pill that if the "kicking" team commits a penalty on the play it cannot decide to kick after the penalty is enforced. So if you're caught holding, say, you're stuck with a 4th-and-25 from deep on your own side.

I had one huge question that the article or anything else I found on the proposed rule, what would happen if the receiving team had a penalty on the extra point or 2 point conversion that would normally be added to the kickoff. For example what if the defense tried to jump the center and missed and the personal foul was assessed on the "kickoff" I assume it would still be 4th & 15 but instead of starting on there own 35 would it be on the 50 instead, is that a correct assumption?

Ring 6 · Mar 25, 2019

Bertil said:
What about the SURPRISE Onside Kick, like the one that Sean Payton pulled on the Colts?

That wouldn't be possible with this new rule.

Yes it would. You can still do a traditional onside kick.

Ring 6 · Mar 25, 2019

QuantumMechanic said:
That's why the leading proposal says (a) it can only be used in the 4th quarter and (b) a team can only use it once per game. It also has the poison pill that if the "kicking" team commits a penalty on the play it cannot decide to kick after the penalty is enforced. So if you're caught holding, say, you're stuck with a 4th-and-25 from deep on your own side.

Doesn’t the rule also say you can’t punt?

QuantumMechanic · Mar 25, 2019

jrfitz06 said:
I assume it would still be 4th & 15 but instead of starting on there own 35 would it be on the 50 instead, is that a correct assumption?

Yes, it is.

Ice_Ice_Brady · Mar 25, 2019

I’d rather they just institute a one-minute warning, or the clock stops after each play within the last thirty seconds - regardless of the result of the play - than this crap. Since when was the onside kick assumed to be a determining factor outside of being an exciting, low-percentage fluke play like a hail mary?

Not a fan of Mara, but I hope he holds his ground and gets some support: this isn’t the Arena League.

This would literally be the only time I can recall in a sport where a team benefits from the rules based on their position on the scoreboard as the team ahead or the team trailing (if you’re losing, this rule is advantageous to you; it you’re winning, you’ll likely never be able to consider using it.)

God forbid a team wins a game based on playing better for the first 58 minutes before the defenses are completely ineffective and it’s a total crapshoot.

trueblue81 · Mar 26, 2019

Just announced the proposal has failed.

IcyPatriot · Mar 26, 2019

trueblue81 said:
Just announced the proposal has failed.

Good .... the rule was a gimmick at best.

I say leave well enough alone ... play harder in the 4th quarter.

BradyFTW! · Mar 26, 2019

Dumb proposal, I guess they want to make 14+ point 4th quarter comebacks even more of a regularity. Spend 3 quarters gassing a defense out, then semi-reliably drop 3+ touchdowns on them in the 4th.

Ivan · Mar 28, 2019

Patriot Missile said:
This is about as stupid as it gets. Almost...Almost.... can’t wait until Brady and Belichick retire so I don’t have to watch at all.

Always Patriots first, and I get player safety and all the lawyers wanting a get a big piece of this pie. But to be honest, you start changing this game it becomes something just too different. Maybe they should just consider canceling the sport all together?

They don’t give one sh!t about player safety, if they did they wouldn’t be pushing for the stupid greedy 18 game season.

juxtapoz15 · Mar 28, 2019

So let's go with a scenario using all of the newly designed BS rules (including the not yet approved OT rule). A team like the Chiefs is down by a TD late in the game. They go for the 4th and 15 onside kick and do not convert on a long pass downfield. Oh wait, there is a replay review for a possible PI. Replay reverses the play saying that Gilmore barely touched the WRs arm similar to the Cooks play late in SB53. Forty yard penalty for the Chiefs. They eventually score on the drive to even the score. Game goes into overtime. The Patriots march down the field and score a TD, but Gost misses the XP. Patriots are only up by 6. The Chiefs now have the ball and march down the field, score a TD and win on the XP. Patriots get screwed and the NFL Office is popping champagne bottles.

PatsDeb · Mar 28, 2019

juxtapoz15 said:
So let's go with a scenario using all of the newly designed BS rules (including the not yet approved OT rule). A team like the Chiefs is down by a TD late in the game. They go for the 4th and 15 onside kick and do not convert on a long pass downfield. Oh wait, there is a replay review for a possible PI. Replay reverses the play saying that Gilmore barely touched the WRs arm similar to the Cooks play late in SB53. Forty yard penalty for the Chiefs. They eventually score on the drive to even the score. Game goes into overtime. The Patriots march down the field and score a TD, but Gost misses the XP. Patriots are only up by 6. The Chiefs now have the ball and march down the field, score a TD and win on the XP. Patriots get screwed and the NFL Office is popping champagne bottles.

I hadn't thought about it, but this post makes a good point on this issue. If you change the PI rules along with instituting this new on-side-kick substitute, you are giving the team that is down & desperate a heck of a lot more chances of converting on the 4th & 15. "Make sure you make some contact on your way down the field so the other team gets called for PI, or we can at least argue they should have been," could be part of the play call.

juxtapoz15 · Mar 28, 2019

PatsDeb said:
I hadn't thought about it, but this post makes a good point on this issue. If you change the PI rules along with instituting this new on-side-kick substitute, you are giving the team that is down & desperate a heck of a lot more chances of converting on the 4th & 15. "Make sure you make some contact on your way down the field so the other team gets called for PI, or we can at least argue they should have been," could be part of the play call.

I agree. These all have a similar feeling to the Colts Bill Polian “I can’t beat the Patriots” Illegal Contact kind of feel to them. If you can’t beat them and have a high powered offense just change the rules. The league likes more scoring due to ratings and likes screwing the Patriots as well.

njpatsfan · Mar 30, 2019

Stupidest idea I have heard. Teams would scheme to get a PI call; much higher % than an onside kick. And it leaves room for NY officiating shenanigans. Which may be the point.

Bertil · Apr 5, 2019

AndyJohnson said:
Yes it would. You can still do a traditional onside kick.

That’s still not a surprise on-side kick. That is a traditional on-side kick. A surprise would be more of a....surprise. It looks like you’re going to kick off normally but then you don’t. If the Patriots had done it instead of the Saints, it would already be illegal.

Ring 6 · Apr 5, 2019

Bertil said:
That’s still not a surprise on-side kick. That is a traditional on-side kick. A surprise would be more of a....surprise. It looks like you’re going to kick off normally but then you don’t. If the Patriots had done it instead of the Saints, it would already be illegal.

I don’t understand what you are saying. You can still onside kick on any kickoff.

Froob · Apr 5, 2019

Can you go from kickoff to having your kicker surprise to throw to try to convert for the first down?

New Proposal to replace onside kicks!!!

Is This A Good Replacement to the Onside Kick?

Yes

No

PatsFans.com Supporter

Burn it all down!

On the Roster

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Burn it all down!

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

Practice Squad Player

Wall of Fame

Goodell sucks

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

Independent Investigator & pliable af

Similar threads