New Proposal to replace onside kicks!!!

[gobesmug]

The only way I could get on board with this ridiculous idea is if there are limits on how many times you can attempt, like 1 a half, and if the team going for it can't earn a first down on penalty. Basically all defensive penalties would just force a redo of the play.

Alternatively why not allow the running start for onside kicks only? It can't cause head trauma because the other team won't be running full force.

 

[jmt57]

Did that many guys really get hurt under the old kick rules? I don’t remember that.

No.

The rule change (can't load up on one side of the field for an onside kick attempt) was put in place for one reason only.

The NFL wanted to 'prove' that they were attempting to make the game safer, in order to head off (no pun intended) more concussion lawsuits.




When in doubt, follow the money.

To 'make the game more exciting' is a sleight of hand by a street corner hustler with a shiny object in his left hand, diverting your attention while the cheating con takes place with his right hand.

This has nothing to do with making the game more exciting. The decline of the importance of special teams is considered to be an acceptable casualty, a pawn that is far less important than the millions of dollars at stake for the 32.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

It's yet another absolutely idiotic rule change suggestion. Naturally, some people will be fools enough to like it.

I don't like it, but it's nonetheless better than what has happened to onsides kicks under the new KO rules.

 

[GodBrady]

The only way I could get on board with this ridiculous idea is if there are limits on how many times you can attempt, like 1 a half, and if the team going for it can't earn a first down on penalty. Basically all defensive penalties would just force a redo of the play.

Alternatively why not allow the running start for onside kicks only? It can't cause head trauma because the other team won't be running full force.

The AAF actually uses this now in lieu of onside kicks. They do have restrictions on it. Basically the team has to either:
1) be down by 17 or more points, or,
2) be trailing with under 5 minutes left in the game

If they switch to something like this, I just want it to be sufficiently difficult to accomplish. I kind of see what you're hinting at -- if it's too easy it would be abused.

I'm certain the league is trending towards no kickoffs at all. In fact, the league has outright considered that option already. I think it's inevitable.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

So I kick your ass all game long and then you get a free shot without having to move the ball yourself?

 

[Ivan]

You don’t just give the ball back to the team that just scored. If they can get it back on their own then so be it, but you don’t just hand it to them. That’s as cheesey as it gets.

 

[Patriot Missile]

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?

 

[Wheelman]

Farkin A

And by the way the forward pass was a dik move but I'm used to it now.

Seriously just LEAVE THE GAME BE.

Can you imagine the implications? the AAFC, NFL, AFL would be competing worldwide against other rugby leagues.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Original On Side Kick Rule was fine. Denver must foresee Pats beating them at some point with it.

 

[RayClay]

Give that team the ball on their own 1 inch line and they have to play with only three offensive lineman the first play

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Your team does not have the ball -
you have no right to have the ball unless the opponent screws up.
So no - getting a free possession is a non starter.

When you kick the ball off you have possession until a change of possession occurs. 1 pass play for 15 yards would make things interesting.

 

[mosslost]

Yeah lets scrap competition in favor of “excitement”. If a team scores to cut their deficit to 7 with 2 minutes left on the game clock...guess they should just move towards the side of excitement, and getting that team the ball back, rather than honor everything that happened to get to that point.

It’s actually more competitive than the traditional on sides.

Plus they changed the kick off rules and wrecked the on side kick already.

Next.

 

[Bradybranch]

Why can't they just do this......
If a team wants to go for an onside kick, then the new kickoff rules don't apply. They can line up in any formation they like and get a running start. It would be a penalty to kickoff further than say 25-30 yards when lined up in an onside kick formation. Yes, the return team would know the onside kick was coming, but they already do anyway. The problem with onside kicks now is that it's almost impossible to recover compared to before. This would give the kicking team a better chance and would be more exciting with potential recoveries that can change the outcome of games. The new rules were made for player safety, but those big collisions that are caused by running starts wouldn't apply as much on onside kicks.

 

[TBR]

It makes a mockery of the game if GMs/coaches/execs are trying to alter it to their advantage every single year.

"Wahhhhhh this is too hard/it hurt us in the past, so we need to change it!"

Belichick doesn't do this, which is why something like his proposals for more camera angles or the ability to review any play don't fall under the above category. And while I didn't care too much about the longer XP, it's not like it was difficult before - or something that a team wanted to change because it hurt them in the past.

 

[TBR]

It's what the AAF is doing and it works better than the now impossible NFL onside.

The current onside kick rules are indeed bad. But I wouldn't go as far as this proposal. Simply revert back to the old onside kick rule.

 

[ralmat55]

Would you need to use one of your challenges if the referees miscounted how many onside options the team had used?

No replay is allowed as the Competition Committee deems it a “subjective “ call which cannot be reviewed. How they deem it to be subjective when it is a matter of counting to two but they do. Subjective calls can’t be reviewed despite being based on objective criteria because.....

I’m a football ball junkie and subscribe to SiriusXM primarily because of the NFL channel. They do a lot of interviews with NFL movers and shakers who mostly come across as either drunk or dumb as a post. Spouting off cliches to sound smart and professional. No wonder Belichick rules over this bunch.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Your team does not have the ball -
you have no right to have the ball unless the opponent screws up.
So no - getting a free possession is a non starter.

Here's the point: the kickoff, as is, requires the ball to travel 10 yards before your team can try and recover it. Unlike punts, the receiving team does not have an absolute right to the ball.

The new rule says you must convert a 4th-and-15, or your opponents get the ball from wherever the current play ends.

The main issue I have is what would happen in the case of penalties. In the current system, penalties generally result in re-kicks or penalties after the play.

What would happen if a team committed PI on the 4th-and-15? Does the team trying to convert automatically get the ball?

 

[DarrylS]

I’d prefer that over attempting an onsides kick under the current kickoff rules, actually.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

New Rules everybody:

For every TD ahead a team gets, add 1 yard to the 10 needed for first downs. 1/2 yard for field goals.

You're up by 10? First and 11 1/2!

Excitement!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

And naturally, the worse you're doing, the fewer yards. Down by 10?

1st and 8 1/2!

Excitement!

F**** ALL YOU GUYS, leave the game alone. I will pay that "Leave Brittany Alone" guy to do a YouTube where he cries about "Leave the NFL Alone"