New Proposal to replace onside kicks!!!

[Big-T]

Even if it did get passed you can pretty much guarantee the first time the Pats win a game because of it the losing team will make a rule proposal to bring back the onside kick anyway.

 

[Ivan]

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?

Yep, this kind of crap makes me feel the same way.

 

[1960Pats]

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

We'll get the answer to that question right after the NYFL lets us know about the difference in air pressure of the footballs on colder days.

 

[patsfan13]

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

They should go back to the original rules for the onside kick.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

How about..
The team kicking the ball has the option of having the owner come down on the field, hold the ball, and gets kicked in the groin by the owner of the other team as hard as he can. If the owner holds onto the ball, they keep it. If he drops it, the other team gets it there. Who wouldn't want to see that??

 

[primetime]

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.

It is legitimately dangerous though. Keep in mind the AAF doesn't have kickoffs at all.

 

[Teej]

They should keep the play but ban Elway from the sidelines so he can't smile at the receiving team and blind them.

 

[tasmlab]

I don't see the point of a new rule that helps a losing team in desperation.

The onside kick is just a regular kick off with hopes of getting a muff close by, so it isn't like a specially designed rule-wise play to help the down team. It's taking advantage of the regular rules.

 

[PatsDeb]

I know I’m being overconfident but I feel like a Brady offense would be able to convert that about 40% of the time at the end of the game against tired defenses.

I don't know if it would be 40%, but I was just thinking along similar lines - the Pats with Brady would definitely benefit from this rule! Of course, we'd probably be the first and only team to convert it, in a playoff game perhaps, then they'd reverse the rule the next year.

 

[captain stone]

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.

It is legitimately dangerous though...

Football is, you know, a dangerous sport.

 

[Gator Mike]

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.

You're missing the point.

We're living in a CTE-conscious world. The NFL doesn't want plays where 10 guys on the field get 15-yard running head starts before they crash into 10 stationary, fairly defenseless guys trying to catch a football.

Kickoffs are an endangered species. The NFL is actively trying to get rid of them. It's just a matter of time.

 

[MSPatsFan28]

I say overall it is a terrible idea. If a team is down by 3 or less with less than a minute to play...take the 4th and 15 from the 35, then kick a field goal to tie/win the game. That is only a 53 yard field goal. While the AAF may have very few kicker that can make that. An NFL kicker should be able to convert that +70% of the time. Gost could convert that no problem. Of course if the Pat win b/c of this the rule will be changed.

 

[Deus Irae]

It is legitimately dangerous though. Keep in mind the AAF doesn't have kickoffs at all.

B does not prove A


But I'm sure that the 10th time Brady completes the pass for an eventual Patriots win, while teams with a Sam Darnold or Ryan Tannehill have gone something like 1 for 10, there will be no screaming about how the rule is unfair.

 

[Gator Mike]

I say overall it is a terrible idea. If a team is down by 3 or less with less than a minute to play...take the 4th and 15 from the 35, then kick a field goal to tie/win the game. That is only a 53 yard field goal. While the AAF may have very few kicker that can make that. An NFL kicker should be able to convert that +70% of the time.

I think the proposal is for teams to get the ball 4th and 15 from their own 35 yard line, not the other team's 35 yard line.

 

[BTTA]

I say overall it is a terrible idea. If a team is down by 3 or less with less than a minute to play...take the 4th and 15 from the 35, then kick a field goal to tie/win the game. That is only a 53 yard field goal. While the AAF may have very few kicker that can make that. An NFL kicker should be able to convert that +70% of the time. Gost could convert that no problem. Of course if the Pat win b/c of this the rule will be changed.

I think the proposal is for teams to get the ball 4th and 15 from their own 35 yard line, not the other team's 35 yard line.

 

[BTTA]

Why have a rule that gives a losing team a chance at a Hail Mary, without having to work for that chance?

 

[mosslost]

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

this is a very good point and argument against this rule. I had kind of liked it until I read this.

 

[mosslost]

Why have a rule that gives a losing team a chance at a Hail Mary, without having to work for that chance?

another really good argument. take the SB we just won. If the Rams made the kick... then they just try a Miami Miracle straight away. Too "easy".

 

[mosslost]

Though it is an exciting idea I now see major flaws with this idea making it a non-starter. Honestly it is too bad they screwed up the kick off.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

this is a very good point and argument against this rule. I had kind of liked it until I read this.

This very problem was raised in post #12 on the first page

Maybe the poster is on Ignore.