Tweet from @judybattista: “What are we, the Arena Football League?” — John Mara on the 4th and 15 proposal as option to onside kick. He said he was only no vote on the Competition Committee.
Not sure if I want the rule to change, but it could definitely make things more exciting.
“What are we, the Arena Football League?” — John Mara on the 4th and 15 proposal as option to onside kick. He said he was only no vote on the Competition Committee.
Suppose you are down by 2 to 3 points? Do you get to kick a field goal????
Why would you kick a 70+ yd fg
They never mentioned what yardline on which you get the ball. For some reason I was thinking you got it on the 15 yd line. Looking back, it was a dumb assumption..but I still don't know where the ball is spotted.
Suppose you are down by 2 to 3 points? Do you get to kick a field goal????
Why would you kick a 70+ yd fg
They never mentioned what yardline on which you get the ball. For some reason I was thinking you got it on the 15 yd line. Looking back, it was a dumb assumption..but I still don't know where the ball is spotted.
Ball would be spotted at the 35 yard line. So it'd essentially be like an 82 yard FG.
What is this compulsive need to keep tinkering with the rules of the game?
In this case it's the side effect of the safety led changes to kickoff making what was an marginal chance (fluctuating between 12%-21% depending on the year) of a successful onside kick absolutely minuscule (7.5% last season).
They're attempting to get it back to the original range. 4th and 15 in college has around 13% chance of success.
Making the onside kick nearly impossible so I do think they need to fix that, but I definitely don't agree a "4th and 15" is the answer. If they are worried about safety, then do a 5 on 5 onside kick or something so there's less people to worry about being blindsided by.
Why can't these billionaire shitheads leave the game alone? Â
It's just like new money to want to tinker and fuck things up just so they can get their fingers in the pie. They are making a real mess of the game the last few years. Rules changes are supposed to be minor tweaks with the exception of safety priorities.
Making the onside kick nearly impossible so I do think they need to fix that, but I definitely don't agree a "4th and 15" is the answer. If they are worried about safety, then do a 5 on 5 onside kick or something so there's less people to worry about being blindsided by.
+1. Couldn't they can't just allow the run up for onsides? It still removes surprise ala Payton / NO in the SB but it's a decent medium. Unless they found more injuries specifically from 10-20yd range contact it would work (I'm not specifically aware this is the case but wouldn't think it's so much more dangerous than an avg play, and much less so than old / regular KO plays)
To clarify, Mara (Giants) was the only NO vote from the Competition Committee. The proposals that make it out of committee still have to gain approval from 24 owners to take effect. So there are 8 owners that will have to vote NO at the next stage to keep the onside kick. Mara likely isn't changing his vote at the next stage. Now, it is a matter of Mara convincing 7 other owners to agree to leave it as is.
Don't give me the safety line, it is all about $$. "Drama" at the end of the game like it's a stinking soap opera. Another chance for refs to control the outcome. The NFL would love more last minute comebacks, more viewers turning in and another chance for in game gambling which seems to be the next big thing.
Kicks, returns, field goals, onside kicks are apart of the game. Stop changing the game.
Agree, stop with the damn changes. This one SUCKS. Â
There is a plan out there to replace all kickoffs with a 4th and 15 choice. This is the first step to getting there. Personally, I think it's a disaster.
Where the probability to convert is the same as an onsides. 15 yards is nothing. I imagine for some teams it would be worth it to go for it every time.
Schiano proposed this almost a decade ago. The numbers in college at the time was that 4th and 15 had a much lower success rate. The AAF has this rule, but I've missed most of the season unfortunately
Schiano proposed this almost a decade ago. The numbers in college at the time was that 4th and 15 had a much lower success rate. The AAF has this rule, but I've missed most of the season unfortunately
I would take my chances of a 4th and 15 over an onside kick anytime. Especially if I have Tom Brady
Where the probability to convert is the same as an onsides. 15 yards is nothing. I imagine for some teams it would be worth it to go for it every time.
Couldn't find a more up to date figure, but in 2014 the conversion rate of a 4th and 15 was about 18% outside of the 20 yard line. Prior to the rule changes for the kickoffs imposed last year that was actually a lower probability of success than an onside kick.
Don't like it. It means a team that was fairly beaten up until that point gets YET another chance to pull the game out.
Don't want to be in position to kick an onsides kick? Then beat your opponent.
Don’t want to be in a position to be beaten by a few plays at the end of the game? Put your opponent away. Anyway, if fourth and fifteen is too easy, make it fourth and twenty.
I just don’t see this as a big deal. The play they are trying to phase out isn’t much of a test of football skill.
Don't like it. It means a team that was fairly beaten up until that point gets YET another chance to pull the game out.
Don't want to be in position to kick an onsides kick? Then beat your opponent.
Don’t want to be in a position to be beaten by a few plays at the end of the game? Put your opponent away. Anyway, if fourth and fifteen is too easy, make it fourth and twenty.
I just don’t see this as a big deal. The play they are trying to phase out isn’t much of a test of football skill.
Unless you have Odell making business decisions and pulling up like Cam in the Superbowl...
To. This change isn’t safety related, it’s a result of the safety change last year of limiting amount of players on one side. This helped make the kick off safer but really hurt any chances of on side kicks. Accordingly they wanted to try and have a play that is similar likelihood as before the kick off change. 4th and 15 is actually slightly less likely than the previous on side kicks but there are probably a variety of factors in play that could skew the data there.
Schiano proposed this almost a decade ago. The numbers in college at the time was that 4th and 15 had a much lower success rate. The AAF has this rule, but I've missed most of the season unfortunately
I believe the AAF rule is 4th and 12. IIRC, it is from your own 28.
Don't like it. It means a team that was fairly beaten up until that point gets YET another chance to pull the game out.
Don't want to be in position to kick an onsides kick? Then beat your opponent.
Don’t want to be in a position to be beaten by a few plays at the end of the game? Put your opponent away. Anyway, if fourth and fifteen is too easy, make it fourth and twenty.
I just don’t see this as a big deal. The play they are trying to phase out isn’t much of a test of football skill.
I'd think being able to advance the ball or score on the change of possession is the biggest change.
There are then the automatic first downs and spot penalties.
And it's not really a 4th down, it's s timed single play. The team is off the field, with the chance of a TV time out between the extra point and the play.
How about fourth and fifteen from the 25, with no automatic first down for a five-yard penalty, unless it’s flagrant? They can tinker until the degree of difficulty and likelihood of scoring come out right.
The reason I like the general idea is that the leading team’s defense gets to seal the win, against the trailing team’s offense. That sits better with me than the “hands” team trying to field a random bounce. Not a big thing either way, but I do think it’s an improvement.
Diver_Down: Not excusing Beckham, but that play was more on Riley than Odell. CR totally whiffed on the backup TE who recovered for the Bears.
To clarify, Mara (Giants) was the only NO vote from the Competition Committee. The proposals that make it out of committee still have to gain approval from 24 owners to take effect. So there are 8 owners that will have to vote NO at the next stage to keep the onside kick. Mara likely isn't changing his vote at the next stage. Now, it is a matter of Mara convincing 7 other owners to agree to leave it as is.
Suppose you are down by 2 to 3 points? Do you get to kick a field goal????
Suppose you are down by 2 to 3 points? Do you get to kick a field goal????
Why would you kick a 70+ yd fg
Quote:
football.
Suppose you are down by 2 to 3 points? Do you get to kick a field goal????
Why would you kick a 70+ yd fg
They never mentioned what yardline on which you get the ball. For some reason I was thinking you got it on the 15 yd line. Looking back, it was a dumb assumption..but I still don't know where the ball is spotted.
Quote:
In comment 14355211 section125 said:
Quote:
football.
Suppose you are down by 2 to 3 points? Do you get to kick a field goal????
Why would you kick a 70+ yd fg
They never mentioned what yardline on which you get the ball. For some reason I was thinking you got it on the 15 yd line. Looking back, it was a dumb assumption..but I still don't know where the ball is spotted.
Ball would be spotted at the 35 yard line. So it'd essentially be like an 82 yard FG.
In this case it's the side effect of the safety led changes to kickoff making what was an marginal chance (fluctuating between 12%-21% depending on the year) of a successful onside kick absolutely minuscule (7.5% last season).
They're attempting to get it back to the original range. 4th and 15 in college has around 13% chance of success.
+1. Couldn't they can't just allow the run up for onsides? It still removes surprise ala Payton / NO in the SB but it's a decent medium. Unless they found more injuries specifically from 10-20yd range contact it would work (I'm not specifically aware this is the case but wouldn't think it's so much more dangerous than an avg play, and much less so than old / regular KO plays)
To clarify, Mara (Giants) was the only NO vote from the Competition Committee. The proposals that make it out of committee still have to gain approval from 24 owners to take effect. So there are 8 owners that will have to vote NO at the next stage to keep the onside kick. Mara likely isn't changing his vote at the next stage. Now, it is a matter of Mara convincing 7 other owners to agree to leave it as is.
I'm with you. This adds drama.
Don't like it. It means a team that was fairly beaten up until that point gets YET another chance to pull the game out.
Don't want to be in position to kick an onsides kick? Then beat your opponent.
This is just BS.
Sometimes I wonder
Don't give me the safety line, it is all about $$. "Drama" at the end of the game like it's a stinking soap opera. Another chance for refs to control the outcome. The NFL would love more last minute comebacks, more viewers turning in and another chance for in game gambling which seems to be the next big thing.
Kicks, returns, field goals, onside kicks are apart of the game. Stop changing the game.
Dopey plan to replace kickoffs - ( New Window )
Because for the last five years the Giants couldnt stop anyone on 3rd and 15 and this is basically the same thing
I would take my chances of a 4th and 15 over an onside kick anytime. Especially if I have Tom Brady
Don't like it. It means a team that was fairly beaten up until that point gets YET another chance to pull the game out.
Don't want to be in position to kick an onsides kick? Then beat your opponent.
I just don’t see this as a big deal. The play they are trying to phase out isn’t much of a test of football skill.
Quote:
4th-and-15 conversion is very do-able.
Don't like it. It means a team that was fairly beaten up until that point gets YET another chance to pull the game out.
Don't want to be in position to kick an onsides kick? Then beat your opponent.
Don’t want to be in a position to be beaten by a few plays at the end of the game? Put your opponent away. Anyway, if fourth and fifteen is too easy, make it fourth and twenty.
I just don’t see this as a big deal. The play they are trying to phase out isn’t much of a test of football skill.
Unless you have Odell making business decisions and pulling up like Cam in the Superbowl...
I think you're gonna see this a lot more than any onside kick if they pass it. I bet you'll see some teams do this at least once a week.
I believe the AAF rule is 4th and 12. IIRC, it is from your own 28.
Quote:
4th-and-15 conversion is very do-able.
Don't like it. It means a team that was fairly beaten up until that point gets YET another chance to pull the game out.
Don't want to be in position to kick an onsides kick? Then beat your opponent.
Don’t want to be in a position to be beaten by a few plays at the end of the game? Put your opponent away. Anyway, if fourth and fifteen is too easy, make it fourth and twenty.
I just don’t see this as a big deal. The play they are trying to phase out isn’t much of a test of football skill.
I'd think being able to advance the ball or score on the change of possession is the biggest change.
There are then the automatic first downs and spot penalties.
And it's not really a 4th down, it's s timed single play. The team is off the field, with the chance of a TV time out between the extra point and the play.
The reason I like the general idea is that the leading team’s defense gets to seal the win, against the trailing team’s offense. That sits better with me than the “hands” team trying to field a random bounce. Not a big thing either way, but I do think it’s an improvement.
Diver_Down: Not excusing Beckham, but that play was more on Riley than Odell. CR totally whiffed on the backup TE who recovered for the Bears.
Quote:
For the change
To clarify, Mara (Giants) was the only NO vote from the Competition Committee. The proposals that make it out of committee still have to gain approval from 24 owners to take effect. So there are 8 owners that will have to vote NO at the next stage to keep the onside kick. Mara likely isn't changing his vote at the next stage. Now, it is a matter of Mara convincing 7 other owners to agree to leave it as is.
Apparently, Mara still holds enough influence as the 4th and 15 measure did not gain approval from the owners.
Change to Onside Kick? Not so fast... - ( New Window )