B.S. Onside Kick rules really ruin the game

[firstdayfan]

1) Let's keep some perspective here, onside kick recoveries are only cool when YOUR team recovers one.  Any other time they are stupid.

2) I've been thinking about this for a while and all they have to do to fix overtime is to stop kicking extra points.  Put it at the 7 yard line  for 2 pts and 3 yard line for 1 and make teams go for the extra point every time. It would add excitement to scoring, create a lot more wild gimmick type plays, and the variance in converting them would lead to fewer tie scores.

3) can we all just agree that not have brain injuries are a good thing?  I'm so tired of hearing people complain about the nfl and its safety rules.  Is it annoying, sure, but jeez these guys put their health on the line every week for our entertainment.  I think we should cut some slack (knowing full well that the NFL does this to avoid lawsuits not bc they actually care about safety).

[BrianS]

I actually like the Schiano rule.  It's a safer way to accomplish something very similar to an onside kick both in terms of conversion rate and field position.  Frankly, it's probably more exciting than current kickoffs in that you could expect to see actual returns more often.  I honestly don't see the negatives here.  I mean, ok, it's not "the way it's always been done" . . . but that doesn't make it wrong.

[Sgt Schultz]

7 minutes ago, firstdayfan said:

1) Let's keep some perspective here, onside kick recoveries are only cool when YOUR team recovers one.  Any other time they are stupid.

2) I've been thinking about this for a while and all they have to do to fix overtime is to stop kicking extra points.  Put it at the 7 yard line  for 2 pts and 3 yard line for 1 and make teams go for the extra point every time. It would add excitement to scoring, create a lot more wild gimmick type plays, and the variance in converting them would lead to fewer tie scores.

3) can we all just agree that not have brain injuries are a good thing?  I'm so tired of hearing people complain about the nfl and its safety rules.  Is it annoying, sure, but jeez these guys put their health on the line every week for our entertainment.  I think we should cut some slack (knowing full well that the NFL does this to avoid lawsuits not bc they actually care about safety).

My problem with the NFL's current approach to rule changes is they are essentially throwing the slop against the wall to see what sticks.  That goes well beyond the safety rules.  Some writer a couple of years ago said the number one problem with the NFL is its own Competition Committee, and I agree with him.  It's like they do not understand that Newton's Third Law applies to everything. 

Sadly, I don't think you will get agreement on #3.  There are people out there and, as a result, on this forum that would have been in attendance at the Colisseum to see the Christians tangle with the lions.  And I don't mean the Detroit Lions, because the Christians would have won most of those contests.

Onsides kicks have always been low-percentage plays, and probably should be so.  Somebody said earlier the success rate was under 20% before the rule changes that made it virtually 0.  That under 20% also includes successes in the middle of the game when it was tried and nobody in the stadium expected it, so the number late in the game is even somewhat lower. So, in trying to "fix" this, let's not fall into the trap of skewing it in the other direction, either. 

If you manage to get down by a couple of scores in the dying minutes, you don't have a Constitutional right to keep getting the ball back until you tie or win the game.  You might have to actually play some defense and pay for calling ill-advised time outs earlier in the half (hear that, Ron).

That said, what they have now is pretty much pointless.  And fixing it in any of the obvious ways increases the types of collisions that the league was trying to get away from.

I see Brian S responded.  The problem with the Schiano idea is it came from Schiano.  We've see his thought process, and anything that emerges from it has to be inherently flawed somehow .  That's the problem with being a moron: even when you have a potentially good idea, nobody takes it seriously.

 

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, Sgt Schultz said:

My problem with the NFL's current approach to rule changes is they are essentially throwing the slop against the wall to see what sticks.  That goes well beyond the safety rules.  Some writer a couple of years ago said the number one problem with the NFL is its own Competition Committee, and I agree with him.  It's like they do not understand that Newton's Third Law applies to everything. 

Sadly, I don't think you will get agreement on #3.  There are people out there and, as a result, on this forum that would have been in attendance at the Colisseum to see the Christians tangle with the lions.  And I don't mean the Detroit Lions, because the Christians would have won most of those contests.

Onsides kicks have always been low-percentage plays, and probably should be so.  Somebody said earlier the success rate was under 20% before the rule changes that made it virtually 0.  That under 20% also includes successes in the middle of the game when it was tried and nobody in the stadium expected it, so the number late in the game is even somewhat lower. So, in trying to "fix" this, let's not fall into the trap of skewing it in the other direction, either. 

If you manage to get down by a couple of scores in the dying minutes, you don't have a Constitutional right to keep getting the ball back until you tie or win the game.  You might have to actually play some defense and pay for calling ill-advised time outs earlier in the half (hear that, Ron).

That said, what they have now is pretty much pointless.  And fixing it in any of the obvious ways increases the types of collisions that the league was trying to get away from.

I see Brian S responded.  The problem with the Schiano idea is it came from Schiano.  We've see his thought process, and anything that emerges from it has to be inherently flawed somehow .  That's the problem with being a moron: even when you have a potentially good idea, nobody takes it seriously.

The safety thing isn't just that there are people who want to see violence. It's that the league applies "player safety" where it suits them.

For example...

"In the name of player safety, let's have fewer contact practices. Granted, injuries have actually gone up since we started doing this, but that's just a coincidence."

"In the name of player safety, let's tell guys to stop taking running starts on kickoff coverage. Sure, the vast majority of the kicks these days are touchbacks anyway and it screws teams trying to recover an onside kick, but hey whatever. It sounds good and that's important too."

"In the name of player safety, let's move touchbacks to the 25 yard line. Of course, teams may start kicking short which will actually result in more returns, but that's technically not our fault. We just made the rule. You can't ask us to actually think about how people might exploit it."

"So to sum it up, remember that player safety is always the most important thing."

"Oh and by the way, we'd like to add two more games to the regular season schedule."

...

You ever know one of those people who no matter which direction they go, always seem to somehow get it wrong?

The NFL employs several on them.

Schiano is not the only moron...or liar.

And let's be real. Football is a violent game. If you play it, pretty heavy odds that you're going to get injured in one way or another. Only way to avoid that is to not play.

[The Huddler]

4 hours ago, Dunn said:

This is a random thought, but one I can't get out of my head as to why more teams don't do this...for kick offs why not have the kicker practice a higher pop-up type of kick which can guarantee your team getting down field and having a chance to either have the receiving team call a fair catch (pinning them wherever they catch it, which you'd hope is behind the 20) or have a better chance of getting a 'jump ball' if the receiving team doesn't call fair catch soon enough and you recover the kick, like a long onside kick?

[grateflday]

The idea of the team down by two scores, getting the ball automatically as a 4th down anywhere on the field vs having to do an onside kick, is a dumb idea.  It basically rewards a team who found themselves down by two scores by automatically giving them another possession and penalizes the one who was up by two scores by giving the team down and extra possession.