Owner's meeting rule change proposal; alternative to onside kick

[RoadFan]

Someone feel free to modify and/or post this properly. 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-will-vote-on-wild-fourth-quarter-rule-change-that-competition-committee-seems-to-like/

 

NFL owners will vote on wild fourth quarter rule change that competition committee seems to like

    By John Breech

When the NFL's 32 owners get together in Arizona next week, they'll be voting on a total of 16 possible rule changes for 2019, and although most of the proposals are related to instant replay, there is one wild proposal on the table that would potentially add some serious excitement to the fourth quarter of every NFL game next season.  

The Broncos have proposed a rule that would give teams an alternative option to the onside kick. Instead of trying to recover an onside kick, teams would have the option of attempting to convert a fourth-and-15 play from their own 35-yard line. If they get the 15 yards, they get a first down and keep possession of the ball. If they don't get the 15 yards, the other team would take over possession from wherever the play ended.

Although NFL owners don't generally approve dramatic rule changes -- the Colts' nine-point touchdown proposal got shot down in 2015 -- the proposal from Denver might actually have a chance to pass and that's because it seems to have some support from the competition committee. According to NFL.com, the proposal from the Broncos "generated a lot of interest" from the committee and multiple members view it as a potentially "fun option" for teams.

One reason the committee likes the idea is because the success rate for onside kick rates has fallen dramatically under the NFL's new kickoff rules, which were implemented in 2018. Under the new rules, players aren't allowed to get a running start, which makes it almost impossible to recover an onside kick. The onside recovery rate was just 7.5 percent in 2018 (4 of 53), which was a dramatic decrease over the 21.7 percent recovery rate from 2017 (13 of 60), when the running start was still permitted.

The committee seems to believe that making the Broncos' proposal an actual rule would add some excitement to the fourth quarter. The reason the rule would only add excitement to the game's final quarter is because the proposal comes with one catch: a team would only be allowed to attempt the fourth-and-15 play once per game, and they'd also only be allowed to attempt it in the fourth quarter.

The play could be attempted after any score, including a touchdown or a field goal. A team could also attempt the fourth-and-15 after giving up a safety. Regular onside kicks could still be attempted at any point in the game as well.

If you're wondering how exactly the play would be officiated, all normal rules would apply, so if a defense got called for defensive holding, the five-yard penalty would result in an automatic first down for the offense. Also, if the offense got penalized, they wouldn't be allowed to then kickoff after the penalty is enforced. They'd have to run a fourth-down play from their new line of scrimmage.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's probably because the Alliance of America Football instituted a similar rule for its inaugural season. In the AAF,  instead of an onside kick, teams are allowed to try and convert a fourth-and-12 play from their own 28 after scoring. The catch in the AAF is that a team is only allowed exercise this option if a they're trailing by 17 or more points or if they're trailing with under five minutes left in the game.

The first ever onside conversion attempt was a wild success in the AAF earlier this year.

AAF teams are a combined 1 for 3 on the conversion attempts this year.

As for the Broncos' proposal, the NFL's owners will be voting on it at some point during their annual league meeting, which runs from March 24-27. If 24 of the league's 32 owners approve the rule change, then it would take effect for 2019.

  

 

 

[nico002]

Stupid. Way too random and not an evolution of the current game.

if the goal is to increase the conversion % then the change is simple 

make the ball only have to travel 5-7 yards but reduce the number of attempts per game to 1-2

[New York Mick]

I’m hoping they change what is allowed to be reviewed

[TuscanyTile2]

1 hour ago, RoadFan said:

Although NFL owners don't generally approve dramatic rule changes -- the Colts' nine-point touchdown proposal got shot down in 2015 -- the proposal from Denver might actually have a chance to pass and that's because it seems to have some support from the competition committee. According to NFL.com, the proposal from the Broncos "generated a lot of interest" from the committee and multiple members view it as a potentially "fun option" for teams.

 

There was a 9 point touchdown proposal?!  What in the world was that?

[JoJoTownsell1]

43 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Stupid. Way too random and not an evolution of the current game.

if the goal is to increase the conversion % then the change is simple 

make the ball only have to travel 5-7 yards but reduce the number of attempts per game to 1-2

Way too random? As opposed to kicking an oblong ball into the ground on the hopes it hits in a certain way so that it bounces in such a way to cause a scramble that ends in a pile of humanity and for the refs to decide who has a tighter grip on the ball????

Put the down as in favor of Darnold having a chance to make play.

[Bleedin Green]

I think this option is completely idiotic.  Quite frankly, the issue with the onside kicks this year is extraordinarily easy to fix.  You handle it in the same exact manner of how 2-point conversions were handled when extra points were pushed back.  You have teams declare what it is they will be doing, which ultimately changes the rules based on the decision.  Teams can opt to declare an onside kick, and at that point all kickoff rules revert back to the old ways, whether it be related to a running start or positioning of players.  Kickoffs, on the other hand, enforce all of the current rules.  It's really not that difficult at all.

[nico002]

2 hours ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

Way too random? As opposed to kicking an oblong ball into the ground on the hopes it hits in a certain way so that it bounces in such a way to cause a scramble that ends in a pile of humanity and for the refs to decide who has a tighter grip on the ball????

Put the down as in favor of Darnold having a chance to make play.

Yes random. Teams kick off after a score - this idea introduces an entirely new mechanic out of the ******* blue. Completely unnecessary when a simple tweak to current kick off rules would fix it. How would you feel after the pats convert a “4th and 15” attempt against us due to a bogus PI call? The idea is asinine.

[More Cowbell]

The only thing I think is wrong is it is too short a distance. It should be a 20 yard play. The payoff for converting is very big so a very big play should be needed. There is pressure  on both teams to play mistake free which is going to be very hard for some teams with mistake prone players. 

[TuscanyTile2]

2 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

I think this option is completely idiotic.  Quite frankly, the issue with the onside kicks this year is extraordinarily easy to fix.  You handle it in the same exact manner of how 2-point conversions were handled when extra points were pushed back.  You have teams declare what it is they will be doing, which ultimately changes the rules based on the decision.  Teams can opt to declare an onside kick, and at that point all kickoff rules revert back to the old ways, whether it be related to a running start or positioning of players.  Kickoffs, on the other hand, enforce all of the current rules.  It's really not that difficult at all.

The one thing that we'd lose with your rules is the surprise onside kick.  Or would you still allow that (though the kicking team wouldn't get the running start because they didn't declare beforehand?)

[Larz]

So so so so so so so so so so stupid 

[greenwave81]

I agree it's stupid...

And if it's such a great idea, why limit this option to the 4th qtr?

How about once a game, at any time?

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

6 hours ago, RoadFan said:

he proposal from Denver might actually have a chance to pass and that's because it seems to have some support from the competition committee. According to NFL.com, the proposal from the Broncos "generated a lot of interest" from the committee and multiple members view it as a potentially "fun option" for teams.

Now they're trying to destroy the game by adding in a couple of "fun options".  Here's a fun option for them.. Line the "competition committee"  up against a wall and spray them with a fire hose until their heads pop off.  Now that sounds like a "fun" option, that may be a worthwhile pursuit.  Vegas would sure love that one.

[Spoot-Face]

25 minutes ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

Now they're trying to destroy the game by adding in a couple of "fun options".  Here's a fun option for them.. Line the "competition committee"  up against a wall and spray them with a fire hose until their heads pop off.  Now that sounds like a "fun" option, that may be a worthwhile pursuit.  Vegas would sure love that one. 

That's a reasonable emotional response over a silly rule change proposal for a game. I bet you're real fun at parties.

Host: "So, everyone, we're gonna play a game of poker, but I propose that instead of using our real money as currency, we use hugs and compliments! Doesn't that sound fun? What do you all think?"

joenamathwouldn'tcry: "How about I burn this house down with you in it? That sounds 'fun' to me."

[flgreen]

It seemed to work the 3 times it's been used in the AAF.  I just don't like the out come of games being decided by refs, which the games will be even more if this rule is approved.

Pats need a conversion late in a game.  What do you think the odds of a PI flag are?

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

16 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

. I bet you're real fun at parties.

Hey Spoot,,  Is this your stock quip for every post that you don't agree with?  It's getting old.  Time for some new material.  So, I guess we'll put you down as in favor of this "fun" rule change.  Makes as much sense as your analogy about hugs and compliments being used as currency for a poker wager. If that's what they do at the parties you go to, I'd rather be put on the wall with the competition committee.

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

The one thing that we'd lose with your rules is the surprise onside kick.  Or would you still allow that (though the kicking team wouldn't get the running start because they didn't declare beforehand?)

Yeah, I agree that's one thing lost, but just like the loss of a surprise 2 point conversion (let's not forget the days where teams would sneak a WR out onto the field last second and have the kicker or holder toss it their way) with the extra point rule change, it's so uncommon that on a relative scale, it's probably the best thing to sacrifice of it all.

In theory, you could still let team's recover their own standard kickoff, with all of the current rules in place, with the idea being that they're gaining the surprise element while giving up the other benefits.  While it's impossible to exactly replicate the past onside kick situation with the rule changes, that would certainly be infinitely closer than the completely unrelated 4th and 15 idea.

I think the NFL has already done more than enough to make both special teams and defenses decreasingly less meaningful each and every year in today's game than to go to this ridiculous level.  The first questionable call to come on that play (and we all know it would happen) would be another on what is becoming a very long list of black marks against the league in recent years.

[slimjasi]

2 hours ago, More Cowbell said:

The only thing I think is wrong is it is too short a distance. It should be a 20 yard play. The payoff for converting is very big so a very big play should be needed. There is pressure  on both teams to play mistake free which is going to be very hard for some teams with mistake prone players. 

I agree. 4th and 20 would be perfect.

I would enjoy watching this considerably more than an onside kick, myself. 

[bla bla bla]

I love this idea. Honestly I'm all for just removing kickoffs all together. The success rate was so terrible in 2018 something has to be done.

[Dupe]

how about this - lower a netted hoop above the 20 yard line on all kickoffs.  If you kick it in you recover the ball, say at your 40.  if not, the kick off is live.  

We could think of a lot of better ideas then these owners. 

[Jetfan13]

No

[Spoot-Face]

14 hours ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

Hey Spoot,,  Is this your stock quip for every post that you don't agree with?  It's getting old.  Time for some new material.  So, I guess we'll put you down as in favor of this "fun" rule change.  Makes as much sense as your analogy about hugs and compliments being used as currency for a poker wager. If that's what they do at the parties you go to, I'd rather be put on the wall with the competition committee.

lol

Yes. I'm totes in favor of the "fun" rule change. That's why I used a totally serious and non-silly analogy.

I was mainly poking fun at your dramatic reaction -- which I found funny. Don't cry about it, joe.

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

5 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

lol

Yes. I'm totes in favor of the "fun" rule change. That's why I used a totally serious and non-silly analogy.

I was mainly poking fun at your dramatic reaction -- which I found funny. Don't cry about it, joe.

Not mad and not disappointed.  I know you better than that by now.  Whether that's a blessing or a curse, who knows??  They need to leave this game alone and rectify the damage they've done with all of the other "rule changes". 

My first reaction was to line them up and shoot em'. I didn't want to seem like a nut, so I changed it.  So, the "water boarding", was my secondary, more "rational" approach.  ?  

[TuscanyTile2]

20 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

There was a 9 point touchdown proposal?!  What in the world was that?

(yes I'm replying to myself here).  What a ridiculous rule.  A successful 2 pointer gives you an option to kick a 50 yard FG for a 3rd point?  It doesn't seem like there would be any negative if the kick is missed either.  A 50 yarder is a not that big a deal in today's NFL.   Teams would almost certainly "go for 3" after every TD because odds are it would add up to more points in the long run.  Kickers would be a lot more valuable in this scenario too.  I'm impressed at how absurd this proposal is.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/18/colts-propose-allowing-teams-to-go-for-three-after-tds/

The Colts will propose a new rule at next week’s league meeting that would allow teams to try for a “bonus point” after a successful two-point conversion. So if a team lines up for a two-point conversion attempt and succeeds, that team would then line up at the 32-yard line and try a 50-yard field goal. If the kick is good, the team would get one point, for a total of nine points on the possession: six on the touchdown, two on the conversion and one on the bonus kick.

[Spoot-Face]

1 minute ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

Not mad and not disappointed.  I know you better than that by now.  Whether that's a blessing or a curse, who knows??  They need to leave this game alone and rectify the damage they've done with all of the other "rule changes". 

My first reaction was to line them up and shoot em'. I didn't want to seem like a nut, so I changed it.  So, the "water boarding", was my secondary, more "rational" approach.  ?  

I didn't have a problem with the rule change until reading that a defensive penalty could result in a first down in that situation. Like, seriously? Games aren't already decided enough over sh*tty calls? That's a recipe for disaster.

[Spoot-Face]

Also, I think, instead of a coin-toss, possession should be decided over a 4-hour, pre-game wrestling match between the coaches, WWE style. Think of all that sweet ad revenue.