Rules change proposals: 4th and 15 instead of an onside kick?

Stupid proposals rule and Unfortunately I would not be surprised if this is a new rule in 2020...We will see

They need to do something because as it stands right now the onside kick no longer exists.

What did the XFL do for onside kicks? Didn’t they have an idea that was decent?

Maybe go back to way the onside kick was to make it fair. "But Muh, player safety" bullcrap, the league lost the ability to play the player safety card when they went with the 17 game season

I’d say that 4th-&-15 with your starting QB is far more likely to be converted than an onside kick being recovered by the third-string fullback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teegre

I’d say that 4th-&-15 with your starting QB is far more likely to be converted than an onside kick being recovered by the third-string fullback.

---

The team needs to assemble a special "Hands Team" with Limas Sweed, Sammy Coates, Ike Taylor, and Dwight "Stone Hands" leading the charge!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pczach

The team needs to assemble a special "Hands Team" with Limas Sweed, Sammy Coates, Ike Taylor, and Dwight "Stone Hands" leading the charge!

---

Two words: Dwayne Washington

I remember that I kept track of his dropped INTs over the course of a season. Had his hands been “decent”, he would have had 17 INTs. Really. It’s kind of crazy how good, yet how “bad”, he was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teegre

Two words: Dwayne Washington

I remember that I kept track of his dropped INTs over the course of a season. Had his hands been “decent”, he would have had 17 INTs. Really. It’s kind of crazy how good, yet how “bad”, he was.

---

The new corrected "Hands Team" per your input:

Limas Sweed
Sammy Coates
Ike Taylor
Dwight "Stone Hands"
Dewayne Washington

Anyone should feel free to add to the list!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pczach

The new corrected "Hands Team" per your input:

Limas Sweed
Sammy Coates
Ike Taylor
Dwight "Stone Hands"
Dewayne Washington

Anyone should feel free to add to the list!

---

Moncrete dropped the invitation to the team

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tube517

Moncrete dropped the invitation to the team

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

---

Great call! I was supposed to add him, but forgot! :hatsoff:

The new corrected "Hands Team" per your input:

Limas Sweed
Sammy Coates
Ike Taylor
Dwight "Stone Hands"
Dewayne Washington
Donte "Good Grief" "Concrete" Moncrief

I like having the option. I don't think this would take anything away from the game or the enjoyment for the fans. If anything this would add some excitement to the end of a blowout game.

Is it one or the other or a choice? It it's a choice, I'm all about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Born2Steel

I like having the option. I don't think this would take anything away from the game or the enjoyment for the fans. If anything this would add some excitement to the end of a blowout game.

---

How about the first time somebody goes for this, and there is a pass interference call that results in an automatic first down? In a one score game, that is a huge call.

IMO, I think it should be harder than a 15 yard play or a PI penalty to essentially create a turnover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pczach

How about the first time somebody goes for this, and there is a pass interference call that results in an automatic first down? In a one score game, that is a huge call.

IMO, I think it should be harder than a 15 yard play or a PI penalty to essentially create a turnover.

---

Like what for instance? The current onside kickoff is such a low percentage play(6% in 2019) that it doesn't even make much sense. The only time teams really use it is when the other teams expect it. Other than the Saints in the SB when was the last time somebody called an onside kick a great play and idea? Given the 4th and 15 option, defenses can still expect it but teams get to let their offense go get rather than depending on a kicker to kick the ball just perfectly and the ball to bounce just right and go just the exact distance and all those variables that make it a pointless play in the vast majority of cases. If a team is down by 16 points or less, the 4th and 15 option actually keeps it a game. At least this is how I see it. Maybe not a perfect option in all cases but immensely better than the current onside Kick or bust option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Born2Steel

Like what for instance? The current onside kickoff is such a low percentage play(6% in 2019) that it doesn't even make much sense. The only time teams really use it is when the other teams expect it. Other than the Saints in the SB when was the last time somebody called an onside kick a great play and idea? Given the 4th and 15 option, defenses can still expect it but teams get to let their offense go get rather than depending on a kicker to kick the ball just perfectly and the ball to bounce just right and go just the exact distance and all those variables that make it a pointless play in the vast majority of cases. If a team is down by 16 points or less, the 4th and 15 option actually keeps it a game. At least this is how I see it. Maybe not a perfect option in all cases but immensely better than the current onside Kick or bust option.

---

I'm not saying to keep the onside kickoff the same. It's nearly impossible and pure luck.

I would like it better if it was maybe 4th and 20. The additional time to get off a play of that depth, plus the yardage makes it a little more difficult. I don't want a team to be getting their asses kicked all game and then complete two 4th and 15 plays, complete the drives, and suddenly they win the game.

I just see 4th and 15 as too simple a play to make in this passing league and with pass interference calls.

Here's an interesting read with deep passing accuracy percentages. I think some of the stats explain why there is a pretty high percentage of deep throws that were completed in the 2018-19 seasons. This article is about throws of 21 yards or deeper in the air. This article references another study by him with throws of 16 yards or more in the air. Pretty interesting.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...p-ball-project

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pczach

I'm not saying to keep the onside kickoff the same. It's nearly impossible and pure luck.

I would like it better if it was maybe 4th and 20. The additional time to get off a play of that depth, plus the yardage makes it a little more difficult. I don't want a team to be getting their asses kicked all game and then complete two 4th and 15 plays, complete the drives, and suddenly they win the game.

I just see 4th and 15 as too simple a play to make in this passing league and with pass interference calls.

Here's an interesting read with deep passing accuracy percentages. I think some of the stats explain why there is a pretty high percentage of deep throws that were completed in the 2018-19 seasons. This article is about throws of 21 yards or deeper in the air. This article references another study by him with throws of 16 yards or more in the air. Pretty interesting.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...p-ball-project

---

I still think this would be an improvement and I guess I have no problem with a team struggling for most of a game and winning with back to back 4th and 15 conversions. They would still need to drive the field and score after the conversions. The conversions don't instantly turn into points. So there is still that 'football' element to it.

Onside kick was just random dumb luck. We all bought into it because it was just the way it always was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Born2Steel

I still think this would be an improvement and I guess I have no problem with a team struggling for most of a game and winning with back to back 4th and 15 conversions. They would still need to drive the field and score after the conversions. The conversions don't instantly turn into points. So there is still that 'football' element to it.

---

I get that, but the thing that always bothers me is how it is all about that first conversion. The defense was just on the field for the original scoring drive. They then have to come on the field to try to stop the 4th and 15 play and most likely winded from the last drive. If the offense converts the first down, they then have a tired defense that has to be out there again. If the offense scores again, they have to immediately come on the field again for the next attempt at a conversion. There is literally almost nothing a defense can do it they are gassed. The offense always has the advantage because reactionary defense expends more energy. With no breaks, it becomes nearly impossible to stop anybody.

In that link I posted above, they are talking about conversion rates at an obscenely high percentage. That is waaaaaay too high a percentage for a conversion play. It needs to be much more difficult than that. That would make that conversion the type of rule that offensive powerhouse teams with weak defenses might take those odds rather than kicking off as a strategy. Once the defenses are exhausted, it's not football anymore IMO. It would artificially give an even greater advantage to offense.

The accuracy and conversion rates are over the course of a couple years, and they come during the normal course of play against various defenses. The proposed conversions would be against defenses that just came off the field after allowing a score of some kind, so the dynamic of the conversion play is different than normal play.

All I'm saying is that if you look at the numbers, the play needs to be longer than 15 yards to keep the integrity of the game IMO. Maybe some people like the additional offense. I just think that the rules have already given offenses all the advantages. The game is in danger of no longer being the football I played and enjoy watching. I'm OK with them eliminating the onside kick and trying it, but the conversion play needs to be more difficult.

Here's another link that breaks down first down conversion percentage rates based on down and distance. http://phdfootball.blogspot.com/2014...obability.html

Even the blogger says that this is still speculation and deeper analysis needs to be done to get a more accurate idea of real world performance. Also, none of this is based on 4th down conversion rates of 15 yards or more exclusively.

Here's another link on 4th down conversions only, with conversion rate breakdowns by distance. https://www.advancedfootballanalytic...4th-down-study

Fascinating stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pczach

I get that, but the thing that always bothers me is how it is all about that first conversion. The defense was just on the field for the original scoring drive. They then have to come on the field to try to stop the 4th and 15 play and most likely winded from the last drive. If the offense converts the first down, they then have a tired defense that has to be out there again. If the offense scores again, they have to immediately come on the field again for the next attempt at a conversion. There is literally almost nothing a defense can do it they are gassed. The offense always has the advantage because reactionary defense expends more energy. With no breaks, it becomes nearly impossible to stop anybody.

In that link I posted above, they are talking about conversion rates at an obscenely high percentage. That is waaaaaay too high a percentage for a conversion play. It needs to be much more difficult than that. That would make that conversion the type of rule that offensive powerhouse teams with weak defenses might take those odds rather than kicking off as a strategy. Once the defenses are exhausted, it's not football anymore IMO. It would artificially give an even greater advantage to offense.

The accuracy and conversion rates are over the course of a couple years, and they come during the normal course of play against various defenses. The proposed conversions would be against defenses that just came off the field after allowing a score of some kind, so the dynamic of the conversion play is different than normal play.

All I'm saying is that if you look at the numbers, the play needs to be longer than 15 yards to keep the integrity of the game IMO. Maybe some people like the additional offense. I just think that the rules have already given offenses all the advantages. The game is in danger of no longer being the football I played and enjoy watching. I'm OK with them eliminating the onside kick and trying it, but the conversion play needs to be more difficult.

Here's another link that breaks down first down conversion percentage rates based on down and distance. http://phdfootball.blogspot.com/2014...obability.html

Even the blogger says that this is still speculation and deeper analysis needs to be done to get a more accurate idea of real world performance. Also, none of this is based on 4th down conversion rates of 15 yards or more exclusively.

Here's another link on 4th down conversions only, with conversion rate breakdowns by distance. https://www.advancedfootballanalytic...4th-down-study

Fascinating stuff.

---

It still seems like the only debatable point is the distance. 4th and 15 is a better option than the current onside kick option. Would 4th and 20 be a better option than 4th and 15? If the defense is too gassed to even play defense, what difference does distance really make? I think the point is to improve the game overall and this rule change would do just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Born2Steel

It still seems like the only debatable point is the distance. 4th and 15 is a better option than the current onside kick option. Would 4th and 20 be a better option than 4th and 15? If the defense is too gassed to even play defense, what difference does distance really make? I think the point is to improve the game overall and this rule change would do just that.

---

I've already said I have no problem eliminating the onside kick. It has become a useless part of the game.

At that point, the only thing that matters is the difficulty of the conversion to pick up the 1st down. If it's too easy, it's a mistake. If it's too hard, it's also a mistake. I would rather it be closer to too difficult than too easy.

If they try the 15 yard conversion, it will be interesting to see how often it is used and the percentage of success.

We will find out soon enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pczach

I've already said I have no problem eliminating the onside kick. It has become a useless part of the game.

At that point, the only thing that matters is the difficulty of the conversion to pick up the 1st down. If it's too easy, it's a mistake. If it's too hard, it's also a mistake. I would rather it be closer to too difficult than too easy.

If they try the 15 yard conversion, it will be interesting to see how often it is used and the percentage of success.

We will find out soon enough.

---

I think the proposal also makes it only usable IF the team is down in points, and with only 2 chances to use this option. I guess if a team is down 17-24 points they would need to successfully use the 4th and 15 twice and then still try a traditional onside kick too? And if all 3 were successful it would require up to 3 successful 2pt conversions(depending on the actual score).

The scenario that would make this hard to swallow in a loss would be a team down 1-3pts uses the 4th and 15 to get a 1st, and ends up kicking a FG to win or send to OT. That would suck big time, especially in a playoff game.

There is the caveat that a team with the lead cannot choose this option and basically play a game of keep away. This wording tells me that the rules makers tend to agree with you that 4th and 15 could be too easy to convert for some teams and could be used unfairly. So the debate point moves back to what is an acceptable distance. (1)I would go as far as 4th and 25, but from the 30-35yd-line. That way a conversion and a 1st down(2 feats the offense would have to win) would set a team up in FG range. The defense would get the advantage of defending a shorter, more compact field(when having to defend a TD).

I just wonder what would make this rule the most fair for the majority.

It will not happen…

Why don’t they just use preseason games to workshop this kinda thing?

A year before a major change, encourage teams to try it out for the preseason. Examine what worked and what didn’t. Revise and put it to a vote.

Oh. Wait. That makes actual sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2j0k4GahGA

Once the NFL figures out QB's are more likely to get hurt in 4th and 15, this silly idea, if passed will die.

If the NFL wants to add juice to the onside kick, simply allow the defense to advance the ball after recovering it. And while you at it, move kickoffs back 5 yards where they use to be. A kickoff return is an exciting play.

0 on 104?!

This is not possible!