Onside kick alternative...

[SunsetBengal]

(03-25-2019, 06:43 PM)McC Wrote: Well, the objective now is and will always be to keep people watching right up to the end of games and that seems like what this rule is all about.

Well, the kickoff has traditionally been "the most exciting play of the game", for a reason.  The excitement, the collisions, the chance of seeing a piece of masterful athleticism displayed.  To just take that out of the game, or continuing to numb it down with excessive rules, really takes a vital part of the game away.

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2019, 06:35 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: If they go any further they might as well start playing two hand touch.

Oh please.

The hundreds of NFL players who had their bones broken and joints torn apart from violent collisions last year might disagree with you.

The game has not really changed that much in the last decade.  The players are getting bigger and faster.  They have to take some extra safety precautions, but the game is still ultra-violent.


Why do these guys have to be crippled for life or brain damaged in order for you to enjoy the game?

[SunsetBengal]

(03-25-2019, 06:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The hundreds of NFL players who had their bones broken and joints torn apart from violent collisions last year might disagree with you.

Please, show me a list of these "hundreds of NFL players" that suffered broken bones and had their joints torn apart, specifically from playing kick-offs, just last year.  

[BengalFanInNJ]

I don't like it and teams can prepare themselves for the impacts that happen on this particular play.

[*bengalfan74*]

(03-25-2019, 06:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Oh please.

The hundreds of NFL players who had their bones broken and joints torn apart from violent collisions last year might disagree with you.

The game has not really changed that much in the last decade.  The players are getting bigger and faster.  They have to take some extra safety precautions, but the game is still ultra-violent.


Why do these guys have to be crippled for life or brain damaged in order for you to enjoy the game?

OH Please

No one is forcing them to play this game. A game where even the lowest paid make A LOT more money than joe average is out there making.

And they don't have to be crippled for life, it's there choice. It's the chance they decide to take to make 30x what the guy out there breaking his back for $20 an hour makes. That guy has no choice. Don't even act like they have no choices. OH please

[SunsetBengal]

(03-25-2019, 08:56 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: OH Please

No one is forcing them to play this game. A game where even the lowest paid make A LOT more money than joe average is out there making.

And they don't have to be crippled for life, it's there choice. It's the chance they decide to take to make 30x what the guy out there breaking his back for $20 an hour makes. That guy has no choice. Don't even act like they have no choices. OH please

Yep, couldn't agree more.  Just so that you know, the rookie minimum this year is just under half a million..

http://www.spotrac.com/blog/nfl-minimum-salaries-for-2018/


Meaning that a guy that can just "make a roster" and hang on for 3 or 4 years will make more money in that brief window, than most blue collar guys will in 20-30 years.

[KillerGoose]

(03-25-2019, 04:49 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Well, the rules changes have accelerated lately.

Kickoffs out to the 25. Can't tackle hard. Women refs. Extra points moved back to some yard line that I don't know what it is. Hell, the 2 point conversion is new, but not that new and now you can't even have a fake extra point for 2.

Now onside kicks are gone, but if you can get 15 yards you get the ball.



 

Games evolve. They have to in order to stay interesting, as well as to become safer. You can certainly still hit hard. Extra points moved back to make them tougher.

I don’t get your complaint about women refs unless you are saying that women are incapable of doing as good of a job as men, which is a rather buck-toothed statement.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-25-2019, 09:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yep, couldn't agree more.  Just so that you know, the rookie minimum this year is just under half a million..

http://www.spotrac.com/blog/nfl-minimum-salaries-for-2018/


Meaning that a guy that can just "make a roster" and hang on for 3 or 4 years will make more money in that brief window, than most blue collar guys will in 20-30 years.

Don't forget that if they spend 3 years in the NFL (a "year" only requires them to be on the roster for three games that season) they get a pension, too (which at minimum is $21,360/yr and apparently averages ~$43,000/yr).

Also a 401k, health coverage, medicare supplement once they are old enough for that, and a bunch of other stuff.

It's not like they are victims.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-25-2019, 12:50 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: I think I like this as well.  Better odds of getting the ball back trying to get 15 yards as opposed to an onside kick which never seems to work.

Unless you have a gigantic pair, and you do an onside kick coming out of halftime in the Super Bowl.

(03-25-2019, 12:55 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Do I like it? Well, will have to see. However, it's wussifying the toughness of the game. Plus, it's bad for us. Dre K is going to cost us a lot of possessions.

Yeah, I really need to hear about how pass interferences/holding/etc are going to effect this 15 yard required gain before I can come anywhere close to making a proper judgement.

If people are just going to lob deep come-back routes to draw PI, it is going to get old quick.

Also it makes me worried that there will be a LOT of pick plays ran on this type of scenario, and the refs really pick and choose when they want to call pick plays or not. Sounds like another way to let refs decide games.

[Benton]

(03-25-2019, 01:13 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I REALLY don't like this.

Now teams can just decide to keep going for it, especially if they have momentum or whatever; yeah its the rule, but it takes away, "fairness," IMO.

That means that hypothetically, the opposing offense can NEVER get the ball, throughout an entire game, as the "kicking team," can decide to constantly go for it.

I know that won't happen, but I don't like this idea at all.

This isn't high school. If a team wants to keep going for it, go for it. It's the NFL, you only get 16 games. Make the most of them.

But I'm of a 'hang 61 on them if you feel like it, Sam' kind of mind.

(03-25-2019, 01:17 PM)Synric Wrote: It can only be used once a game and in the 4th quarter. My question is if it's a failed the attempt does the opposing team get the ball where either the ball ends up or on the 35 yard line if it's an incompletion.

If that's the case, not a fan. As above, if you feel the need to onside on your first possession, you should have that ability.

[*bfine32*]

Absolutely hate the idea.

[KillerGoose]

(03-25-2019, 08:56 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: OH Please

No one is forcing them to play this game. A game where even the lowest paid make A LOT more money than joe average is out there making.

And they don't have to be crippled for life, it's there choice. It's the chance they decide to take to make 30x what the guy out there breaking his back for $20 an hour makes. That guy has no choice. Don't even act like they have no choices. OH please

None of this changes the fact that the game can be made safer and still be enjoyable. Also, millions of dollars doesn’t sound as nice when some of these guys need assistance in their own home while they are in their 30’s.

To your last point, everyone has choices. Some people choose the wrong one, but everyone has them. Just because the guys make millions of dollars doesn’t mean they should be crippled/blowing their brains out before 50 years old.

Besides, if the NFL doesn’t go about making the game safer then they will be facing a real dilemma down the road. Football is no longer the most popular high school sport and participation has been declining for the past ten or so years. The talent pool shrinking over time is a major concern.

[Fullrock]

(03-25-2019, 10:11 PM)Benton Wrote: This isn't high school. If a team wants to keep going for it, go for it. It's the NFL, you only get 16 games. Make the most of them.

But I'm of a 'hang 61 on them if you feel like it, Sam' kind of mind.


If that's the case, not a fan. As above, if you feel the need to onside on your first possession, you should have that ability.

You could still onside kick anytime you want. 

[sandwedge]

I just hope they don't go the college route of a fair catch inside the 20 and the ball automatically comes out to the 25.

[fredtoast]

I don't care how much they are paid. I see no reason why someone blessed with a gift for athletics should be required to risk his brains just because some sick fans have to see head shots to enjoy a football game. If that is what happens then the best athletes will play other sports and football will suck or maybe even disappear.

[sandwedge]

(03-26-2019, 12:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't care how much they are paid. I see no reason why someone blessed with a gift for athletics should be required to risk his brains just because some sick fans have to see head shots to enjoy a football game. If that is what happens then the best athletes will play other sports and football will suck or maybe even disappear.

Since my son has started playing Rugby this year, I was a little concerned, being there is no helmet. To my surprise, good, you don't see the head shot or missiles flying in. No helmet, means I guess they are taught to use their shoulders to tackle.

[MasonDT70]

(03-25-2019, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: These rules are total crap.  Why limit the option for a surprise on-side kick?  That makes no sense at all.

And if you are down by more than one score then you should be able to try more than one on-side kick or 4th-15 conversion.

I know this is hypothetical, but could you imagine the saints colts sb with this rule? The literal most memorable play that game for me at least was the surprise inside kick to start the half. I'd even go as far to say that might be one of the most memorable plays in sb history.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[XenoMorph]

(03-25-2019, 12:29 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Apparently at the Owner's Meeting this weekend, they voted on a different way to do the onside kick. The new safety rules last year made it impossible to recover a kick. So now they they are going the AAF way and implementing, if you want the ball back, you can have an untimed down and need to gain 15 yards. You make it you get the ball back and if not then the opposing team gets the ball....

it was approved by the competition commity but the owners shot it down....   (no own wants to give the other team a better chance at a come back)

but I'm against it.... If your kicking team cant do an onside kick... Maybe consider that before resigning them.

[fredtoast]

(03-26-2019, 05:40 PM)XenoMorph Wrote:  If your kicking team cant do an onside kick... Maybe consider that before resigning them.

It is not about the players.  It is about the rule changes.  In 2018 the 5 yard running start for the cover team was eliminated.  That makes it close to impossible to recover an on side kick.

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2019, 06:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, the kickoff has traditionally been "the most exciting play of the game", for a reason.  The excitement, the collisions, the chance of seeing a piece of masterful athleticism displayed.  To just take that out of the game, or continuing to numb it down with excessive rules, really takes a vital part of the game away.

I don't know anyone who says the kick off is the most exciting play of the game.

But if you change it to a punt it would be just as exciting except safer for the players.