Onside Kick Rules/Coaching
The football went about 7 yards and was bouncing towards the 10 yard point so slowly that it wasn't clear it was going to make it 10 yards or not, and both teams were just watching to see if it did. I don't remember now if it crossed the line, but I was amazed the receiving team didn't just grab the ball and down it. I felt they were un-coached on what to do, and wrongly thought that they too had to wait for the ball to go that full distance.
THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS A SPOILER IF YOU RECORDED THE GAME AND HAVEN'T WATCHED IT
Now I'm not so sure. Last night [oops, just watched this now and got confused] *Sunday* at the end of the SNF game the Saints did an onside kick and both teams were waiting for it to go that 10 yards and wouldn't touch it. It went out of bounds without going that distance, untouched by either team while the players just stood over it and watched it.
To add to the interest of it, in a recent game a new technique for kicking the ball got started, the kicker places the ball 'flat' [if that's the way to say it] and kicks it in a way that makes it spin like crazy. This indeed makes it treacherous to try to field, I have no doubt! This technique was in play in this game.
Additionally, I didn't have the rule right in the first place. I think the rule used to be that the kicking team was just penalized, and kicked again if the ball didn't go the right distance. Now, at least, that is wrong, instead the receiving team is just awarded the ball, and the possible evidence that this is a new rule is shown by the oddly different sized text of the title of "article 7" in the link. Further evidence that it is new is that what actually happened, the ball going out of bounds, is not addressed by the rule in spite of the agonizingly phrased nature of all these rules. How about that, it was left up up to the officials to decide that "goes out of bounds" equals "rolls dead"! [I guess]
I usually find out I was the last guy in the world to know there was a new rule. In the world of sports anyway. It's even possible the rule wasn't what I thought it was back in the day, but I'm telling you, it was expected that the receiving team would pounce on the football first chance they had.
So! Maybe I owe an apology to that college team, now I'm thinking the coaches tell the receiving team to avoid grabbing the ball if it looks like it won't go 10 yards. I have to say I don't like the change.
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/kickoff-rules/
PS, here's highlights, go to 13:16 in the video
https://youtu.be/cXqRUDglvcs
This slow kick is in response to the NFL’s rule change a couple years ago that the kicking team has to be up at the kick line and cannot start running until the ball is kicked. Without that forward momentum of running with the kicker, it is very hard to recover an onside kick, unless the ball is traveling slowly.
Quote: unJonIf the receiving team touches the ball before it goes ten yards, it becomes a live ball. So the kicking team is half hoping the receiving team does that, then a big scrum ensues.
This slow kick is in response to the NFL’s rule change a couple years ago that the kicking team has to be up at the kick line and cannot start running until the ball is kicked. Without that forward momentum of running with the kicker, it is very hard to recover an onside kick, unless the ball is traveling slowly.
Pretty sure the kicking team could block too not so long ago, that made it interesting. Need to reread the blocking rules. I hate the idea that they are going in the direction of touch football, again, on this? What's wrong with the old rules, it was exciting and didn't seem excessively unsafe.
Just watched the replay again. I think it may be that the kicker screwed up. Football was placed on the 35, and he approached from the left and kicked it to the right, but put a clock-wise spin on the ball. So the football crossed the 40 yd line but the spin was tending to keep it from crossing the 45, as you can picture. It finally just spins on its nose, going out of bounds short of the 45
Now, it could be that this is the best way to put the spin, but if so it needs to cross the 40 at a better angle than it got. I really have to think he screwed up, it's kind of new I'm pretty sure.
Did you see the game the previous week where Dallas successfully recovered this type of onside kick against Atlanta?Quote: odiousgambitOf course usually there's not much action to see if the ball doesn't go 10 yards under the old rules too.
Just watched the replay again. I think it may be that the kicker screwed up. Football was placed on the 35, and he approached from the left and kicked it to the right, but put a clock-wise spin on the ball. So the football crossed the 40 yd line but the spin was tending to keep it from crossing the 45, as you can picture. It finally just spins on its nose, going out of bounds short of the mark
Now, it could be that this is the best way to put the spin, but if so it needs to cross the 40 at a better angle than it got. I really have to think he screwed up, it's kind of new I'm pretty sure.
Quote: unJonDid you see the game the previous week where Dallas successfully recovered this type of onside kick against Atlanta?
no, just now found it, go to 13:34
Ha! Looks to me like the spin on it is designed to take it across the 10 yards!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2bu5qENekY&feature=youtu.be
PS, if you missed it upthread, highlights of Saints/Packers , go to 13:16
https://youtu.be/cXqRUDglvcs
Quote: odiousgambitAdditionally, I didn't have the rule right in the first place. I think the rule used to be that the kicking team was just penalized, and kicked again if the ball didn't go the right distance. Now, at least, that is wrong, instead the receiving team is just awarded the ball, and the possible evidence that this is a new rule is shown by the oddly different sized text of the title of "article 7" in the link. Further evidence that it is new is that what actually happened, the ball going out of bounds, is not addressed by the rule in spite of the agonizingly phrased nature of all these rules. How about that, it was left up up to the officials to decide that "goes out of bounds" equals "rolls dead"! [I guess]
If by "oddly different sized text," you mean that the penalty is listed in bold, this is standard throughout the rulebook, and is the same way in the NCAA and high school football rulebooks as well (it makes it easier for the coaches and officials to see what the penalty is). In "ye olden days," if any kickoff went out of bounds without being touched by the receiving team, the receiving team got the choice of making the other team kick off again with a 5-yard penalty, or take the ball where it went out of bounds. A few years ago, the penalty was removed (probably to speed up the game), and the receiving team now has the choice of taking the ball where it went out of bounds or 25 yards away from where the kickoff took place (30 yards if the kickoff was because of a safety).
"Rolls dead" and "goes out of bounds" do not mean the same thing. "Rolls dead" (actually, the term in the rulebook is "comes to rest") means the ball is still inbounds when it comes to a stop. This is usually more important in punts, as it prevents the kicking team that has a small lead late in the game from punting, surrounding the ball, and preventing the receiving team from recovering it to stop the clock.
It's been almost forty years since I played football and the many rules they finetuned mostly make sense to me, but this is one I don't understand.
Quote: billryanI don't like the changes to the onside rule, at all. It used to be one of the most exciting plays in football, what with being able to stack a side of the field. Now it is very vanilla and rarely succeeds. I have no idea why they messed with it. It wasn't like the old kickoffs where guys had forty plus yards to build up speed and momentum before crashing into a wedge.
It's been almost forty years since I played football and the many rules they finetuned mostly make sense to me, but this is one I don't understand.
Agreed. I wouldn’t be surprised if the competition committee rethinks the onside kick rules this offseason.
I am referring to the link, in which, starting at article 7, the font and size changeQuote: ThatDonGuy
If by "oddly different sized text," you mean that the penalty is listed in bold, this is standard throughout the rulebook, and is the same way in the NCAA and high school football rulebooks as well (it makes it easier for the coaches and officials to see what the penalty is).
Sounds rightQuote:In "ye olden days," if any kickoff went out of bounds without being touched by the receiving team, the receiving team got the choice of making the other team kick off again with a 5-yard penalty, or take the ball where it went out of bounds. A few years ago, the penalty was removed (probably to speed up the game), and the receiving team now has the choice of taking the ball where it went out of bounds or 25 yards away from where the kickoff took place (30 yards if the kickoff was because of a safety).
that may be, however the link is from NFL.com and uses the language "rolls dead" . I did assume they would not be changing things from what is in the official rulebook. On the NFL.com page, article 7, it says nothing about rolling out of bounds, which is likely to happen as we all knowQuote:"Rolls dead" and "goes out of bounds" do not mean the same thing. "Rolls dead" (actually, the term in the rulebook is "comes to rest")
here's that link again
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/kickoff-rules/
