For the sake of player safety, recent rule changes by the NFL and NCAA have aimed to make kickoff returns less common by, for example moving the point of kickoff to the 35 yard line and spotting the ball on the 25 yard line on a touch-back. Some even more radical ideas have been floated, such as replacing the kickoff with a play from scrimmage on 4th and 15 situation.
While I understand the desire to reduce injuries, I’m not happy with what seems to be an effort to remove what I consider an essential part of the game. What is even the point of having a kickoff it is is always going to result in a touch back?
Recently, the question occurred to me: How safe are onside kick situations relative to conventional kickoff returns. It would seem that even though you have a lot of jostling for the ball, the potential for serious injuries would be less because you don’t have players running into each other at full speed. Which gave me the idea: how about moving the point of kickoff to the opposing team’s 30 yard line? While that would effectively guarantee a touchback if the kicking team just kicked the ball through, it would also shift the cost-benefit equation in favor of attempting an onside kick on every kickoff since even if it isn’t successful the receiving team would get possession at about the same spot they would have on a touchback. Even though there would be far fewer runbacks for touchdowns or big gains, there would always be the possibility of the kicking team gaining possession of the ball deep in their opponent’s territory.
I don’t think coaches particularly like doing onside kicks, which is why they only call them in special circumstances. To start with, they always put an odd assortment of players out there instead a regular kickoff unit, which tips the play. Which means teams will simply practice harder on falling on the ball.
And given the skills of today’s kickers and punters, it would be damn hard for a normal kick to result in anything but a touchback. You said it yourself.
Most of my ideas aren’t quite as far “out there,” I promise. Actually I agree with you about randomizing the results, which is why I’m not sure I would actually favor this being implemented. But I thought it would be a fun thought experiment to speculate on what it would be like.
The reason coaches only call onside kicks in special circumstances is not because they don’t “like” them, but because they usually fail and result in bad field position for the kicking team. If the field position for an unsuccessful onside kick was no worse than for a touchback, there would be no reason not to attempt it on every kick.
Your missing my point. When a kickoff always has the same result it is no longer relevant. But if there is a realistic chance for the kicking team to regain possession it becomes relevant again.
I don’t know about part two of the proposal, but in fact moving the kickoff up HAS effected the game. The Philadelphia Eagles released Alex Henery in part because his inability to kick the ball off past the other teams end zone is in part blamed for the their loss to New Orleans in last years Wild Card game.
Onside kicks are more successful that a lot of people realize. The reason that they’re not tried very often is, the cost of an unsuccessful one is too great. If you take that cost away, then, like you said, almost every kick would be an onside kick, and a successful one pretty much assures the kicking team of at least a field goal.
I don’t know what the statistics are but onside kicks seem to me to be a prime opportunity for injuries, perhaps as many or even more than conventional kickoffs. You’ve got players whose focus is solely on fielding the ball and unable to protect themself from their opponents who are closing very fast. Part of the strategy durning these kicks is to have one or more designated players take out potential receivers so that a trailing player will have a shot at a free ball.
If you want to lessen injuries I’m not sure this route will accomplish that goal.
I’ve never liked the rule that if the kick goes out of bounds you get it at the 35. I say give the receiving team the choice of getting the ball where it went out of bounds + 5 yards or making the other team re-kick 5 yards further back.
Sure, but the key question in this case isn’t simply “Does the team that never punts and that always uses the onside kick have a good record?” The real question is: “What is the team’s record, and what would the record look like if the team played using the punt and the regular kickoff?”
It could just be that this school is a powerhouse anyway, and would have gone 124-22, even with a different kicking strategy. You need to know a lot more than the W-L number to know if the kicking strategy is actually beneficial.
One thing to keep in mind is that at the high school level the kicking game is often not as reliable compared with higher levels of competition, so it is much more common to see teams do unconventional things like never punting, or always attempting a two point conversion after a touchdown.
That’s true, they might have the same record employing a more conventional strategy. However, you also have to consider that they’ve probably perfected the onside kick by putting more focus on it during practices. That alone gives them a big advantage over teams that don’t put much emphasis on onside kick recovery.
NFL kickoffs were historically made from the 35 yard line from 1974 to 1993. They were made from the 40 yard line before that. We simply went back to earlier rules.
Pushing them further and further back to the 30 to make kickoffs more exciting was itself the radical change.
If you’re kicking from the opponents 35 yard line you’ll almost always want to onside kick since a recovery is a virtual guarantee of at least 3 points. It’s an interesting concept but it’s going to make a major difference in the pace of the game, and it may also increase the number of safeties with fumbles into the end zone. Interesting notion, but unlikely to happen.
Actually I agree with you about randomizing the results, which is why I’m not sure I would actually favor this being implemented. But I thought it would be a fun thought experiment to speculate on what it would be like.