What about an onside kick to open OT? If it’s recovered by the kicking team, can they then win the game with a FG?
Game Over. Mongols had Opportunity to possess ball
Irrelevant Game already over
Irrelevant Game Still already over
They would not punt. They would go for it on 4th. If they punt, they are giving up possession
There is no onside kick . That is for kick offs, no way applies to above scenario
A kickoff is considered an opportunity to possess for the receiving team.
I would say instead of at least one offensive play , keep it at the current term of :an opportunity to possess.
Not a lot of difference, but say Team A fails to score on opening drive, Punts, and Team B muffs or fumbles punt.
Team A recovers should be able to win on FG, since B had the opportunity.
To be clear, any kickoff can be recovered by the kicking team. What we call an onside kick is just a short kickoff intended to be easy to recover by the kicking team.
You know, if they were to change to where each team gets a possession even if a touchdown is scored, an onside kick would be the optimum solution to start off overtime. Worst case scenario is the other team scores a touchdown and now you have to score one. Best case scenario is you recover, and you only need to kick a field goal.
In this scenario… Why open OT with on onsides kick? The odds of the kicking team recovering are not high, and this gives the receiving team a short field. Not a good strategy, you’d have to score a TD most likely with a long field to go. I don’t see the benefit here if I’m the kicking team.
It is a really bad strategy to kick short with the low recovery rate. But surprise onside kicks have a much higher recovery rate, at least so far, they aren’t tried very often. Still a dangerous way to play sudden death.
Okay, so the other team only has a potential possession not an actual possession and an onside kick counts.
In most kickoff situations the receiving team is expecting a normal kick and they have a lot of their players deep back in the field. So you can catch them vulnerable with a surprise onside kick.
I think that any rule that doesn’t give overt advantage to one team or the other, and which rests at least partly on the skill and ability of the teams, is acceptable.
Americans loathe ties.
I love the current format. Unless my team gives up a 75 yard catch and run on the first play.
And if they’re still tied after that? A playoff game has to have a winner.
Then you just play another 15 minute quarter.
I agree with baseball. You just keep playing with the same rules until somebody wins.
I prefer the previous style of sudden death ends it immediately. I never did and still don’t buy into the school of thought that only offense matters, with defense and special teams irrelevant. If you let up a field goal on the very first possession, well, maybe get better on defense and special teams so you don’t lose games on the first possession in overtime?
Also, there was never anything unfair about the previous OT rules. It wouldn’t matter if the winner of the coin toss won 100% of the time. It would still be fair, because both teams have an equal (and by definition fair) chance to win the coin toss.
None of those examples are unfair. Unfair would be if the home or away team is automatically awarded first possession. The coin flip makes it fair by definition. Your complaint is about the luck factor, not fairness.
This is now similar to the situation in the NFL. The kicking team now has the advantage of knowing exactly what they need, and they get 4 downs instead of 3 to get it. This is my main objection to the current format; it changes the fundamental structure of the game. (My second objection is increased injury risk due to longer overtimes.)
The knowledge advantage increases if both teams are guaranteed a possession.
It has to hit the ground first, so in practice the kicking team can’t recover a regular kickoff.
Does such a thing exist? It’s a choice between the possibility of the team having possession first getting more opportunities to win than the other team, and giving the “second” team the advantage of seeing what it has to do first (for example, if the first team does not score, the second team knows that all it needs is a field goal).
Once the ball travels 10 yards, the kicking team can catch a kickoff in the air - at least under NFL and NCAA rules. (High school has a “must touch the ground first” rule. I have seen high school games where an onside kick that traveled 10 yards was caught in the air; the scenes from the kicking team’s stands after the call (correctly) went against them were not pretty.)
No, it must touch the ground first.
The reason you see people recover pop-up onside kicks by catching them is because they already touched the ground. They are specifically kicked directly into the ground (which causes them to pop up into the air) for this reason, and that’s why the kicking team wouldn’t be allowed to catch a normal kickoff: Because the ball has to hit the ground first.
EDIT: That’s why the receiving team isn’t allowed to fair catch an onside kick.
Rule 6-1-4 outlines the requirements for the kicking team to recover a kickoff:
No mention of needing to hit the ground. Do you have a cite?
I didn’t think the ball had to hit the ground either.