The article basically says that it's just a 4th and 15 so it sure sounds like a score is a score. How else would you spot the ball if the play results in a dead ball spot in the end zone?
Are there going to be different replay rules for this or the same? I can see lots of chuck it 30 yards and call for a PI replay.
You simply cannot give the offense points in that scenario. Under no circumstances, ever, is the kicking team able to score on a kickoff or onside kick (they can't advance the ball if they recover it). If this "4th and 15" is being done in place of an onside kick, the same principle must apply and they should not be able to score on the play.
@E5 Yaz is making some good points about this thing swinging the game too much in favor of the trailing team. If they were to add the ability to score on this play, you'd completely unbalance the game.
As to your second point, that's why I think your suggestion of making it a 4th and goal from the 10 is a good idea. It would eliminate those Joe Flacco chuck it up and play for PI plays. It also eliminates the need to address the issue of automatic first down type penalties. The only penalty that wouldn't be its typical yardage or half the distance would be PI (which, as normal, is spotted at the 1). Any defensive penalty results in a replay of the "4th" down. All offensive penalties result in the forfeiture of the attempt and the ball automatically goes to the defense.
The way I see it, there are only 3 potential outcomes:
1) Successful conversion: offense gets the ball at their own 45
2) Failed conversion: defense gets the ball at the 50
3) Defensive score: the score stands as if they had scored a touchdown
These all pretty closely align with the potential outcomes of an onside kick as we know it today. But since it seems like there might not have been
that big of a dropoff with the new rule as currently in place, this proposed rule change feels a bit like going in search of a problem to find a solution so I'm defaulting back to my original knee-jerk reaction: this is stupid.