2020 NFL Rule Changes

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
There's luck in each case. A 4th and 15 conversion takes some luck as well, and is far more prone to penalty calls, for instance, than an onside kick recovery

I get the idea of keeping the losing team in contention as long as possible. I just think this "solution" devalues the play of the team that built the lead
I think the opposite. I think there's a lot more luck in recovering an onside kick than in converting a 4th in 15.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
What problem is being solved here? It's still possible to recover an onside kick. Why the need for a radical change?
That essentially no one recovers an onside kick any longer.

Just go back to the old rules--I'd prefer that over this, although I'm not opposed to this. Were there really a lot of injuries?
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,147
Arvada, Co
Why would you give them a score in a situation that's designed to determine whether they get the ball back or not? Are we comfortable with conceding possession like that?

Edit: More to the point, you can't score on an onside kick because you can't advance the ball. Why would this scenario result in a score if they convert that "4th and 15" with a breakaway touchdown? If that were the case, then I would have to vociferously disagree with the rule change.
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.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,539
There's luck in each case. A 4th and 15 conversion takes some luck as well, and is far more prone to penalty calls, for instance, than an onside kick recovery

I get the idea of keeping the losing team in contention as long as possible. I just think this "solution" devalues the play of the team that built the lead
I agree with you 100%. Can you imagine receiving a lame defensive holding call or DPI in that situation? I also think it heavily favors teams like the Chiefs that are built around explosive 15+ yard plays compared to other teams built to run the ball. I hate everything about it. Being down big in late game situations should be nearly impossible to recover from.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
It's absurd the NFL just won't go back to the old kickoff rules IF the team declares they are kicking it onsides.

You can still do surprise onsides kicks, but they have to be aligned with the new rules. But if you declare, go back to the old rules.

This is such an easy fix. But the NFL never does it easy.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
I think the opposite. I think there's a lot more luck in recovering an onside kick than in converting a 4th in 15.
Again, the ball is being "given away" in the onside kick. After it leaves the kicker, the trailing team doesn't control its destiny

In a 4th and 15, the ball is in the hands of the trailing team from the snap, there are exponentially more options for the offense to do with it, and the refs are far more likely to come into play. Whether you want to call it "luck" or "opportunity" doesn't really matter; it increases the offense's chance of success

It's a significant difference.

But I'm like you, I'd go back to the old rules
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
That essentially no one recovers an onside kick any longer.

Just go back to the old rules--I'd prefer that over this, although I'm not opposed to this. Were there really a lot of injuries?
What were the numbers this year? I saw a number of them recovered, including two by Atlanta in the Thanksgiving game. When the Pats needed one against the Texans, they sure had a shot at recovering.

It just doesn't feel like a real issue.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Yes.

The scenarios are entirely different. Currently, you're simply asking your defense to fall on and secure a ball being given to them. Chances of recovery, and avoiding having to play defense again, are significantly better than asking that defense to make "one more stop" after being worn out by another team's offense
So if you think this is an issue make it 4th and 20 or whatever the break even point would be.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
So if you think this is an issue make it 4th and 20 or whatever the break even point would be.
I'd still nix the entire concept. I'm just not a fan of giving trailing teams an artificial way to tie or win
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
What were the numbers this year? I saw a number of them recovered, including two by Atlanta in the Thanksgiving game. When the Pats needed one against the Texans, they sure had a shot at recovering.

It just doesn't feel like a real issue.
There were 8 recovered this year while 56 were attempted. However, there was a spike after week 11, accounting for 6 recoveries in 34 attempts.In 2018, there were 4 recovered, with 48 attempts. So that is 12 out of 104 for 11.5%.

The average I have seen for the previous years hovered around 15%.
 
Last edited:

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
Onside kicks are not just "luck". Kickers practice the onside kick and KO/KR teams practice them as groups. If a team wanted to put a ton of extra time into these, both the kick itself and both sides of the recovery, they would ostensibly get much better at them. That choice requires them to forgo some regular KO drills or real plays, but let's not act like they're blind luck.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
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.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
I guess I'm convinced that they shouldn't do anything. There is no perfect solution.

I don't think the onside kick was ever really a deliberate rule choice to allow comebacks anyway. It's just a function of the fact that some smart coaches figured out that there might be a way to take advantage of a kick off being a live ball.

Yes, over time, it turned into a thing that made the end of games that weren't close a little more exciting. But I think that was just turning a bug into a feature.

I can't actually even see a reason to make kickoffs recoverable by the kicking team without a muff anyway. Is it necessary to make that the rule in order to prevent the receiving team from employing weird formations that would create an advantage? I mean, pretty much the only reason is to falsely create some excitement instead of just saying the game is over. I'm convinced by the thread that's not enough of a reason to have a rule.

If that's the purpose, you can think of a zillion gimmicks you could put into the game to try to make it more exciting. Not needed.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Kicking teams can score on a kickoff. It would be exceeding difficult, but it can happen.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Here is what I found.

09- 8 for 42 (19%)
10- 9 of 49 (18%)
11- 10 of 53 (19%)
12- 7 of 56 (12.5%)
13- 11 of 58 (19%)
14- 8 of 57 (14%)
15- 9 of 60 (15%)
16- 7 of 58 (12%)
17- 12 of 54 (22%)

Total- 81 of 487 (16.6%)

18- 4 of 48 (8%)
19- 8 of 56 (14%)

Total- 12 of 104 (11.5%)

SSS for the new model, but that doesn't seem like a huge drop off. All numbers come from

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/stats.html?lg=NFL&yr=2019&type=reg&mode=O&conf=&limit=25&sort=koosk
Yeah, so it's a solution in search of a problem.
 
The NFL is ultimately about entertainment, not equity. It wants to give people a reason to watch games to the very end. With the onside kick so ineffective under the current rules (unless you're the Falcons, apparently), games really have felt finished that didn't entirely feel that way under the old onside kick rules. I think it's perfectly fair to let an offense and a defense contest a 4th and 15 or a 4th and 20 at the end of the game in lieu of the total crapshoot that successful onside kicks were and are under any rule system. But even if it isn't - even if you think that the luck of a bouncing ball and a fumble recovery scrum is a better solution than a designed offensive play against a prepared defense - I'm all in favor of rules changes that make ridiculous comebacks more possible. Great, improbable comebacks produce stories that people remember, for better and for worse. Why are you rooting against fun?

(Unless the real subtext here is that you're worried the Chiefs will be better placed to capitalize on this sort of rule change than the Patriots. Which I hope isn't the case.)
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
The NFL is ultimately about entertainment, not equity. It wants to give people a reason to watch games to the very end.
If it was that simple, why not have the losing team always receive the kickoff after a score. That will keep games close and think of all the possibilities when a team down a TD scores late in the game.

But it's not as simple a giving fans a reason to watch to the very end. This is a dumb gimmick to solve a problem that very few outside the NFL league office think is a problem.
 

ilol@u

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 2, 2009
4,231
Foxboro
Seems incredibly gimmicky. Don't like it. Onside kicks are a massive reward (getting the ball back at about the 40 yard line), it's supposed to be difficult. A random 4th and 15 favors those who have high flying offenses and give the refs much more power in calling penalities on these plays.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
This seems far too generous.

If they're going to introduce a gimmick, make the kicker put it through the uprights off the tee and then they get the ball at the 1. Otherwise, the opponent gets the ball at the spot of the missed kick.
 
How so? Simply pointing out that there are more factors than just getting fans to watch until very end.
Nobody is suggesting changes as major to the fabric of the game as letting the losing team receive the kickoff after every score - that's ridiculous. The NFL's proposal, which as far as I can remember was first suggested by a Football Outsiders-type blogger/journalist/stathead, aims to restore a *little* more uncertainty to the end of games by tweaking the probability of teams retaining possession after a score. Some people want to tweak that probability by restoring the old onside kick rules instead of putting offenses and defenses on the field in a 4th-and-forever situation (the yard line for which can be adjusted to generate whatever the desired probability is, even accounting for the possibility of defensive penalties). I'm fine with either way forward; I believe miracle comebacks should be just a little easier, remaining rare but not quite as hen's-teeth-rare as they are now. But some of the grousing in here really is over the top.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Nobody is suggesting changes as major to the fabric of the game as letting the losing team receive the kickoff after every score - that's ridiculous. The NFL's proposal, which as far as I can remember was first suggested by a Football Outsiders-type blogger/journalist/stathead, aims to restore a *little* more uncertainty to the end of games by tweaking the probability of teams retaining possession after a score. Some people want to tweak that probability by restoring the old onside kick rules instead of putting offenses and defenses on the field in a 4th-and-forever situation (the yard line for which can be adjusted to generate whatever the desired probability is, even accounting for the possibility of defensive penalties). I'm fine with either way forward; I believe miracle comebacks should be just a little easier, remaining rare but not quite as hen's-teeth-rare as they are now. But some of the grousing in here really is over the top.
Hello, Mister Strawman! :)

That was an illustration to show that there is more to this than getting people to watch until the very end.
Do you disagree that there's more to it than that or do you believe that is what it is all about?
 

GoDa

New Member
Sep 25, 2017
962
I thought kickoff-related injuries had more to do with the long runnning starts by the coverage team. Tweaking the current rules to add 5 more yards running start space might be enough.
I think onside kicks could be ugly.

I've thought for a long time that there are often holes in the receiving team formations that a skilled kicker could exploit for "onside" opportunities on almost every kickoff - while not necessarily risking awful field position if it fails. I'm talking popups over the first line of blockers that hit the ground and scoot.... directional lasers right at less than aware blockers... anything that skips and is struck hard... and so on.
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,147
Arvada, Co
Kicking teams can score on a kickoff. It would be exceeding difficult, but it can happen.
If the kicking team catches the ball in the endzone on the fly, that would be a touchdown right? Also, if the returner runs into the endzone on his own and is tackled that would be a safety. I can't think of any other ways outside of muffs/fumbles.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,163
They have to address the clock burn situation that happened both in the Pats game and over the weekend.

It's not in the game's best interests to allow a team to burn 90 seconds without a play being run.

it might take more than just saying "clock stops after a delay of game" however. As you saw in both instances, the team also used a false start as part of the strategy.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
They have to address the clock burn situation that happened both in the Pats game and over the weekend.

It's not in the game's best interests to allow a team to burn 90 seconds without a play being run.

it might take more than just saying "clock stops after a delay of game" however. As you saw in both instances, the team also used a false start as part of the strategy.
Yeah this is a loophole and it sucks to watch as a fan. You're standing around for 2 minutes with the teams just looking at each other in what should be an exciting part of the game.

Instead of the onside kick change, why not give teams an extra timeout or two in the second half? That would allow you to stop the cynical burning of clock like Vrabel did, and would ALSO make it easier to get the ball back for a trailing team without having to resort to a gimmick. It leaves strategy in the hands of the coaches. Plus, with the challenge system we now have more potential reasons to use timeouts than we did when they decided three timeouts was a good number.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
I'd just stop the clock after a penalty regardless of time but NFL really wants to keep games in 3 hour window so they are averse to make any changes that might lengthen games.

I think a good way to do keep games moving is by shortening the play clock.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
If we have a 10 second runoff when the offense commits a pre-snap penalty in some instances, could we make this situation a 10 second add-on plus clock stoppage? That would very much discourage these antics
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
I'd just stop the clock after a penalty regardless of time but NFL really wants to keep games in 3 hour window so they are averse to make any changes that might lengthen games.

I think a good way to do keep games moving is by shortening the play clock.
The easiest and most logical solution would be to end the touchdown-PAT-commercial-kickoff-commercial sequence. If they were to eliminate that second commercial break after the kickoff, they'd probably shave 10-15 minutes off each game.

But that'll never happen because money.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Two other suggestions I saw somewhere:

On penalties-- say the offense holds on 1st and 10. The defense gets choice of 1st and 20 or 2nd and 15. Depending on game state that could be a strategic decision.

Also, penalties of different yardage do not offset. If the punishment for one is steeper, then that should be reflected.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,604
Also, penalties of different yardage do not offset. If the punishment for one is steeper, then that should be reflected.
The NFL does this for 15 yard vs 5 yard penalties, the 5 yarder is totally ignored. But how would this work practically? Say you have a running play that goes for 30 yards. The offense holds at the line of scrimmage (would be a 10 yard penalty from the line of scrimmage). The defense tackles the ball carrier by the facemask (would be a 15 yard penalty from the end of the play). I get that you are saying it should be 5 total yards against the defense....but from where? The line of scrimmage or the end of the play?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Two other suggestions I saw somewhere:

On penalties-- say the offense holds on 1st and 10. The defense gets choice of 1st and 20 or 2nd and 15. Depending on game state that could be a strategic decision.

Also, penalties of different yardage do not offset. If the punishment for one is steeper, then that should be reflected.
Problem with #2 is say there is offensive holding but then a 50 yard DPI call. What if the only reason the DPI occurred is because the QB had extra time to let the play develop due to the holding? The offense shouldn’t get +40 yards in that situation.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,604
They have to address the clock burn situation that happened both in the Pats game and over the weekend.

It's not in the game's best interests to allow a team to burn 90 seconds without a play being run.

it might take more than just saying "clock stops after a delay of game" however. As you saw in both instances, the team also used a false start as part of the strategy.
This is the easiest one. NCAA has this one right in two ways.
1) Any delay foul on when a team is in kicking formation automatically puts the clock on the snap.
2) The Referee has the authority, and is encouraged, to run the clock on the snap if he thinks a team is getting a timing advantage by fouling.
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,147
Arvada, Co
Two other suggestions I saw somewhere:

On penalties-- say the offense holds on 1st and 10. The defense gets choice of 1st and 20 or 2nd and 15. Depending on game state that could be a strategic decision.

Also, penalties of different yardage do not offset. If the punishment for one is steeper, then that should be reflected.
Please don't make me wait for a coach to make a decision on every holding call. That sounds horrible.
 

thebtskink

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
332
If they're not moving back to old onside kicks, then keep the current setup and move the defense back 5 yards. Simple.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
2,371
Will there be special teams in 10 years? Next generation Matt Slater will be out of a job. I assume there will be field goals at least ...

I think teams will adapt to the new rules and get better at on-sides kicks, or hire more Younghoe Koo's. Don't tell me that every fan of a team performing an onside kick didn't still have hope for a recovery despite the rate going from 21% to 6%. Just seems that the better team is winning more often and the fans still have hope
 

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
367
There will certainly be a new set of rules to put an end to a team's ability to waste clock in a 4th down punting situation with a delay penalty followed by an illegal motion false start penalty as done by BB, Vrabel and now Reid. Just don't run the game click after the delay penalty and after the false start penalty. Done deal in my opinion.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Not sure if people remember but this happened in the 28-3 game as well. Atlanta should have punted before the end of the 3rd quarter, but they had a penalty, the clock restarted, then they punted to start the 4th.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,244
If it was that simple, why not have the losing team always receive the kickoff after a score. That will keep games close and think of all the possibilities when a team down a TD scores late in the game.
IIRC, either the Pro Bowl or the Senior Bowl Used to do exactly that (I think it's "used to." I haven't watched either in a long time) : if the team that scored was still down after that score by more than some large number I cant remember (28?), they'd receive the . . . . ensuing kickoff.