Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'New York Jets' started by BudJet, May 22, 2020.
How many times can it be explained to you that its an option?
Are you this hell bent on arguing?
One more time, youre whong. Dead wrong. Annoyingly wrong
The one that says the option isnt really an option.
Or better yet that the rule change is happening.
thought about it some more and I don't like it and I am glad it didn't pass. It's very simple. There should not be a rule allowing a team to avoid the "free kick" a.k.a....kickoff.
The entire concept of an "onside kick" is not a special rule or a rule designed for that purpose. It is just a fumble recovery of the free kick. It is a live ball once it crosses the receiving team's "line" and can be recovered. by instituting an alternate rule for an "onside kick," you would be creating a brand new rule and offering the opportunity to eliminate the free kick all together.
The free kick after scoring is a tenet of the game. Imagine making other "alternative"s to a tenet of the game of football. Instead of 4 downs to get a 1st down you can have a 5th down if you automatically move yourself back 30 yards.... OR instead of 10 yards to get a 1st down you can have the opportunity to make it 5 yards, provided you agree make a touchdown only worth 4 points, etc.. Rule changes like that would be considered absurd but this ain't any different.
It makes more sense to change the kickoff to be more like a punt. If the kicking team recovers the ball instead of getting the ball, it is downed for the opponent right where they touch it. Then you would have rule consistency. It would eliminate the onside kick but it would make it a true free kick. I don't think they should do that but there is something to be said about having less rules and loopholes
No, why go to an extreme? It would just end like games do now with the victory formation.
Wait....so you LIKE watching the victory formation for the last minute or so? That's cool. But for me, dammit I paid for 60 minutes of football! Not 59!!!
But think about it. If the winning team was required to take the snap and hand it off to the fullback 3 or 4 times (versus just taking a knee) then at least ONCE a season the ball will come out with 22 seconds left in the game, and 2 hail marys with one getting caught for a thrilling 22-21 comeback victory. Nothing could be more exciting!
I like the idea of forcing the leading team to actually run plays at the end of the game, get rid of the victory formation
Greg Schiano tried to take care of that himself and everybody got pissed off at him.
Actually, you do have to score to attempt an onsides kick. The only exception is the kickoff to start the game and second half. The proposal was if teams were trailing, they could choose to attempt a 4th and 15 play from their own 25 after scoring so it really could not be used on the opening or second half kickoff.
That's why I said for this year at least.
You need to realize the NFL is not proposing the changes, individual teams are. This has been a popular proposal, in recent years 4 teams have proposed similar options.
If ever passed, it would be an option only, limited in how many times per game it could be used and in no way would it replace the inside kick. If anything, I'd bet some changes to the inside kick itself would accompany it.
The best thing for the league is to keep fans watching either at home or in the stands and the best way to accomplish that is keeping games close. Most fans love an underdog, and seeing a team come back last minute to win.
I agree with you and I understand its teams making the proposal. I was just stating that it is to be used in place of onside kick. Only after scoring. You cannot just decide he we are 4th and 20 let's move up 5 yards and try it.
Never forgret. Never.
Yeah, brain freeze, my bad. its just the tw opening KOs