The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8171b356&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

this is so bad. why should the kicking team not onside kick 100% of the time now? 

From what I gathered , Only in the playoffs, A Team needs to score a touchdown if they get first possession. A piddly field goal won't do. Onside kicks are for desperate situations. Not Playoff calibur Teams trying to advance to the Superbowl. You onside Kick and it blows up in your face (like most of the time) guess who has a better chance of scoring a touchdown from the 50?   

It makes both Teams better. If you deserve to go to the Sbowl then score a touchdown. F the pussy field goal crap.  >:D

I have no problem with this rule change.  If the score is tied still after each team has a possession, it reverts back to sudden death.  It will keep teams from kicking a FG on the first possession of OT as soon as they get into FG range. 

Vikings one of four teams voting against. 

Why in the hell would they automatically kick an onside kick? If you don't recover you end out giving the other team great field position. I can see someone taking a chance with it, but doing it 100% of the time would prove unfruitful I expect. It is the same reason no one kicks off onside 100% of the time now. I just see this as common sense.

That aside, I would rather both teams get a possesion regardless. This seems like a method of trying to please everyone that fell short of pleasing anyone.

I'm ok with it, I'd prefer you have to score a TD in the first drive to win in overtime...This sort of does that :-\

I like the rule change.  Bill Simmons was the first one to propose this after the SD-Indy game

I like this rule as well...

I like it, too. 

...better than the current system.

^^^ I think it is better, but still not right IMO.

Hmmm, maybe because less than 20% of all onside kicks are actually recovered by the kicking team? 

That makes a ton of sense.  Playoffs.  Lose and go home.  Hey, let's try an onsides kick!

I think the rule change is a step in the right direction. 

its about 25% of onsides kicks are recovered. and when they do recover it then they only need a field goal to win where the other team will need a td to win. The 25% chance of recovery is definitely worth giving up 30 yards of field position.

I don't understand why it's so complex.

Make it easy: one possession each. If still tied, sudden death.

Because Defense is a big part of the game as well.(My favorite part actually  ;)) If a team can score a TD off you right away, you didn't deserve to advance in the playoffs.

Why do they only need a figgie to win? It's the first possession, regardless of which team recovers the ball after the onside kick.

That's not how the NFL sees it. Once the ball is kicked regardless of who actually recovers it, the NFL has ruled that the "receiving team" had their chance at the possession.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this makes NO sense to me and I'd like to see a link pointing out this detail. (The nfl.com article linked in the first post makes no mention of onside kicks).

The rules read:

"A kickoff is the opportunity to possess for the receiving team. If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its opportunity."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/23/on-overtime-onside-kicks/

no they kicked off, they would only need a fg.

Thanks.

Not sure I like that particular wrinkle...