Unfair Onside Kick Rule

[Halo]

Does anybody else think that the National Football League onside kicking rule is idiotic and unfair?  In sports the idea is both teams get equal opportunities to receive the ball.  That's the idea of SPORT and fair play.  But the NFL onside kick rule says the ball only has to travel 10 yards before the kicking team can recover it even if the receiving team never touches the ball.

Yes, football is a game of smash mouth brute strength.  But any sense of fair play and equal opportunity says opponents should get a guaranteed chance to possess the ball following a kickoff.  If the kicking team causes a fumble, fine.  But if it is to be a fair game, the receiving team must have a chance to at least TOUCH the ball.   

What do you think?  I think the present NFL onside kick rule is as dumb as soccer forbidding using hands on the ball while allowing using heads to butt the ball (whoever invented that rule is still laughing at dumb humans). 

[Nefarious]

You won't be saying that when your team is down in the last few minutes or seconds of the game and is forced to kick it on-side. 

I think its fair, Its probably just as tough for the kicking team to recover an on-side kick than it is for the receiving team to  return a kick off for a touch down.

[Sikboy]

It's a great rule that adds drama and hope to the closing minutes of close games. The fact that the odds are long, even when the other team isn't fully expecting it, seem to indicate that the rule is very effective for it's purpose (the aforementioned hope and drama).

I also feel that it is patently stupid to refer to a rule that can be applied by either team during any kickoff situation as "unfair."

-Sik

[Cougar68]

I think the rule is absolutely fair and in fact essential to the game.  Imagine this scenario.  There's 2:10 left in the game, your team is down by 10 with no timeouts they have the ball at the 1 yard line of the opposition.  Without the onside kick there's absolutely no reason to watch the game anymore.  The score may as well be 50-3.  Your team gets the touchdown and then has to kick it deep to the other side who then just kneels on the ball. 

From what I remember the chance of recovering an anticipated onside kick is about 30% with a suprise onside being successfully recovered 50% of the time.  I don't know for sure how often the kickoff return is fumbled but I would say that 1 in 50 would be very generous.  The odds are still very much in favor of the team that is ahead, but it does give the other side a fighting chance to get back.  There's the drama and suspense that is essential to the game.

Drama like this is what makes the game.  People often mention how in the 60 minutes of clock play there's really only action for about 20 minutes of that time.  That's absolutely true, but what makes the game great is the gut wrenching nerves of the seconds in between plays as you try to anticipate what the offense/defense is going to do.  The butterflies and anticipation are where it's at and nothing is more gut wrenching then waiting for the onside kick when you're team is down by 3.

[Airscrew]

The odds for the kicking team recovering the ball from an onside kick must be pretty low or I suspect we would see more of them, and not just when a team is behind.   I think the onside kick is ok but I thought the rule was the opposing team had to touch the ball first, maybe thats the old rule. 

anyway, if a team has to use the onside kick to "catchup" then they probably played pretty sucky the rest of the game anyway, didnt control the game clock very well and missed 2 or more scoring opportunities

[oakranger]

personally, NFL is the second dumest sport

[brad13]

Playing football in highschool and almost in college I think onside kicking is a great rule! The only time the kicking team is going tho do an onside kick is when they are way far behind! And the chances of the kicking team recovering the ball is very slim. Onside kicking just adds excitment to the world of football. Besides the kick return team is 10 yards away from the kickoff team!

[DMBEAR]

  The wussification of sports...

Get rid of kickers, get rid of punters.  You have four downs to get 10 yards.  A game played by giants decided by some arrogant fruitcake kicker like Grammatica burns me up. 

I love football, but the game has changed for the worse.  In fact all sports are getting idiot friendly.  The rules are all being changed to help the offense score points so that idiot fans with big wallets will pay top dollar.  They already have the hardore fans like me in the bag, but to get those suites filled they have had to attract a different crowd, and that means score more points points points. 

We want to stop fighting in hockey, we can't let the quarterback get hit in football, you can't breath on a guy in basketball.  I'm waiting for the John Stossel report to come out on this.     

[Reschke]

It isn't just NFL with that rule. I goes all the way down to youth level with the same verbiage. In fact we use it two or three times a game in the first half to put ourselves up on opponents. Some times it works and others it doesn't work at all.

[myelo]

personally, NFL is the second dumest sport

Irony in action, stand clear.

[DiabloTX]

Irony in action, stand clear.

Damn you, beat me to it.

[DiabloTX]

Obviously the spelling bee is the dumbest sport, duh.

[Halo]

(quote) It's a great rule that adds drama and hope to the closing minutes of close games. (unquote)

Yeah, I'll give it that.  Football also has the most different ways to score points: 7 touchdown, 3 field goal, 2 safety, 2 run or pass extra point, 1 kicked extra point.  Main other sport with different point options is basketball. 

Refresh my memory -- When this rule started, didn't the on-side kick have to be at least touched by a member of the receiving team?  That's the way I re-member it.  That is reasonable.  It is not reasonable for the kickoff to be recovered by the kicking team unless a member of the receiving team has touched it first.  That is football solitaire. 

[Cougar68]

Refresh my memory -- When this rule started, didn't the on-side kick have to be at least touched by a member of the receiving team?  That's the way I re-member it.  That is reasonable.  It is not reasonable for the kickoff to be recovered by the kicking team unless a member of the receiving team has touched it first.  That is football solitaire. 

I don't believe so.  I think it's been the same from the beginning.  In an onside kick the ball has to go forward at least 10 yards OR the opposing team has to touch it.

[Halo]

All these years and I've missed the itty bitty OR?  I don't think that dawned on me until I saw a 9-foot-tall Dallas guy leap high above everyone else and try to grab the football before the Redskins could even touch it.  Nevertheless, the more I think about it, the more I still think the receiving team should at least touch the ball first, and then let the mayhem ensue.

I would even believe that if the Redskins were doing an onside kick against Dallas.  Honest.  Really, I would.