Greg & the NFL Proposed 4th & 15th Rule

satnom

All Conference
Gold Member
Jun 29, 2002
3,756
2,273
113
Peter King just confirmed on Colin Herd’s show that it was Greg who proposed this rule to the NFL when he was head coach at Tampa; and that many at the time were like “Ok young NFL coach trying to speak out of turn” and now that young mind is about to have a profound effect on the game we all love when this rule gets approved by NFL teams.

Visionary stuff. Greg is going to have the RU program humming before you know it.

GO RU
 

Morrischiano

Senior
Gold Member
Dec 3, 2019
1,497
2,769
113
Terrible idea. Literally changing the NFL game. Why not kick a 55 yard field goal to see if you can maintain possession or some other arbitrary play?
 

mikebal9

All Conference
Oct 15, 2005
4,040
2,002
113
42
Bound Brook
Terrible idea. Literally changing the NFL game. Why not kick a 55 yard field goal to see if you can maintain possession or some other arbitrary play?
Are you saying that the NFL game shouldn't change at all? Ever? Should we have kept the goalposts on the goal line? Stay with leather helmets? The game changes constantly. Why is this any different?
 

JayRU09

All American
Nov 8, 2009
7,589
7,578
113
I don't understand people's issue with this beyond it just changing the game. Teams get a chance to change the game with an exciting low percentage play. Sounds awesome to me. Nothing should be sacred in football, it's just a game. Make it more exciting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikebal9

RUShea

Sophomore
Jan 31, 2017
269
407
63
I don't understand people's issue with this beyond it just changing the game. Teams get a chance to change the game with an exciting low percentage play. Sounds awesome to me. Nothing should be sacred in football, it's just a game. Make it more exciting.
With the way PI and defensive holding is called, I don't think this is as low percentage as people think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU_Nut

RUfromSoCal?

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Nov 27, 2006
14,254
8,754
113
I think the XFL rule is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more likely then any 4-n-15
 

NickRU714

All Conference
Aug 18, 2009
3,644
2,743
113
With the way PI and defensive holding is called, I don't think this is as low percentage as people think.
This was my initial thought as well.

Especially as more teams innovate on offense, would be interesting actually how low percentage a 4th and 15 play would be.

Of course it could start as 15y but increase (or decrease) as needed.

Test and learn.
 

mikebal9

All Conference
Oct 15, 2005
4,040
2,002
113
42
Bound Brook
Here's an interesting counter argument I just found online:

...the standard fourth-and-15 conversion rate may not be the best way to predict success if fourth and 15 becomes the late-game replacement for the onside kick.

In those situations, the defense will be expected — after a potentially lengthy scoring drive — to suck it up for one more play, with no real break. And if the offense converts, the defense continues to be stuck on the field, perhaps through another lengthy scoring drive. Depending on the depth of the hole that the losing team had dug for itself, this process could lather-rinse-repeat until the defense of the winning team collapses in exhaustion.

While that’s an extreme example, the point is this: The fourth-and-15 replacement for the onside kick won’t be an apples-to-apples simulation of the normal fourth-and-15 play. So if the Competition Committee or anyone else will be using those statistics as a way to sell the approach, the owners need to realize that past success of fourth and 15 will be the floor, not the ceiling, for its conversion rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow

RUforlife

Senior
Oct 27, 2002
1,752
2,001
113
It will change the dynamic of the game. It will make it very difficult to compare eras, kind of like comparing stats between the dead ball era vs the live ball era in baseball.
 

BigLou

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 25, 2001
10,897
1,705
113
While my initial response is I don't like it, its worth considering.
I read that onside kicks, since certain rule changes, only succeeds 10% of the time. I would like to know what the success rate is on 4th and 15 plays (whe the D knows you have to gain 15 yards or lose possession. If it is 50% (which it probably isn't) then the rule change is a fundamental change to the game. If the success rate is only 15%, not so much. Also, the proposal is that the play starts on the 25 yard line. Most onsides kicks are recovered closer to midfield so the losing team has more ground to cover in order to score.
I think if the NFL is serious about eliminating kick offs due to the inherent danger, then this rule or something like it will be implemented to provide a losing team the opportunity to regain possession.
I do not agree with the comment above that this rule will make it difficult to compare era's. It is not a play that influences the result of a game that often.
Not surprised that GS 's fingerprints are on this. He has been advocating for eliminating or modifying kick offs since Eric's injury.
 

mikebal9

All Conference
Oct 15, 2005
4,040
2,002
113
42
Bound Brook
Wow, higher than I would have thought and borderline significant when compared to the 10% for onsides kicks
Yes, but that's where they want it. It's pretty close to where conversion rates were before they changed onside kick rules.
 

krup

Heisman Winner
Feb 5, 2003
10,115
4,040
113
Wow, higher than I would have thought and borderline significant when compared to the 10% for onsides kicks
I think the percentage is much less than 10%. It was 6% in 2018 and I believe it dropped last year.
 

RUforlife

Senior
Oct 27, 2002
1,752
2,001
113
While my initial response is I don't like it, its worth considering.
I read that onside kicks, since certain rule changes, only succeeds 10% of the time. I would like to know what the success rate is on 4th and 15 plays (whe the D knows you have to gain 15 yards or lose possession. If it is 50% (which it probably isn't) then the rule change is a fundamental change to the game. If the success rate is only 15%, not so much. Also, the proposal is that the play starts on the 25 yard line. Most onsides kicks are recovered closer to midfield so the losing team has more ground to cover in order to score.
I think if the NFL is serious about eliminating kick offs due to the inherent danger, then this rule or something like it will be implemented to provide a losing team the opportunity to regain possession.
I do not agree with the comment above that this rule will make it difficult to compare era's. It is not a play that influences the result of a game that often.
Not surprised that GS 's fingerprints are on this. He has been advocating for eliminating or modifying kick offs since Eric's injury.
My point is that with this change it will start to influence more and more results. This significantly change way both the offense and defense play the end of a game. Plus, a simple defensive holding penalty among others will cause an automatic first down.
 

ScarletDave

All American
Oct 7, 2010
7,402
5,699
113
Should still be up to the kicker. This minimizes the role of this player. Just like you need to hit a perfect kick for an onside kick. Should be something like need to hit 2 50-yard FGs in a row and you “recover” the onside. Otherwise yes we will have pass-interference calls converting most of these “onsides” now
 

RUDave_01

Junior
Dec 8, 2002
956
701
93
In theory they could make the PI call result in a 4th and 5 further down the field.

I know it would be almost impossible to enforce, but you could create two tiers of PI. One for "incidental" and another for intentional holding or PI.
 

Scarlet83

All American
Feb 4, 2004
5,107
2,855
113
It will change the dynamic of the game. It will make it very difficult to compare eras, kind of like comparing stats between the dead ball era vs the live ball era in baseball.
The rules changes made in the last few years already changed the onside kick play. This or something like this is worth trying.

The game changes and evolves constantly. And it’s going to change going forward. Get used to it.
 

Terry_2426

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2014
1,082
657
113
It will change the dynamic of the game. It will make it very difficult to compare eras, kind of like comparing stats between the dead ball era vs the live ball era in baseball.
there’s 100 other things that have happened to the game in the last 20 years that have changed the dynamic of the game, including other onside kick changes, that are more significant in comparing eras than this proposal.

edit: and in regards to a defensive holding penalty being an automatic first down, that’s not true. The offensive team would have to actually convert the play, not be bailed out by a defensive penalty.
 

RUScrew85

Hall of Famer
Nov 7, 2003
21,198
8,162
113
While my initial response is I don't like it, its worth considering.
I read that onside kicks, since certain rule changes, only succeeds 10% of the time. I would like to know what the success rate is on 4th and 15 plays (whe the D knows you have to gain 15 yards or lose possession. If it is 50% (which it probably isn't) then the rule change is a fundamental change to the game. If the success rate is only 15%, not so much. Also, the proposal is that the play starts on the 25 yard line. Most onsides kicks are recovered closer to midfield so the losing team has more ground to cover in order to score.
I think if the NFL is serious about eliminating kick offs due to the inherent danger, then this rule or something like it will be implemented to provide a losing team the opportunity to regain possession.
I do not agree with the comment above that this rule will make it difficult to compare era's. It is not a play that influences the result of a game that often.
Not surprised that GS 's fingerprints are on this. He has been advocating for eliminating or modifying kick offs since Eric's injury.
How is a kickoff more dangerous than any throw over the middle of the field?
 

RUforlife

Senior
Oct 27, 2002
1,752
2,001
113
there’s 100 other things that have happened to the game in the last 20 years that have changed the dynamic of the game, including other onside kick changes, that are more significant in comparing eras than this proposal.

edit: and in regards to a defensive holding penalty being an automatic first down, that’s not true. The offensive team would have to actually convert the play, not be bailed out by a defensive penalty.
I don't think so, that would make no sense, why wouldn't the defense just tackle everyone on the field once the ball is snapped? Defensive holding on a receiver will be called and result in a first down.
 

RU Cheese

All Conference
Sep 14, 2003
3,067
1,466
113
I'd imagine it won't actually be 4th and 15 but one down to advance 15 yards. So offsides, holding, maybe even PI (if under 15 yds) would just result in another try to go only 10 yards or 5 yards or whatever.
 

RUScrew85

Hall of Famer
Nov 7, 2003
21,198
8,162
113
Because you have all 11 guys running at 11 guys standing still for the most part. Where a pass over the middle usually only two guys are having a running collision.
If you read your reply you can re-ask my question. Even if the return team was standing still. Which they aren't. That would be half the force of two players running in opposite full speed directions in an over the middle pass.

So why is one dangerous and an over the middle pass isn't? Or for that matter any hospital ball?
 

Rufaninga

Senior
Oct 8, 2010
2,039
1,657
113
How is a kickoff more dangerous than any throw over the middle of the field?
IMO,. It is more dangerous for the receiver. Guys are running full steam for 30 yards+ and hit someone that is stationary r has single step. They are focused on catching ball not preparing for high speed collision.

Mid field collision can be brutal, but you are getting up to speed at 1/2 width of field( at most a)receiver is moving opposite direction so he's not as harmless as catching kickoff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUScrew85

czxqa

All American
Oct 31, 2008
6,906
4,509
113
Newtown, PA
I think the percentage is much less than 10%. It was 6% in 2018 and I believe it dropped last year.
Yes, with the new rule that players on the kicking team can't get the running start, onside kick conversion rate dropped to near zero last season.
 

wheezer

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2001
29,848
8,765
113
Thoughts

I always thought an on sides kick as an exciting play. I would rather have that than the proposal

The first time Greg used the blitz on a victory formation, it caught the offense off guard and the quarterback fell backwards. It was possible the quarterback may fumble on such a play.

I see no reason to try to stop a team from trying to win and there is nothing wrong with playing aggressive defense right to the end
 

miketd1

All American
Gold Member
Sep 26, 2006
8,404
5,220
113
Thoughts

I always thought an on sides kick as an exciting play. I would rather have that than the proposal

The first time Greg used the blitz on a victory formation, it caught the offense off guard and the quarterback fell backwards. It was possible the quarterback may fumble on such a play.

I see no reason to try to stop a team from trying to win and there is nothing wrong with playing aggressive defense right to the end
I always liked the onside kick as well.

The surprise onside particularly.

The variety of activity/strategy is what makes football unlike many other popular sports.