Owners vote down Broncos’ fourth-and-15 proposal

Getty Images

Owners rejected an alternative to the onside kick, voting down the Broncos’ fourth-and-15 proposal that was endorsed by the Competition Committee, Tom Pelissero of NFL Media reports.

Denver’s playing proposal would have allowed a team trailing in the fourth quarter an opportunity to maintain possession of the ball after scoring. The trailing team could have opted for one chance per game to convert a fourth-and-15 play from its own 35-yard line.

It would have given teams a better chance at keeping the ball than with an onside kick.

Owners, though, said no despite the Competition Committee voting 7-1 in favor of the rule change.

The Alliance of American Football has a version of the rule that allows a team trailing by 17 or more points at any point in the game or a team trailing by any amount with fewer than five minutes remaining in the fourth quarter the option to try to convert a fourth-and-12 play from its own 28. If the team gains 12 or more yards on that one play, it keeps possession. If it doesn’t, the other team takes possession.

39 responses to “Owners vote down Broncos’ fourth-and-15 proposal

  1. Thank God common sense prevails. With so many games decided by one score, it seems completely unfair to essentially penalize the leading team this way.

  2. This Bronco fan finds the whole concept to be stupid. This rule would essentially say that one exciting play is enough to wipe out an otherwise tough lead. In other words luck trumps skill. No thanks

  3. Because they no longer allow the kicking team to get a running start, there were less on-side kick recoveries this year. How about restoring the success rate of that exciting play by requiring the ball to travel only 5 yards instead of 10 before the kicking team can recover it?

  4. i haven’t spoken to anyone who thinks this is a good idea–how the heck did 7 out of 8 on the competition committee vote in favor of this??? Don’t worry, everyone, Brady will be retired in a couple of years. You’ll all have a chance to win normally again soon.

  5. Holy cow, the NFL just did something smart!
    Must be a leap year.

    Come up with a different way to fix concussion risk on kickoffs.
    Change them into a free kick (like after a safety), with a way to recover the ball.
    With fewer men back there are fewer opportunities for collisions at high speed.

  6. It’s a good idea, but I think an even fairer rule would be to give each coach a “Golden Offensive Opportinuty Flag, or GOOF flag”. A coach could only throw this flag if their team is losing with 5 minutes or less in the game. It would automatically take the ball away from the winning team and give it to the losing team who threw the GOOF flag at the spot. It would guarantee the losing team an extra offensive opportunity, time permitting. No onside kick needed to get the ball back and no risk for concussions.

  7. Their next suggestion is for overtime – steal from Survivor and have each team run through an obstacle course up to the top of the stadium and then complete a puzzle made up of a picture of Heir Goodell. First one done wins.

  8. The AAF has a version because they don’t kick off at all. No other choice.

  9. If anything they should go back to allowing the kicking team players to run before the kick like they used to but only for onside kicks. No one is running anywhere near as far and that will even up the negative impact on onside kicks from the no running before the kick rule.

  10. Here’s a thought… it used to be called “sudden death” for a reason, and that reason was neither team was capable of winning the game in regulation, so I see no need to give each team a “fair” shot at winning the game in over-time… you want a fair chance, a) win it in regulation, or b) win the coin-toss and score first in overtime. I don’t see the problem, all of these solutions and proposals are only making something that’s already simple overly complicated and unnecessary.

  11. Thank you!

    As for OT….Assume Team A gets ball and scores TD but if they had to face 4th and 10 at midfield they are probably punting. If team B gets ball down 7 and they have ball 4th and 10 at Midfield they have to go for it. Team B got an extra down! Is that fair? They each scored but one team had to do it under different circumstances. Keep defense in football or before you know it we’ll be watching Big 12 football on Sundays.

  12. RobfromAmarillo says: “Elway has to put his battery away for awhile after this brainstorm.“
    —————————-

    This proposal has been around for years. Coach Greg Schiano proposed it at Rutgers after one of his players broke his neck on an onside kick recovery.

  13. Of course the owners voted it down. It was from the broncos. If any other team would have proposed it it would have been approved hands down

  14. The new kickoff rules have turned onside kicks from a useful strategy into a useless gesture

  15. THat is what happens when people try to fix what ain’t broke. The kickoff was not broke, but they “fixed” it, and that created a new problem because it is now next to impossible to succeed with the onside kick. If they adopted this new rule then new problems will then crop up that needs fixing, ad infinitum.

  16. I’m glad they kept the foot in football.

    I’m even happier that a team that has allowed itself to get behind isn’t being gifted a much better chance of retaining possession after scoring than the team has with an onside kick–about a 10% success rate with no penalty by the receiving team awarding possession to the kicking team instead of about a 20% success rate (offenses convert 3rd and 15 about 1/5 of the time) paired with almost any defensive penalty allowing the team that just scored to keep the ball.

  17. So many were in favor of this which makes 0 sense but not in favor of changing the unfair OT rules? Smh at the NFL and its inept people.

  18. omeimontis says: “THat is what happens when people try to fix what ain’t broke. The kickoff was not broke, but they “fixed” it, and that created a new problem because it is now next to impossible to succeed with the onside kick.”
    =========================

    Just because you ignore facts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The NFL has said the onside kick had double the incident rate of concussions compared to line-of-scrimmage plays. So unless you can find another way to reduce concussions on onside kicks, this is the alternatives they need to consider.

  19. wrap2tyt says:
    March 26, 2019 at 4:58 pm
    Here’s a thought… it used to be called “sudden death” for a reason, and that reason was neither team was capable of winning the game in regulation, so I see no need to give each team a “fair” shot at winning the game in over-time… you want a fair chance, a) win it in regulation, or b) win the coin-toss and score first in overtime. I don’t see the problem, all of these solutions and proposals are only making something that’s already simple overly complicated and unnecessary.
    ——————–

    In case you have noticed, everything is about feelings these days, and everything has to be fair.

  20. I’m surprised the Patriots voted it down. Seems like this rule change is taylor made for a 4th quarter clutch QB like Brady.

  21. OT rules aren’t unfair. If you can’t stop a touchdown on the opening drive then you don’t deserve to be in the Super Bowl. This is the Super Bowl, you’re supposed to be at least semi competent on defense. You’ve seen the team through 4 quarters if you can’t stop them to a field goal then you deserve to lose.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.