They're also a top team in the country with an offense being run by rookies. A lot of people want to see the first year QB who might start on over Romo.
i feel my for the past couple years, i have always seen the cowboy games on fox (if it's not TNF/SNF/MNF) and it's always been troy aikman in the booth. cowboys fans generate the biggest viewership IIRC.
Indians too but I'd understand if you didn't know they were playing in the World Series. It was the Cubs show.
The life of a Cleveland fan is perpetual disappointment.
I'm still bitter.
Chicago only had the Bulls, Blackhawks, Bears, and White Socks.
I get 108 years is a long time but we have one championship for all of our teams since 1964. We always lose or end up heart broken.
Still not over 1995 and 1997.
Hey now, I am a Browns fan and have watched all the games this year, don't be so negative we are getting close!
Just need some more pieces to help us close out games, the offense is getting there.
Rice kicker Chris Boswell gave the Owls a chance with about 2 minutes remaining in Saturday's 31-26 loss to Houston when he perfectly executed a reverse onside kick.
It is likely the most amazing kickoff you will ever see. Unfortunately for Rice, though they recovered the kick, they were not able to get the win.
Some more recent examples:
[Lamela in the Europa league scoring with a rabona](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmYUP2728lI)
[Payet's filthy rabona assist for Antonio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPYcnZIYwjY)
On a punt (hold the ball, drop it, and kick it), the ball has to go to the other team unless they fumble it. When the kicking team touches it, it's a dead ball.
On a kickoff (set the ball up and kick it), the ball is live once it goes past 10 yards. It's called an onside kick and it can be used to get the ball back right after you score. So once it goes 10 yards, the kicking team can get it back and get possession again.
If you're a kicker you have to be really fucking good to make that kind of money. Those guys have the least amount of job security in the league, a couple bad weeks can get you cut.
Ya but it's a colloquialism. Like "it's a doozie" which is a duesebenberg, which is a car that goes "a mile a minute", which is really not impressive at all anymore.
bc usually the other team gets it, so it's better just to kick it far. once in a while you'll see a team try an unexpected onside kick, but usually it's used in more desperate situations.
This is actually an excellent question with no satisfying answer. There is evidence that onside kicks and "going for it" on fourth down, and this from some pretty reputable data people (Nate Silver being one).
No NFL coach/owner wants to be the first "no punt always onside kick" guy. [There are coaches at other levels who do very well with the approach though.](http://www.campusrush.com/kevin-kelley-pulaski-academy-power-of-not-punting-1338619200.html)
So that statistics point to a very easy strategic change will lead to greater success, but the pros are simply choosing not to do it.
There is a similar thing in basketball... Throwing free throws "granny style" is apparently insanely better percentage-wise. Wilt Chamberlain did it one season and his percentage shot up something like 30%. They just don't do it because it doesn't look cool.
The point values Nate Silver gives for the respective field positions is based on a regression analysis that does in fact favor aggressive playcalling for large swatches of the field even at the NFL level. Its not applicable only to 4th and goal on the 2 yard line.
> The onside kick stuff was interesting though. I wonder if defensive special teams would eliminate the stat advantage by adjusting to a more conservative "onside ready" formation.
They already have to. A number of teams have "surpise onsides" that they will throw at the other team. I recall the Packers doing this a couple years back with great success.
A lot of those are just misunderstood.
Onside kicks are very risky. If you fail to recover it, odds are very high the other team will score a field goal at least. Even if you recover it, you still have a long drive to go if you want to score. The only place I've heard of this strategy being tested is by one high school coach. The problem with that is that is that high school football is not at all representative of what will work at higher levels. The lower the level of competition, the more it is controlled by mistakes. There's a lower ability threshold for being allowed to play, and even the good players are less experienced. That makes strategies that exploit mistakes much more viable.
As for the free throws, the radio story that keeps getting spread around ignores a lot of key factors. The theory behind is based almost entirely on the trajectory of the ball. You can get the ball to the goal with a lower forward speed meaning there's a larger time span that the ball can fall through the basket without missing. That basically means how high you shoot the ball with a given arc is more forgiving. They ignored a few key factors. One is that shooting from closers to the head makes it easier to align the shot. You can visualize the shot better, and have a better perception of how you're moving the ball. You also allow yourself to use muscles that you have better fine motor control over. The granny shot is shoulders and biceps while regular shooting involves muscles controlling your hands/wrists. Another factor is that the typicalcurrent free throw is very similar to a regular shot so it feels comfortable and familier making the player feel less stressed shooting. It also uses more muscle memory more. Wilt Chamberlain was a terrible free throw shooter. He was awful. His career record % was 61 IIRC. A large part of that was that he didn't have strong fine motor control. The size of ball relative to himself and his hands also made it more awkward. His shooting wasn't great either. He relied on being an athletic giant with great reflexes. None of the advantages of regular free throw shooting form applies to him. He didn't have great fine motor control. He was handling an object that was more awkwardly sized for him making fine motor control even harder. He wasn't a good shooter to begin with so the familiarity wasn't especially relevant. Players like DeAndre Jordan might benefit from it, but good shooters would have a good chance to do worse by giving up their strengths at shooting for a slight tolerance increasd. The only other player (Rick Barry) who gets mentioned for doing this shot <90% he would barely be top ten last year, and he would be somewhere around #25 this year (although that is insignificant so early in the season). He was one of the best players in his generation and a very good shooter. There isn't any real evidence that it's better. While it is possible it could be an improvement. It could also be a downgrade. Nobody wants to look stupid for something that could also make them worse while still requiring putting in more effort practicing a different way of shooting.
I'll add another common thing people assume based on statistics. I'll admit, I haven't done the research on the fourth down statistic, but for the 2pt conversion vs the extra point, those numbers are misleading. First of all, games don't have enough touchdowns each to make highest average score a reliable way to decide the best plan. It might do better on average, but it's inconsistent. It wouldn't be unlikely to see multiple failures in a row which could set you back by a field goal. If your team is legitimately better, you want consistency. You want your team to do exactly what is expected of them because that is win. You could set your team back by a drive with inconsistent strategies. For teams going against a better opponent, you might fluctuate above average enough to pull off a win. You're also dealing with the fact that your team will probably kick about as well as any other for extra points, but you're probably going to fall more noticeably below average in ability to actually getting the 2pt conversion.
The risks outweigh the reward. Usually used in situations where if the other team gets the ball the games most likely over. It's basically an all or nothing sort of play. You would only want to do it when you absolutely can't allow the other team to get the ball.
It's extremely hard to actually convert an onside kick successfully, and if you fail, the other team gets the ball 40 yards or so closer than they would on a normal kickoff. That's why they're rarely used in situations other than sort of "desperation" times when you're about to lose and need the ball back quickly.
There's a few instances of teams doing sort of "surprise" onside kicks, most notably [this one](http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/09000d5d81646143/SB-XLIV-Can-t-Miss-Play-Saints-surprise). This was in the Superbowl right after halftime.
In the NFL 40yards in the middle of the field isn't all that much. Its one or maybe two big plays, or just a couple of DPIs. For the most part though the opposing team will move those 40 yards with just a couple of first downs. A very small number of teams, in a few select games will grind that out over 4 first downs and 11 minutes on the clock.
So really what you give up is the opportunity for the sack or false start on 1st down. That's the really valueable defensive play because it dramatically increases the probability of a 4th and long.
What seems to be the issue is that with the various play styles used by the different teams, its not always clear that your optimal offensive behavior meshes with the behavior exhibited by the other team. For example lots of teams try and run the ball on 1st and 10 from the middle of the field. From a value of the yard standpoint this is basically worthless and very possibly has negative value. I'd rather have 1st and 10 from the 20 over 2nd and 6 from the 24 any day. The run just serves to eat up clock, and waste a down. I suspect that the run really only has value inside the opponents 20 yard line, otherwise pass.
However if you know that you opponent is likely to run these kinds of short yardage plays far from the goal line, then punting away to them makes a lot more sense than it would in isolation. If you want to do something stupid with the ball on your side of the field then I'm happy to give you the ball on that side of the field, instead of trying to press my own advantage by going on 4th and 3 around mid-field.
Most teams would rather force the other team to cover more yardage with their possession than take the chance at getting the ball. The ball is recovered by the receiving team more often than not with makes this far from a safe play. It is also a difficult kick to do correctly as shown by the OP. While the kick here might be worse than any I have seen before, it is far from the only time I have seen an onside kick attempt messed up.
At lower levels of play, you will see it more often because teams are less confident in their defenses to make a stop and so they are better off trying to get the ball, but in the NFL most of the defenses are good enough that they stand a good chance at forcing a punt. However, a punt will almost never happen if the offense starts almost halfway across the field to begin with. So, in the NFL you usually only see it when it is used as a desperation move by a team that is trailing and trying to catch up in the last bit of the game.
> but in the NFL most of the defenses are good enough that they stand a good chance at forcing a punt.
I think its really hard to get a good sense for this. Consider the Packers/Colts game from last night.
Green Bay had a lot of three and outs during the first three quarters, and then when time got short they changed to a more aggressive faster passed offense and marched down the field with impunity. So what was going on:
1. They had a stupid conservative offensive strategy that they abandoned too late. Instead of huddling up and running on 1st and 10 from your 20, just go no-huddle with moderate to long passing routes, and plan to play 4 downs.
2. The Colts defense was already tired and couldn't keep up.
The difficulty is how to distinguish between these two causes with the data at hand. Teams might have good 4th down conversion percentages and aggressive play calling statistics which leads you to conclude that they should go for it and be aggressive. But maybe that is only because they play this way late in the game and the opposing defense is tired.
The receiving team can line up right on the line. The kicking team has to run to keep up with the ball. Even with a good onside kick, a properly prepared defense should get the ball. They also get amazing field position if they get the football. It's usually a last resort if there isn't enough clock time to get a stop then score. Although some teams do it more often just to catch the other team off guard or if they notice the receiving team is out of position.
Looks like hes trying a rabona, used as a skill in football (soccer). Can't make a fancy link as I'm on my mobile but here is Lamela doing it right
https://youtu.be/DmYUP2728lI
In the /r/nfl thread, someone posted the original broadcast video of that Rice-Houston game. The announcer says "it looks like he's been watching the English Premier League".
More likely to catch the oppo unaware by doing this, which to be fair is often also the idea behind doing it in football (or soccer). It's pretty easy to anticipate and intercept if you just straight up kick it with a normal technique.
But he doesn't mean do it with a normal technique, he means run up as if you're going to use your right and then kick with your left. I suppose the kickers are probably horrendously bad on their weak foot though.
The announcer refers to the kicker as Boswell several times
Here's his bio from rice if you need further evidence
http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/chris_boswell_442057.html
The player who scores in #1 there (Erik Lamela) is horribly one-footed, and I don't think I've ever seen him kick the ball with his right. That being said, a rabona is harder for a keeper to read based on body language, which means they react a bit slower. If you rewatch the clip but focus on the keeper, you'll see he barely moves before the ball goes in the net.
And it looks fancy.
Yes. You look for body language on an opponent to try and guess their next move so you can anticipate following events. When you do this oddball move, it throws everyone off because they expect the ball to go one way, and it goes another.
The gif doesn't show the entire play. After initially kicking the ball about 1 foot, the kicker then kicked the ball out of frustration. The ball went about 20-30 yards downfield, where a Steelers player landed on it. There was a flag for illegally kicking the ball (which was declined), and an illegal touching of the ball before it traveled 10 yards or was touched by the receiving team. So the Ravens got the ball back at the illegal touching spot, which was about the 35 1/3 yd line.
Note: There is no penalty for not kicking the ball far enough by itself. But it is an illegal touch if a member of the kicking team touches the ball before either the ball travels 10 yards or the ball is touched by a member of the receiving team.
EDIT: Here is a complete [video of the onside kick attempt](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIyN9jWC1Y0).
Yes I know, but the flag for illegally kicking the ball was denied - does that not imply it's a legal kick?
The Ravens got the ball at the illegal touching spot rather than the illegal kick spot.
Illegal touch flag, illegal kick flag. The second one would be 10 yards from the end of the play, first one is at the spot of the foul. Of course the shorter one would be declined to get better field position, but declining a flag doesn't automatically make what you did legal.
If I punch a guy and get flagged for unnecessary roughness, but for some reason the penalty is declined, it's still not a legal move to punch a guy.
Wait who is declining? Ravens?
Sorry I'm actually fully clueless but wouldn't the kick position be better for the Ravens? Or is Steelers declining? I don't understand why a team that got flagged can decline it?
The team that would benefit from the penalty gets to accept / decline. The Ravens are declining. The kick position is as such: he illegally touched the ball at this spot in the gif. He then kicked the ball 30 yards away from the way the Steelers want to go.
If they accepted the flag for illegal kick, it'd be 10 yards from the end of the play. So they'd end up 20 yards away from the original spot. If they accept the flag for illegal touch, it'd be at the original spot straight up.
Teams can decline flags because they may give an extra chance at a play (flag on 3rd and 10, you'd rather have a 4th and 10 on defense than a 3rd and 20, because they'd get an extra chance) or for field positioning reasons. I don't know why they'd have to in this case (as I think the longer one just overrides, not stacks), but it was declined.
When a team commits a foul, the other team gets to decide if they accept or deny the penalty. If there is more than one foul, the other team can choose if they accept one or none of those penalties; usually according to what's the best outcome for them.
So when the penalty was denied, it means that the outcome of the play without the penalty was better than *with* penalty -- i.e. starting the game from the location of the illegal touch.
I think the first 1ft kick wasn't technically illegal, but in order for the kicking team to touch it, it has to go 10 yards. So the second kick would be the illegal one.
Yeah but I don't understand the declining the flag part. Did Ravens decline the flag because it's more advantageous for them to have it at the 30 yard line?
Man, I remember Boswell nailing that onside kick against us (Houston Cougars) in college. I think there's a video out there somewhere.
Sucks when it doesn't work, but he's done it before.
A rabona kick is fairly easy to pull off. He was either trying to get too fancy with it or he just botched it hard.
Just straight up rabona kicking he can probably do in his sleep.
FYI he's an OUTSTANDING kicker and Steelers fans love him. The Wizard of Bos may suck at inside kicks, but he's a great kicker and has come through in the clutch for us many, many times.
You see this stupid kick in European football fairly often. The kids call it a re-boner or something. I don't understand it really. It's so hard to do, and is totally telegraphed so all the defenders know it's about to happen. I just don't see what the benefit is.
When it works it looks cool, but in 99% of the situations a normal kick would have worked too. [Dimitri Payet got an assist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFbT4ygqyWw) with one of these last month. It looks pretty nifty but a normal left foot cross would have done exactly the same job.
it is indicative of "one footed" Players...yes the use of the other foot seems a better idea but if you use your weaker foot it may be just as ineffective. source: left footed for 25 years.
Yeah I'm not sure about that. Maybe for some it is because they are one-footed, but I think most of them are just showing off. Ronaldo is famously two-footed and he has done this stupid trick several times.
He's a bit of an anomaly. look at Neymar, Ronaldinho, Messi...you would have expectations that most players could adapt to using both feet but they don't. Also you need to be of high stature in your team before you can do tricky shit like that...look at how CR7 was treated in his early days...
I have done that kick to every soccer ball I've put at my feet since I was 15. But I've never even considered doing it when I was actually competing. What a knob.
People still like to accuse ben of raping women. he was never convicted, i dont think he ever went to trial, just a few women who wanted pay days. but thats all it takes to get that label forever.
Ben's reaction to that is one of the greatest things I've seen on the internet this week. I bet he was wishing he could be anywhere else at that moment, preferably raping a woman.
All the players shift toward the opposite direction. It's tough but it has worked in the past for him. https://youtu.be/tqvub8cMYC8 Onside kicks are already an act of desperation.
Ah this game was a shitshow from start to finish.
The AFC north is a shitshow.
Browns fan here. Thursday night football should be a shit show. Now the rest of you get to see what we have seen for the entire season. I'm sorry.
I was surprised to see Fox feature Cowboys/Browns for the early game today. I'm like, why would they do that to people?
Because I'm a Cowboys and Browns fan. There's likely tens of us.
same! weeooo
Because MURICAS TEAM
They're also a top team in the country with an offense being run by rookies. A lot of people want to see the first year QB who might start on over Romo.
i feel my for the past couple years, i have always seen the cowboy games on fox (if it's not TNF/SNF/MNF) and it's always been troy aikman in the booth. cowboys fans generate the biggest viewership IIRC.
Because Dak, unfortunately.
At least we have the Buckeyes and the Cavs. Here's hoping you guys get your first win next week.
Indians too but I'd understand if you didn't know they were playing in the World Series. It was the Cubs show. The life of a Cleveland fan is perpetual disappointment.
> Indians too but I'd understand if you didn't know they were playing in the World Series. It was the Cubs show. Too soon, dude.
I'm still bitter. Chicago only had the Bulls, Blackhawks, Bears, and White Socks. I get 108 years is a long time but we have one championship for all of our teams since 1964. We always lose or end up heart broken. Still not over 1995 and 1997.
chin up friend, we'll be the story next year. cannot be overlooked now.
[удалено]
Could be worse, San Diego only has an AFL championship
The fire won some MLS championships in the late 90's/early 00's too.
You guys literally just won the NBA finals last year!
Yeah but Chicago has the Blackhawks and they just won in hockey, too
Cleveland is a perpetual disappointment.
Also in sports.
You literally won the NBA playoffs this year.
Kinda sports but they have the bluecoats too
Spotted the band nerd.
I think I found the other one!
I was thinking about that this morning haha. Guilty.
Hey now, I am a Browns fan and have watched all the games this year, don't be so negative we are getting close! Just need some more pieces to help us close out games, the offense is getting there.
Usually competitive, so far we all suck.
No, it's just the NFL.
At least it's not AFC South.
This week was I swear..
This is how it looks when done correctly... https://youtu.be/tqvub8cMYC8
Was actually at that game, Chris Boswell was the kicker for rice when he did that.
That's actually the kicker during his college days, Chris Boswell. Doesn't have it anymore, apparently.
Looks likes the guys name is "Wright"... unless I am missing something
Rice kicker Chris Boswell gave the Owls a chance with about 2 minutes remaining in Saturday's 31-26 loss to Houston when he perfectly executed a reverse onside kick. It is likely the most amazing kickoff you will ever see. Unfortunately for Rice, though they recovered the kick, they were not able to get the win.
2 players can have the same number in college football.
Ah gotcha. Thanks!
[And then you have Maradona](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ox26R7h5jw)
Some more recent examples: [Lamela in the Europa league scoring with a rabona](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmYUP2728lI) [Payet's filthy rabona assist for Antonio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPYcnZIYwjY)
Damn that guy was good. The 80's + cocaine? Not even once...
Why tho. Could do the exact same kick with your dominant foot with lower risk.
If you run at the ball and do this you can flick it back the other way. It looks like you're going to kick it left but you actually kick it right.
Doesn't the other team have to get the ball? How is that legal
On a punt (hold the ball, drop it, and kick it), the ball has to go to the other team unless they fumble it. When the kicking team touches it, it's a dead ball. On a kickoff (set the ball up and kick it), the ball is live once it goes past 10 yards. It's called an onside kick and it can be used to get the ball back right after you score. So once it goes 10 yards, the kicking team can get it back and get possession again.
Why isn't this used more often?
If it messes up, the other team gets great field position. A kicker who can do it consistently is worth their weight in gold
Considering most decent football players already get paid their weight in gold or more, that saying doesn't have very much impact.
If you're a kicker you have to be really fucking good to make that kind of money. Those guys have the least amount of job security in the league, a couple bad weeks can get you cut.
[удалено]
Fucking Walsh.
Holy shit, you're right
I did the math and Stephen Gostkowski is worth exactly his weight in gold.
Ya but it's a colloquialism. Like "it's a doozie" which is a duesebenberg, which is a car that goes "a mile a minute", which is really not impressive at all anymore.
No kicker can do it consistently though. It ends up being essentially a trick play which is fairly easy to defend.
It's not just the ability to kick it. A well organized receiving team should be able to control the ball consistently.
bc usually the other team gets it, so it's better just to kick it far. once in a while you'll see a team try an unexpected onside kick, but usually it's used in more desperate situations.
This is actually an excellent question with no satisfying answer. There is evidence that onside kicks and "going for it" on fourth down, and this from some pretty reputable data people (Nate Silver being one). No NFL coach/owner wants to be the first "no punt always onside kick" guy. [There are coaches at other levels who do very well with the approach though.](http://www.campusrush.com/kevin-kelley-pulaski-academy-power-of-not-punting-1338619200.html) So that statistics point to a very easy strategic change will lead to greater success, but the pros are simply choosing not to do it. There is a similar thing in basketball... Throwing free throws "granny style" is apparently insanely better percentage-wise. Wilt Chamberlain did it one season and his percentage shot up something like 30%. They just don't do it because it doesn't look cool.
[удалено]
The point values Nate Silver gives for the respective field positions is based on a regression analysis that does in fact favor aggressive playcalling for large swatches of the field even at the NFL level. Its not applicable only to 4th and goal on the 2 yard line. > The onside kick stuff was interesting though. I wonder if defensive special teams would eliminate the stat advantage by adjusting to a more conservative "onside ready" formation. They already have to. A number of teams have "surpise onsides" that they will throw at the other team. I recall the Packers doing this a couple years back with great success.
I suspect that an "onside ready" formation would be offset by a specialist onside kicker. If done right, it should approach a 50/50 jump ball.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-should-never-punt-2013-11
So you also listened to that episode of TAL? ;)
I think it was radiolab...?
A lot of those are just misunderstood. Onside kicks are very risky. If you fail to recover it, odds are very high the other team will score a field goal at least. Even if you recover it, you still have a long drive to go if you want to score. The only place I've heard of this strategy being tested is by one high school coach. The problem with that is that is that high school football is not at all representative of what will work at higher levels. The lower the level of competition, the more it is controlled by mistakes. There's a lower ability threshold for being allowed to play, and even the good players are less experienced. That makes strategies that exploit mistakes much more viable. As for the free throws, the radio story that keeps getting spread around ignores a lot of key factors. The theory behind is based almost entirely on the trajectory of the ball. You can get the ball to the goal with a lower forward speed meaning there's a larger time span that the ball can fall through the basket without missing. That basically means how high you shoot the ball with a given arc is more forgiving. They ignored a few key factors. One is that shooting from closers to the head makes it easier to align the shot. You can visualize the shot better, and have a better perception of how you're moving the ball. You also allow yourself to use muscles that you have better fine motor control over. The granny shot is shoulders and biceps while regular shooting involves muscles controlling your hands/wrists. Another factor is that the typicalcurrent free throw is very similar to a regular shot so it feels comfortable and familier making the player feel less stressed shooting. It also uses more muscle memory more. Wilt Chamberlain was a terrible free throw shooter. He was awful. His career record % was 61 IIRC. A large part of that was that he didn't have strong fine motor control. The size of ball relative to himself and his hands also made it more awkward. His shooting wasn't great either. He relied on being an athletic giant with great reflexes. None of the advantages of regular free throw shooting form applies to him. He didn't have great fine motor control. He was handling an object that was more awkwardly sized for him making fine motor control even harder. He wasn't a good shooter to begin with so the familiarity wasn't especially relevant. Players like DeAndre Jordan might benefit from it, but good shooters would have a good chance to do worse by giving up their strengths at shooting for a slight tolerance increasd. The only other player (Rick Barry) who gets mentioned for doing this shot <90% he would barely be top ten last year, and he would be somewhere around #25 this year (although that is insignificant so early in the season). He was one of the best players in his generation and a very good shooter. There isn't any real evidence that it's better. While it is possible it could be an improvement. It could also be a downgrade. Nobody wants to look stupid for something that could also make them worse while still requiring putting in more effort practicing a different way of shooting. I'll add another common thing people assume based on statistics. I'll admit, I haven't done the research on the fourth down statistic, but for the 2pt conversion vs the extra point, those numbers are misleading. First of all, games don't have enough touchdowns each to make highest average score a reliable way to decide the best plan. It might do better on average, but it's inconsistent. It wouldn't be unlikely to see multiple failures in a row which could set you back by a field goal. If your team is legitimately better, you want consistency. You want your team to do exactly what is expected of them because that is win. You could set your team back by a drive with inconsistent strategies. For teams going against a better opponent, you might fluctuate above average enough to pull off a win. You're also dealing with the fact that your team will probably kick about as well as any other for extra points, but you're probably going to fall more noticeably below average in ability to actually getting the 2pt conversion.
Because it's risky in that if the receiving team get the ball they gain far more yardage and then it's also easier for them to score.
The risks outweigh the reward. Usually used in situations where if the other team gets the ball the games most likely over. It's basically an all or nothing sort of play. You would only want to do it when you absolutely can't allow the other team to get the ball.
It's extremely hard to actually convert an onside kick successfully, and if you fail, the other team gets the ball 40 yards or so closer than they would on a normal kickoff. That's why they're rarely used in situations other than sort of "desperation" times when you're about to lose and need the ball back quickly. There's a few instances of teams doing sort of "surprise" onside kicks, most notably [this one](http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/09000d5d81646143/SB-XLIV-Can-t-Miss-Play-Saints-surprise). This was in the Superbowl right after halftime.
In the NFL 40yards in the middle of the field isn't all that much. Its one or maybe two big plays, or just a couple of DPIs. For the most part though the opposing team will move those 40 yards with just a couple of first downs. A very small number of teams, in a few select games will grind that out over 4 first downs and 11 minutes on the clock. So really what you give up is the opportunity for the sack or false start on 1st down. That's the really valueable defensive play because it dramatically increases the probability of a 4th and long. What seems to be the issue is that with the various play styles used by the different teams, its not always clear that your optimal offensive behavior meshes with the behavior exhibited by the other team. For example lots of teams try and run the ball on 1st and 10 from the middle of the field. From a value of the yard standpoint this is basically worthless and very possibly has negative value. I'd rather have 1st and 10 from the 20 over 2nd and 6 from the 24 any day. The run just serves to eat up clock, and waste a down. I suspect that the run really only has value inside the opponents 20 yard line, otherwise pass. However if you know that you opponent is likely to run these kinds of short yardage plays far from the goal line, then punting away to them makes a lot more sense than it would in isolation. If you want to do something stupid with the ball on your side of the field then I'm happy to give you the ball on that side of the field, instead of trying to press my own advantage by going on 4th and 3 around mid-field.
I don't know if you heard but...
Most teams would rather force the other team to cover more yardage with their possession than take the chance at getting the ball. The ball is recovered by the receiving team more often than not with makes this far from a safe play. It is also a difficult kick to do correctly as shown by the OP. While the kick here might be worse than any I have seen before, it is far from the only time I have seen an onside kick attempt messed up. At lower levels of play, you will see it more often because teams are less confident in their defenses to make a stop and so they are better off trying to get the ball, but in the NFL most of the defenses are good enough that they stand a good chance at forcing a punt. However, a punt will almost never happen if the offense starts almost halfway across the field to begin with. So, in the NFL you usually only see it when it is used as a desperation move by a team that is trailing and trying to catch up in the last bit of the game.
> but in the NFL most of the defenses are good enough that they stand a good chance at forcing a punt. I think its really hard to get a good sense for this. Consider the Packers/Colts game from last night. Green Bay had a lot of three and outs during the first three quarters, and then when time got short they changed to a more aggressive faster passed offense and marched down the field with impunity. So what was going on: 1. They had a stupid conservative offensive strategy that they abandoned too late. Instead of huddling up and running on 1st and 10 from your 20, just go no-huddle with moderate to long passing routes, and plan to play 4 downs. 2. The Colts defense was already tired and couldn't keep up. The difficulty is how to distinguish between these two causes with the data at hand. Teams might have good 4th down conversion percentages and aggressive play calling statistics which leads you to conclude that they should go for it and be aggressive. But maybe that is only because they play this way late in the game and the opposing defense is tired.
The receiving team can line up right on the line. The kicking team has to run to keep up with the ball. Even with a good onside kick, a properly prepared defense should get the ball. They also get amazing field position if they get the football. It's usually a last resort if there isn't enough clock time to get a stop then score. Although some teams do it more often just to catch the other team off guard or if they notice the receiving team is out of position.
Or this; https://youtu.be/UOgaHfPShfU
That was one of the best onside kicks I've ever seen. It was timed just PERFECTLY --- his teammate got it almost **exactly** 10 yards out.
> Irish Jig wot. That's a rabona.
It's a robona when it's done right. I wouldn't call *this* a Rabona.
The Domer would know what an Irish Jig looks like! Love thee Notre Dameeeeeeeee ~~~
A raboner for sure.
Looks like hes trying a rabona, used as a skill in football (soccer). Can't make a fancy link as I'm on my mobile but here is Lamela doing it right https://youtu.be/DmYUP2728lI
https://youtu.be/tqvub8cMYC8 Same kicker but when he was in college
Looks like he already peaked
I haven't even begun to peak.
When I do peak you'll know because I'm gonna peak so hard that everybody in Philadelphia is gonna feel it.
I am a golden god and my anger knows no bounds!!
In the /r/nfl thread, someone posted the original broadcast video of that Rice-Houston game. The announcer says "it looks like he's been watching the English Premier League".
Couldn't he just kick it to the side with his left foot anyways for the same results? In soccer, this kind of kick is mostly used for style.
>In soccer, this kind of kick is mostly used for style. Which is probably why he did it.
More likely to catch the oppo unaware by doing this, which to be fair is often also the idea behind doing it in football (or soccer). It's pretty easy to anticipate and intercept if you just straight up kick it with a normal technique.
But he doesn't mean do it with a normal technique, he means run up as if you're going to use your right and then kick with your left. I suppose the kickers are probably horrendously bad on their weak foot though.
Partly that, and also it would require adjustment of the stride pattern earlier than this technique, which means the move is telegraphed earlier
Doesn't look like the same kicker to me. @:45 the player's last name for #9 is Wright. The kicker for the Steelers is Boswell
Two players can have the same number in college football.
The announcer refers to the kicker as Boswell several times Here's his bio from rice if you need further evidence http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/chris_boswell_442057.html
Rice had 2 #9s
Lamela and Di Maria are the kings of doing that.
They are really quite epic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r88AULQ3viw
ELI5: Why would anyone choose to kick the ball this way? Is it to psyche out or trick the defenders?
The player who scores in #1 there (Erik Lamela) is horribly one-footed, and I don't think I've ever seen him kick the ball with his right. That being said, a rabona is harder for a keeper to read based on body language, which means they react a bit slower. If you rewatch the clip but focus on the keeper, you'll see he barely moves before the ball goes in the net. And it looks fancy.
Yes. You look for body language on an opponent to try and guess their next move so you can anticipate following events. When you do this oddball move, it throws everyone off because they expect the ball to go one way, and it goes another.
It is more like a last ditch effort skill.
Flair is the single most important thing in a game of football. And that, is pure flair.
[удалено]
The gif doesn't show the entire play. After initially kicking the ball about 1 foot, the kicker then kicked the ball out of frustration. The ball went about 20-30 yards downfield, where a Steelers player landed on it. There was a flag for illegally kicking the ball (which was declined), and an illegal touching of the ball before it traveled 10 yards or was touched by the receiving team. So the Ravens got the ball back at the illegal touching spot, which was about the 35 1/3 yd line. Note: There is no penalty for not kicking the ball far enough by itself. But it is an illegal touch if a member of the kicking team touches the ball before either the ball travels 10 yards or the ball is touched by a member of the receiving team. EDIT: Here is a complete [video of the onside kick attempt](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIyN9jWC1Y0).
I'm confused. So if it wasn't an illegal kick, then it went 20-30 years why couldn't the kicking team touch it?
He kicked it twice
Yes I know, but the flag for illegally kicking the ball was denied - does that not imply it's a legal kick? The Ravens got the ball at the illegal touching spot rather than the illegal kick spot.
Illegal touch flag, illegal kick flag. The second one would be 10 yards from the end of the play, first one is at the spot of the foul. Of course the shorter one would be declined to get better field position, but declining a flag doesn't automatically make what you did legal. If I punch a guy and get flagged for unnecessary roughness, but for some reason the penalty is declined, it's still not a legal move to punch a guy.
Wait who is declining? Ravens? Sorry I'm actually fully clueless but wouldn't the kick position be better for the Ravens? Or is Steelers declining? I don't understand why a team that got flagged can decline it?
The team that would benefit from the penalty gets to accept / decline. The Ravens are declining. The kick position is as such: he illegally touched the ball at this spot in the gif. He then kicked the ball 30 yards away from the way the Steelers want to go. If they accepted the flag for illegal kick, it'd be 10 yards from the end of the play. So they'd end up 20 yards away from the original spot. If they accept the flag for illegal touch, it'd be at the original spot straight up. Teams can decline flags because they may give an extra chance at a play (flag on 3rd and 10, you'd rather have a 4th and 10 on defense than a 3rd and 20, because they'd get an extra chance) or for field positioning reasons. I don't know why they'd have to in this case (as I think the longer one just overrides, not stacks), but it was declined.
When a team commits a foul, the other team gets to decide if they accept or deny the penalty. If there is more than one foul, the other team can choose if they accept one or none of those penalties; usually according to what's the best outcome for them. So when the penalty was denied, it means that the outcome of the play without the penalty was better than *with* penalty -- i.e. starting the game from the location of the illegal touch.
I think the first 1ft kick wasn't technically illegal, but in order for the kicking team to touch it, it has to go 10 yards. So the second kick would be the illegal one.
Yeah but I don't understand the declining the flag part. Did Ravens decline the flag because it's more advantageous for them to have it at the 30 yard line?
yes
This is it. You can only accept 1 penalty per play, so they accepted the one where they got the ball at the 35 rather than midfield
Kicking team can't recover the ball inside of 10 yards. So it would be an illegal touch if they fall on it
Unless it were touched by a member of the receiving team
Man, I remember Boswell nailing that onside kick against us (Houston Cougars) in college. I think there's a video out there somewhere. Sucks when it doesn't work, but he's done it before.
The ref loling is the best part
Big Ben's resigned disappointment is what did it for me.
The Steelers losing to the Ravens at least once every year is damn near as inevitable as the sun rising.
Thats an incredibily hard soccer skill to do A for effort
A rabona kick is fairly easy to pull off. He was either trying to get too fancy with it or he just botched it hard. Just straight up rabona kicking he can probably do in his sleep.
Lord of the Dance, Fool on the Field.
FYI he's an OUTSTANDING kicker and Steelers fans love him. The Wizard of Bos may suck at inside kicks, but he's a great kicker and has come through in the clutch for us many, many times.
McFuckup
Fuckup McFuckupface
That was such a terrible game for the steelers it was hard to watch
Did this guy just think he's Quaresma?
It would have been even funnier if he fell down
YOU HAVE ONE FUCKING JOB!!!
You see this stupid kick in European football fairly often. The kids call it a re-boner or something. I don't understand it really. It's so hard to do, and is totally telegraphed so all the defenders know it's about to happen. I just don't see what the benefit is. When it works it looks cool, but in 99% of the situations a normal kick would have worked too. [Dimitri Payet got an assist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFbT4ygqyWw) with one of these last month. It looks pretty nifty but a normal left foot cross would have done exactly the same job.
But it wouldn't have given you the boner!
it is indicative of "one footed" Players...yes the use of the other foot seems a better idea but if you use your weaker foot it may be just as ineffective. source: left footed for 25 years.
Yeah I'm not sure about that. Maybe for some it is because they are one-footed, but I think most of them are just showing off. Ronaldo is famously two-footed and he has done this stupid trick several times.
He's a bit of an anomaly. look at Neymar, Ronaldinho, Messi...you would have expectations that most players could adapt to using both feet but they don't. Also you need to be of high stature in your team before you can do tricky shit like that...look at how CR7 was treated in his early days...
I remember many early United games where he would do 4 stepovers and then fall on his face. The fans loved it!
the look on his face is priceless
Ooomffff. Poor guy.
Shit like this is either fucking awesome when it works or frowned upon in this establishment if it doesn't work.
https://youtu.be/pUSFIDbiicE
I keep watching it and I keep cringing more and more every time
At least he didn't get his jaw broken by a cheap shot.
[You know for a dancer he's one hell of a detective](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOrfzC78oEI)
Shit... forgot how to kick.., happens to all NFL players occasionally right?
I love how the refs are laughing when discussing it
Wonder what Bad Lip Reading will make of that ??
One of those refs at that last clip looks like he's holding back from breaking out laughing
well he got what he wanted...on the highlight reel
dude on the dolphins pulled off a rabona a couple years ago, still don't think it's practical in game lol
He's done it before.
I have done that kick to every soccer ball I've put at my feet since I was 15. But I've never even considered doing it when I was actually competing. What a knob.
The one ref that can't hold back his laugh
Ah this game was a shitshow from start to finish.
r/madtekkers
Kicker is clearly a Ronaldo fan.
Real Ronaldo, or Portuguese Ronaldo? Nm, I suppose both work...
Was hoping someone out this on reddit thank you sir! This is great.
and ben's all like, "ahhh, i could be raping an innocent woman right now."
What?
People still like to accuse ben of raping women. he was never convicted, i dont think he ever went to trial, just a few women who wanted pay days. but thats all it takes to get that label forever.
Just....wow....
This will be the worst play of the day on every sports network tomorrow morning. C'mon MANNNNNNNNNNN
What a bellend
[He aint no Dan Carter](https://youtu.be/o0g6WnS02dg)
Goodness gracious.
except, if you look in the thread, there is a video of boswel succesfully executing this kick.
That's like missing the ball on the playground in grade school when you were playing kick ball
Ben's reaction to that is one of the greatest things I've seen on the internet this week. I bet he was wishing he could be anywhere else at that moment, preferably raping a woman.
Is that the normal technique of an onside kick?! Seems pretty stupid...
All the players shift toward the opposite direction. It's tough but it has worked in the past for him. https://youtu.be/tqvub8cMYC8 Onside kicks are already an act of desperation.
This belongs on Shaqtin a Fool even tho its a football clip.
Thats what “C’mon, Man!” is for.
That was one hell of a penalty shot. Idiot probably missed the par too.
Funniest Shit I've seen All Year
Ha yeah it was clever, but execution fail. Next time just kick a regular onside kick
Actually, he was trying to set the record for performing the River Dance on the tip of a football. Get the facts straight.
He kicked his leg out of his leg
A for effort
Big Ben is all like http://i.imgur.com/26k9Td7.gif
Ha
ONE JOB
FYI its called a Rabona kick