I don't really need to look it up because kickoffs out of bounds happen fairly regularly and I know the rule from watching games, but since you insist:

Either way they'd get it at their own 25, so there isn't even that big a difference between that and a touchback.

No, they get the ball 25 yards from where the kick was. 25 yards from the 35 is the 40.

Why is this so hard? Am I in crazy town or something? I really can't believe you guys don't know where the ball goes after a kickoff out of bounds, it happens all the damn time. This isn't an obscure rule.

We are talking about if the other team gets a penalty and they are kicking off from the 50.

ahhhhhh, now I see what you are saying.

Something about the NFL rulebook, every time you delve into it is a chance to loose you mind in arcane language. Its a real mind**** of document.

Carry on.

For that matter. If a team got two personal fouls, wouldn't kicking it straight OOB > than a touchback.

Theoretically, yes. Obviously onside kick >>>>>> than both.

I only remember it happening once and New England ahead so much with so little time that even Belichick wasn't going to go for the onside kick.

so okay, they changed it to 25 yards. yeah, like i was saying, definitely kick the ball towards a sideline at a player standing around his own ten yard line.

Minnesota should have went for 2 there, down 24-6, to try and make it a 2 possession game.

They really should onside it there every time except if it's late and the other team has no TOs or something.

On ATH they talked about the Mike White decision. Basically Calishaw and Paige get it, Bomani Jones doesn't, and Bill Plashke might be the stupidest human being alive who's not in a group home somewhere.

Calishaw even said that going for it gave the Falcons a 9% chance to win, and Plashke mocked him saying "oooooh 9%". Like "Yeah but how much more chance did it give you to lose?" Or 9% just isn't enough to cover the risk. Or something. I can't even fathom what was going through his mind other than air and tumbleweeds. I'm still in shock that anyone could be that dumb.

Plaschke's argument was that going for it sends the message to your defence that you don't trust them and it's humiliating for them and that sending this message causes more harm than any disadvantage you get from punting. This argument has the advantage of being impossible to disprove. However it's clearly ******ed as you could equally argue that punting sends that message to your offence.

Saying it means a 9% greater chance to win is a bit ******ed imo as that's just an estimate and it's impossible to know. I think that's the main reason it was getting mocked.

to be fair with that tardo playcall it was dumb, pretty hard for lol media ppl to contemplate going for it and running a different play

BTW the aversion to going for it in these spots is a known cognitive bias called the Zero-risk bias. People generally prefer complete elimination of one risk over simple reduction of a second, even when the simple reduction gets rid of more risk than the elimination. In this case, punting completely eliminates one risk (that of losing straightaway because you don't get the first down), while going for it reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk that you will lose due to a game-winning Saints drive. In the mind of people who aren't EV nerds, elimination > reduction, it's that simple.

Disagree. So many things need to go right for them to get to 24-24. Especially vs. one of the best offenses in football.

Yes Chris but EV nerds are correct and these guys get paid millions

That's what's so wild and LoL about it all

Ok if that's why he was mocking the 9%, then I'll bump him up to just standard dumb.

those calling for a qb sneak. What if Matt Ryan breaks his foot like matt schaub?

This is why teams need a QB sneak specialist
A ***** huge guy that can has qb experience
Can throw well to open receivers and take a snap/fall forward

Then that sucks? But with a big divisional game on the line, you can't be playcalling based on fear that your QB might get injured.

You could even throw your backup QB on for the sneak.

Both of these comments are being absurdly myopic and inflating the importance of a very minor issue.

Ya you are right , I have just been trying to make that point lately and guess I got carried away cus of watching saints struggle on short yardage , qb injury is not a major benefitnof mynpoint

Listening to the media talk about the Falcons going for it has been one of the more painful things in recent memory. They are making so many god damn cognitive errors when discussing it. The main ones being that that slow-developing handoff was the only option (b/c that's what was called), and that the subsequent 40+ yard field goal was 100% to be good. Also that there was virtually "no gain" by converting. YOU STILL HAD TO GO A BUNCH OF YARDS I MEAN YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST FORFEIT.

I don't have a problem with punting there or going for it. Pick your poison. I do kind of hate the "you're telling your defense they suck" argument. That's being disingenuous b/c it's Drew Brees and the Saints you are trying to stop. Being afraid of having to stop them doesn't mean you think your D sucks it means you are a fairly reasonable ****ing person whose head isn't in his ass. And when people talk about the "negative" message it sends your defense, why don't they give fair time and talk about the "positive" message it sends your offense? "I trust our offense to gain 2 feet" doesn't have to mean "I don't trust our defense to hold them to fewer than 50 yards". There's something to be said with living or dying with the ball in your hands.

How about a pass a la the 1996 Big XII championship game between Texas and Nebraska? If you forgot about this game or never knew about it, Texas went for it on 4th and 1 from their own 28 near the end of the game. The QB rolled out left and threw a pass to a very wide open receiver behind the last Nebraska defender that went for a huge gain, resulting in a win.



I had forgotten that Brent Musburger even says "no question what's about to happen" before the play, which I take to mean a run up the middle. Everyone in the stadium knows that you don't do anything other than run up the middle. Right?

There's gotta be some game-theoretic value in instilling the thought in your opponents that you are capable of a pass on 4th and short, increasing your success rate on the times that you run.

On 4th and inches, pure QB sneak strategy is still probably what I would do in practice based on available information. For 4th and short but not inches, I'd have to look a little deeper into it to develop my strategy.

Putting ur defense on the field vs the packers, waste of time and energy