First Call: A subtle reason why the NFL's 4th-and-15 onside kick alternative failed to pass

For our final “First Call” before vacation, we look at that dippy NFL proposal to have a fourth-and-15 alternative for an onside kick.

Owners decided to table the proposal after an initial show of hands revealed a split 16-16 vote, according to Mike Garafolo of the NFL Network.

In the end, I’m glad this happened. I’ve wobbled on this idea. I hated it at first. Warmed to it. Now I’ve decided it’s best to put it on the shelf.

In case you missed the discussion, the NFL was considering an alternative to onside kicks. Teams could declare that — instead of kicking off — they’d take a one-play, do-or-die shot at gaining 15 yards to maintain possession.

Otherwise, the ball is turned over where the play is dead.

The onside kick used to be a way to extend games and keep the tension of close contests going longer. But rules changes in the name of player safety have made them almost impossible to recover.

Michael Lopez, data and analytics expert for the NFL, claims teams are 0-for-104 the last two years when attempting an expected onside kick.

So instead this gimmicky rule was introduced. That’s not my phrase. That’s Art Rooney II’s, via the Trib’s Joe Rutter.

“I would say we’re open to thinking about whether there’s something we can do with the kickoff in a more traditional setting that might allow onside kicks to have a better chance of happening,” Rooney said. “But this one was just a little bit too much of a gimmick. Coach (Mike) Tomlin and I just didn’t like the idea.”

I can’t speak for Tomlin and Rooney when it comes to figuring out what specifically they didn’t like. Personally, what I didn’t like was that it felt too much like the NBA timeout rule. The one that allows the ball to be advanced to half court in the last two minutes of the game.

It’s a break in the space-time continuum. Why is that allowed?

Similarly with this NFL suggestion, why change the rules so dramatically when the game is the most on the line? You play offense. You score. You kick. Then you play defense.

Now, at least twice a game, you have the option of offense, more offense, then defense.

I have a problem with that fundamental break in logic. And, apparently, some of the owners did, too. Some of the owners seem to feel that the already-disappearing kickoff would become even more marginalized with this new rule in place.

Yeah. No kidding.

I’m also on board with another concern about the proposal, And this is one I previously hadn’t considered until I saw it broached on ProFootballTalk.com after the proposal was put on ice.

“If the kicking team recovers an onside kick, it cannot advance it beyond the spot of the recovery. The fourth-and-15 alternative, as a scrimmage play, would not be limited to the line to gain or the spot of the catch or anything other than where the play ends — up to and including a touchdown.

As the source explained it, some believe it doesn’t ‘feel right’ to permit the team that needs only 15 yards in order to keep possession attempt to gain considerably more than that.”

That’s a great point. All the onside kick did was give you a chance to retain possession. This rule gives the offense a chance to score — or at least gain major yards — in a scenario that didn’t previously exist.

You can’t advance a muffed punt either, by the way. That’s kind of the same thing on special teams. So why now — magically — does that element of giving the ball away suddenly get put on hold?

I’ve got a problem with that. A big one.

The easiest thing to do would be to loosen the restrictions on onside kicks. But in the bubble-wrap world in which we all live now, good luck with that. I won’t bet on that.

And, let’s be honest. With all the offense-friendly rules of the day, if you are so far out of it that you need a hokey rule like this to come back in a game, maybe you don’t deserve the boost anyway.