NFL bans the Ravens drop kick used against Chiefs

[Deberg_1990]

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2019/10/10/nfl-bans-ravens-crazy-kickoff-dropkick-after-watching-justin-tucker-use-it-just-one-time/


— After having Justin Tucker experiment with a new type of kickoff earlier this year, the Ravens won’t be allowed to utilize their new kick anymore, and that’s because it has now been deemed illegal by the NFL.
Ravens coach John Harbaugh raised some eyebrows back in Week 3 when he sent Tucker out in a clear onside kick situation during Baltimore’s game against Kansas City. With 2:01 left to play, and the Ravens trailing 33-28, the Chiefs thought an onside kick was coming, but instead, Tucker hit them with a surprise dropkick.

It was a smart strategy, but you won’t be seeing it ever again, and that’s because the NFL has banned it. In a recent interview, Harbaugh explained that the league office let him know that the Ravens will no longer be allowed to use the kick, even though the team had been cleared to use it against the Chiefs.
“We talked to [the league office], we explained exactly what we were doing and how it was going to go, and they said it was legal, we could do it,” Harbaugh said, via the Ravens’ Twitter account. “We talked to the officials before the game. They called the league office, again. They had been in contact with the league office, the officiating office, and they said it was legal.”

[eDave]

It sure didn't look legal.

[-King-]

The kick itself is still legal. How ticket did was illegal. He's not supposed to let the ball bounce two feet off the ground before he kicks it. It's supposed to be almost immediately after it touches the ground.

[Deberg_1990]

The NFL says the drop kick the Ravens used late in their loss to the Chiefs two weeks ago was illegal. Ravens head coach John Harbaugh says he was specifically told otherwise.
The kick, which wasn’t flagged, was a late kickoff attempt on which Justin Tucker bounced the ball off the ground and then kicked it high, like a punt. The Chiefs fair caught it, which was advantageous to the Ravens because a fair catch doesn’t take any time off the clock, and the Ravens were trying to force the Chiefs to run an offensive play before the two-minute warning.
However, the NFL confirmed this week that the kick was illegal.
“By definition, a drop kick is a kick by a player who drops the ball and kicks it as, or immediately after, it touches the ground. If that does not happen, the play should be shut down and a flag thrown for a false start,” the league office said in a statement emailed to PFT.
Harbaugh, however, says the Ravens contacted the league as they were drawing up that play to make sure it was legal, and he was told that it was.
“We were in contact with the league officiating office all the way through,” Harbaugh said, via the Baltimore Sun. “We didn’t just pull it out and decide to try it and sneak it past them.”
Harbaugh accused the league of changing the rule after the fact.
“We explained exactly what we were doing and how it was going to go, and they said it was legal, we could do it,” Harbaugh said. “We talked to the officials before the game. They called the league office again. They had been in contact with the league office, the officiating office, and they said it was legal. Probably, the competition committee decided they didn’t want to see it, someone on the competition committee — probably the chairman [Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay] — decided with [senior vice president of officiating] Alberto [Riveron] he didn’t want to see it. So now, it’s not legal. So, that’s pretty much how it works and how it worked in this case.”
That’s not how it should work: The rules should be clear to every team, and the message from the officiating office shouldn’t change during the season. In this case, the rules have been clarified now, but the league says the Ravens got away with a kick that should have been penalized, while the Ravens say the league has changed its story.


https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/10/04/nfl-says-ravens-drop-kick-was-illegal-john-harbaugh-says-refs-cleared-it/

[scho63]

Hardman called a fair catch so he was NOT supposed to be touched or hit by anyone.

[Ecto-I]

I think that the NFL should make the onside kick EASIER. It would make the game so much more exciting! What if the kicking team recovered 33% of onside kicks were recovered by the kicking team? We'd see a lot more of them and the game would be a bit more unpredictable....and we'd probably have a better chance of winning if we attempted one every time :ROFL:

[Mecca]

It's illegal for this reason....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Drop Kick “Sky/Onside Kick” from Oregon State <a href="https://t.co/0Ss5VRBaCN">pic.twitter.com/0Ss5VRBaCN</a></p>&mdash; Coach Dan Casey (@CoachDanCasey) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoachDanCasey/status/1180987765980303367?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

By skying the kick he basically makes it an old onside kick where they can run and collide before the ball lands...NFL does not want it at all.

[chiefzilla1501]

I'm more wondering why the first kick attempt wasn't illegal. He touched the ball with his foot. You shouldn't be allowed to do that twice.

[Mecca]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mul9bq-zp1c" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Also this high school team is better at onside kicking than NFL teams are.

[Rain Man]

It sure didn't look legal.

Especially when he tried it twice.

[New World Order]

It's illegal for this reason....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Drop Kick “Sky/Onside Kick” from Oregon State <a href="https://t.co/0Ss5VRBaCN">pic.twitter.com/0Ss5VRBaCN</a></p>&mdash; Coach Dan Casey (@CoachDanCasey) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoachDanCasey/status/1180987765980303367?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

By skying the kick he basically makes it an old onside kick where they can run and collide before the ball lands...NFL does not want it at all.

Surprised Ravens just didn't do that every time then.

[Rain Man]

I think that the NFL should make the onside kick EASIER. It would make the game so much more exciting! What if the kicking team recovered 33% of onside kicks were recovered by the kicking team? We'd see a lot more of them and the game would be a bit more unpredictable....and we'd probably have a better chance of winning if we attempted one every time :ROFL:

I've thought this as well. It's a very unique play that has a lot of repercussions for both teams. There's no other play in football where you intentionally create a live ball that's in nobody's immediate possession.

[Mecca]

The new rules make recovering one impossible......just give the team the ball 4th and 15.

[Rain Man]

Surprised Ravens just didn't do that every time then.

I may simply not have the physics right, but when you look at the range of modern kickers, I've wondered why they don't kick the ball as high as possible with the goal of landing it around the 20 or 25. It seems like the kicking team could get down there to cover it or create havoc with a live ball situation, and a touchback would bring it to the 25 anyway.

[Mecca]

I may simply not have the physics right, but when you look at the range of modern kickers, I've wondered why they don't kick the ball as high as possible with the goal of landing it around the 20 or 25. It seems like the kicking team could get down there to cover it or create havoc with a live ball situation, and a touchback would bring it to the 25 anyway.

Probably the fair catch thing....which personally I think they should get rid of a fair catch for a kickoff if they are going to leave this onside rules.

[RealSNR]

I think that the NFL should make the onside kick EASIER. It would make the game so much more exciting! What if the kicking team recovered 33% of onside kicks were recovered by the kicking team? We'd see a lot more of them and the game would be a bit more unpredictable....and we'd probably have a better chance of winning if we attempted one every time :ROFL:

You mean you want to make it more difficult for the Chiefs to beat teams because their defense will have more opportunities to get hung out to dry late in games?

WTF is wrong with you?

[tyecopeland]

Especially when he tried it twice.

Also thought it needed to be a false start penalty/ onside

[Frosty]

It's illegal for this reason....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Drop Kick “Sky/Onside Kick” from Oregon State <a href="https://t.co/0Ss5VRBaCN">pic.twitter.com/0Ss5VRBaCN</a></p>&mdash; Coach Dan Casey (@CoachDanCasey) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoachDanCasey/status/1180987765980303367?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

By skying the kick he basically makes it an old onside kick where they can run and collide before the ball lands...NFL does not want it at all.

I see zero issues with that play. :D

[DaFace]

They didn't "ban" it - it was already illegal. They just clarified the rule.

[ghak99]

I wouldn't want to be a receiving team member getting plowed while watching the sky, but they might as well remove the onside kick attempt all together.

Especially since our couch doesn't know how to keep his foot on the gas, can't manage a clock, and our defense sucks donkey balls.

[ModSocks]

I wouldn't want to be a receiving team member getting plowed

LMAO

[ghak99]

LMAO


NTTAWWT!

[Megatron96]

The league has been trying to legislate the onside kick out of existence for awhile now. Supposedly for safety reasons.

[Lzen]

I'm more wondering why the first kick attempt wasn't illegal. He touched the ball with his foot. You shouldn't be allowed to do that twice.

This. There were a few things wrong with that. The officials appeared to just ignore everything on that play.

[chiefzilla1501]

Wow, just read an article with a different angle I hadn't thought of. Did the ravens dropkick it to get an onsides recovery? Or did they do it to get an extra timeout on the 2 minute warning. I think it was for the extra timeout.

[DaFace]

Wow, just read an article with a different angle I hadn't thought of. Did the ravens dropkick it to get an onsides recovery? Or did they do it to get an extra timeout on the 2 minute warning. I think it was for the extra timeout.

It worked out that way, but I'm 99% sure I read a quote from Harbaugh who said they were trying to recover it.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Good, now let's ban your dumbass threads

[eDave]

Good, now let's ban your dumbass threads

This is a quality thread dude.

[-King-]

It worked out that way, but I'm 99% sure I read a quote from Harbaugh who said they were trying to recover it.

I mean sure. Best case they recover it, worse case, it forces a fair catch and no time off the clock

[chiefzilla1501]

I mean sure. Best case they recover it, worse case, it forces a fair catch and no time off the clock

Pretty interesting scenario since I think there was 2:01 when the ravens punted.

[Megatron96]

I think they should allow that drop kick.

As it stands, there's almost no way to set up an on-sides kick that is recoverable by the kicking team. If they're going to legislate it that way, they might as well just get rid of the on-sides kick and figure out some way to just give the kicking team the ball on some arbitrary spot on the field. Which isn't football, IMO.

At least with this funky-looking drop kick thing, the kicking team has a chance at recovering the ball.

[DaFace]

I think they should allow that drop kick.

As it stands, there's almost no way to set up an on-sides kick that is recoverable by the kicking team. If they're going to legislate it that way, they might as well just get rid of the on-sides kick and figure out some way to just give the kicking team the ball on some arbitrary spot on the field. Which isn't football, IMO.

At least with this funky-looking drop kick thing, the kicking team has a chance at recovering the ball.

I don't mind it in concept, but in practice I'm afraid it would swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. If you have a kicker who can pop the ball up 100 feet in the air and have it land 15 yards downfield, that practically turns it into a 50/50 ball. Teams would just start doing it to the Chiefs every time.

[-King-]

I think they should allow that drop kick.

As it stands, there's almost no way to set up an on-sides kick that is recoverable by the kicking team. If they're going to legislate it that way, they might as well just get rid of the on-sides kick and figure out some way to just give the kicking team the ball on some arbitrary spot on the field. Which isn't football, IMO.

At least with this funky-looking drop kick thing, the kicking team has a chance at recovering the ball.

The drop kick is still allowed. You just can't let it bounce 2 feet into the air like Tucker did. For example...this is still legal

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9_5sQY_Edi0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[J Diddy]

I wouldn't want to be a receiving team member getting plowed while watching the sky, but they might as well remove the onside kick attempt all together.

Especially since our couch doesn't know how to keep his foot on the gas, can't manage a clock, and our defense sucks donkey balls.

To be fair, what couch does? I mean, mine just lays there all the time. Sometimes I even bone the mrs diddy on it and it doesn’t say a word.

[Megatron96]

The drop kick is still allowed. You just can't let it bounce 2 feet into the air like Tucker did. For example...this is still legal

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9_5sQY_Edi0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


The fact that it's allowed isn't the issue. The issue is that as scripted in the video, the kicking team has no chance at a recovery. The whole point of an on-sides kick is to give the kicking team a chance to recover the ball. The rules now just don't give the kicking team that opportunity.

[-King-]

The fact that it's allowed isn't the issue. The issue is that as scripted in the video, the kicking team has no chance at a recovery. The whole point of an on-sides kick is to give the kicking team a chance to recover the ball. The rules now just don't give the kicking team that opportunity.

I agree. But the legality of illegality of the dropkick doesn't change that though. The reason onside kicks are harder now is because teams can longer get a running start before the kick.

[Megatron96]

I agree. But the legality of illegality of the dropkick doesn't change that though. The reason onside kicks are harder now is because teams can longer get a running start before the kick.

I concur. And I honestly don't know how the NFL should fix the problem. But the fact remains that the onside kick as it's officiated right now is a joke; you can't recover the ball. They need to fix it somehow, or just arbitrarily give the ball to the kicking team on some line and good luck.

But that's the least "football" way of doing it that I can think of.

[JakeF]

The league has been trying to legislate the onside kick out of existence for awhile now. Supposedly for safety reasons.Supposedly?

What other reason would they have for getting rid of it? The NFL wants exciting games, violent hits, and big plays. The problem is those things lead to injuries and those injuries cost the league money.

If retired NFL players hadn't sued the NFL for billions because of brain damage these rule changes don't happen. The NFL probably still makes rules to protect QB's but the rest don't happen.

[Megatron96]

Supposedly?

What other reason would they have for getting rid of it? The NFL wants exciting games, violent hits, and big plays. The problem is those things lead to injuries and those injuries cost the league money.

If retired NFL players hadn't sued the NFL for billions because of brain damage these rule changes don't happen. The NFL probably still makes rules to protect QB's but the rest don't happen.

Honestly, I don't know. All I know is that the way it's legislated right now, the on-sides kick is a joke. It's basically impossible for the kicking team to recover the ball. And the on-sides kick needs to be a viable part of the game, somehow.

And the on-sides kick isn't a whole lot more dangerous than any punt return, so far as I can tell. Probably less so, considering that the players aren't running nearly as far in an on-sides kick anyway.

[MahiMike]

I said this after the last game. Kick a line drive off the facemask of the defense, little league style. If you hit them you have a 70% chance of recovering.

[JakeF]

Honestly, I don't know. All I know is that the way it's legislated right now, the on-sides kick is a joke. It's basically impossible for the kicking team to recover the ball. And the on-sides kick needs to be a viable part of the game, somehow.

And the on-sides kick isn't a whole lot more dangerous than any punt return, so far as I can tell. Probably less so, considering that the players aren't running nearly as far in an on-sides kick anyway.
Yea, it sucks.

I'm sure the league knows it sucks too. They just don't want another multi-billion dollar lawsuit. You know retired players have gotten a taste now. If they get any chance to sue again they will jump with both feet. You know the next lawsuit won't have a specific number either. It will be ongoing payments forever based on the salary cap number so it increases each year.

[kccrow]

I have no idea what stance to take on most of this conversation to be honest, but here's my best shot.

Generally, I think the rule on a dropkick should be that the ball must be in contact with the ground when it is kicked but that makes the kick incredibly difficult. The concept of "immediately after contact with the ground" is entirely up to interpretation by the referees. Is it a couple inches? A foot? 2 feet? It happens quickly. It's not like there is some point of reference the referee can use. They can, however, see if the ball is still in contact with the ground.


As for onside kicks, I think the solution to the issue is that teams must explicitly state and exercise an onside kick if they have that intent and the rules for running start are changed to the old way. They have no option to kick the ball away if they do perform an onside kick. To ensure that an onside kick is performed, the ball should have to contact the ground at some point in the neutral zone between the kicking and receiving teams.

[BlackHelicopters]

She told me she was 18.

[oldman]

You can be damn sure they would have called it illegal on the spot if the receiving team had been the Cheatriots.

[Why Not?]

It seems pretty clear to me that the NFL is basically trying to do away with all exciting special teams plays. Onside kicks aren’t a real thing anymore since you have a better shot at hitting the Power Ball while being struck by lightning than an NFL team has of actually recovering an onside kick. Then, what percentage of kick or punt returns end with a penalty flag these days? 75%? 80%? It’s ridiculous. Just get it over with and ban all returns and come up with some gimicky NHL Shootout version of giving the trailing team a chance to get the ball back with under 2 minutes.

[Chargem]

I said this after the last game. Kick a line drive off the facemask of the defense, little league style. If you hit them you have a 70% chance of recovering.

This. Someone tried this against the Chiefs last year I remember, and Sherman or Sorenson was basically playing dodgeball in the middle of the field. I want to see a kicker hammer the ball into a player and have it bounce back and get recovered, that would be incredible.