There just has to be a better way to onsides kick than the method that teams use now.
To my humble, untrained eyes, the current method flies in the face of logic. If the receiving team takes all its best "hands" guys and puts them in a tiny area of the field, why do you kick it RIGHT AT that grouping? It doesn't make sense to me. It would be like a defense lining up all its defenders outside of one hash, and then the offense runs a toss sweep in that direction.
The whole idea of "spreading the defense" should apply. If I were in an obvious onsides situation, like USC last night, I would line up just like USC did, but have the kicker try to pooch it just over the heads of the relatively few defenders on the other side of the field, who would have to turn their backs and run to field it. Seems like a much better chance for success.
I just don't like the philosophy of "hit it where they are, but hope for a funny bounce." Why not hope for the same funny bounce in a relatively undefended area of grass?
To my humble, untrained eyes, the current method flies in the face of logic. If the receiving team takes all its best "hands" guys and puts them in a tiny area of the field, why do you kick it RIGHT AT that grouping? It doesn't make sense to me. It would be like a defense lining up all its defenders outside of one hash, and then the offense runs a toss sweep in that direction.
The whole idea of "spreading the defense" should apply. If I were in an obvious onsides situation, like USC last night, I would line up just like USC did, but have the kicker try to pooch it just over the heads of the relatively few defenders on the other side of the field, who would have to turn their backs and run to field it. Seems like a much better chance for success.
I just don't like the philosophy of "hit it where they are, but hope for a funny bounce." Why not hope for the same funny bounce in a relatively undefended area of grass?