On the bright side, the Clones had great onside kicks

[CyCloned]

To get one out of two when everyone was sure it was coming is pretty good. Actually, I thought they had a good shot at the second one.

As bad as ISU was dominated, if they had slimed out and won that game Hawk fans would have burn KF at the stake.

 

[Wesley]

On the second one, if the outside Clone had broke inside of the tightend, he may have had a chance to bat it out of his hands.

 

[Triggermv]

I was pleasantly surprised with them as well. For all the struggles Mahoney had, he really was very solid with his onside kicking. In fact, during the game right while we were lining up for the first onside kick, I caught myself telling my friends how much I wish we had Mahoney back for this. Needless to say, Arceo filled in well as onside kicks are tricky and to produce two very good ones in a row is impressive.

 

[ThatllDoCy]

I didn't know you could not advance it. I lost it yelling and screaming. He would have gone all the way.

They were both very good kicks.

 

[CyCloned]

I didn't know you could not advance it. I lost it yelling and screaming. He would have gone all the way.

They were both very good kicks.

yea, I don't know the rule, I know ISU advanced one against TT for a TD, but the Clones were receiving that one. Kind of a strange rule that you can't advance it.

 

[ChE2010]

yea, I don't know the rule, I know ISU advanced one against TT for a TD, but the Clones were receiving that one. Kind of a strange rule that you can't advance it.

Yeah, not being able to advance it stunk because he probably would have taken that to the house. I think not being able to advance it is part of the new rules for onside kick.

It is also very impressive that Arceo did that awesome of a job with both onside kicks, especially since the new rule requires onside kicks to hit the ground twice. Otherwise the receiving team can call a fair catch.

 

[NickTheGreat]

I didn't know about that rule. Seems like the team didn't either :biglaugh:

 

[3TrueFans]

It's not a rule that comes up very much, I'm pretty sure it's been around for quite awhile though.

 

[Clark]

It's not a rule that comes up very much, I'm pretty sure it's been around for quite awhile though.

it has, probably as long as the onside kick has been I'd imagine.

The new rules make it so you can't touch the person trying to recover the ball until the ball bounces three times, right?

 

[ThatllDoCy]

It's not a rule that comes up very much, I'm pretty sure it's been around for quite awhile though.

If memory serves though, we returned on against TT a few years ago.

 

[Clark]

If memory serves though, we returned on against TT a few years ago.

Did the other team touch the ball? I think that's the difference but I don't know for sure.

 

[3TrueFans]

If memory serves though, we returned on against TT a few years ago.

The receiving team can advance the ball, TT kicked to us.

 

[wcamnclone]

I knew of the rule before, but have always thought it was stupid. Why not let the kicking team take advantage of the receiving teams miscues even more? Arceo was excellent on the kicks, I was actually expecting the second one not to get a big hop since the first one worked out so well.

I believe the rule is that way for a muffed punt as well, in which you can't advance the ball. Why is that so different than a running back fumbling the ball and being able to return it?

 

[wartknight]

kicking team has never in my memory been able to advance an onside kick.
Pretty sure the same rule applies to a muffed punt.
The punting team can however advance a punt that is possessed by the receiving team and then fumbled.

 

[huntt26]

Texas Tech onside kick goes horribly wrong vs. Iowa State - YouTube

[video=youtube;uQ_ZEbcwCWk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ_ZEbcwCWk[/video]

 

[ThatllDoCy]

The receiving team can advance the ball, TT kicked to us.

Ahaaaa! That's right. I don't get why the kicking team can't though. Seems like possession is possession and you should be able to advance it until downed. But hey, who says all the rules make sense.

 

[cyclones500]

To get one out of two when everyone was sure it was coming is pretty good. Actually, I thought they had a good shot at the second one.

As bad as ISU was dominated, if they had slimed out and won that game Hawk fans would have burn KF at the stake.

That first one worked to perfection. Fun to watch.

I'm always mixed on back-to-back onside attempts: If it works, do you try the same strategy? Do something entirely different? Is trying the same tactic again just as effective at fooling the defense?

I'm sure a team doesn't have time to develop 10 different strategies for an onside kick, so choices are limited.

 

[BKLYNCyclone]

52 Points... When will we see that again?

Texas Tech onside kick goes horribly wrong vs. Iowa State - YouTube

[video=youtube;uQ_ZEbcwCWk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ_ZEbcwCWk[/video]

 

[IcSyU]

52 Points... When will we see that again?

We had 51 against Kansas last year.

And the posts last page are correct...an onside kick can't be advanced and a muffed punt can't be advanced but a fumbled punt return can be advanced.

In the case of the punt it makes sense. You are forfeiting possession by kicking the ball away. If it gets blocked in your face you can pick it up and advance because the opposition didn't "accept" possession. If it gets past the LOS you accomplished what you were attempting to do.