On side kicks

I gotta say, watching CFL football my whole life, I had no idea the on side kick rule on field goals. I tried to look it up so I don't know if it's the same for punts.

I honestly thought it had to get past the first down marker.

SECTION 4 KICK FROM SCRIMMAGE AND OPEN-FIELD KICK Article 1 Restriction On Offside Player (No Yards)
Article 2 Onside Player
(a) The kicker or an onside player may enter the restraining zone and legally recover the kicked ball, but shall not interfere with an opponent attempting to recover the ball.

I believe it is only on kickoffs that the ball must go 10 yards before an onside player (anyone behind the kicker) can recover

Correct. Also, if it crossed the line of scrimmage, even by an inch, and is the recovered by the kicking team, it's a first down.

Here are the last 5 onside kicks out of field goal formation. 3 were scored as missed field goals as they always have been scored. In 2017, Justin Medlock's attempt was scored as a punt. In 2018, Sean Whyte's attempt was scored as a run.

Can someone explain how you could possibly justify scoring that play as a run. Then explain how you award a first down rushing when yards are not gained.

It is a kick followed by an own team kick recovered. The recovery of the kick results in a new set of downs (not a continuation of downs) which is why the kicking team does NOT have to gain first down yardage.

Was there an attempt at a kick on the Khari Jones play? Did it cross the LOS? Something tells me that if the ball doesn't cross the line, it doesn't count as a kick. (See Parades' consecutive FG record.) Given that Jones carried the ball, it sounds like the kick was flubbed, and Jones (holder) picked it up and ran with it.

As for being credited as a punt vs. A field goal attempt, it could be they changed the ruling recently.

I don't like that this play doesn't have to gain the necessary yardage for a first down.
Kind of a cop out imo.

But then , I don't like a team getting a single point from a missed field goal that is kicked through the end zone with no chance for the defending team to return it out of the end zone.

I think it's treated the same as a double turnover. The act of kicking, once it crosses the line of scrimmage, is considered to have turned the ball over to the other team. The recovery is then considered a second turnover.

Add to that the fact that recovering your own kick is a huge gamble, and I can see the reason behind the rule.

I am surprised the tap kick across the line isn't used by teams Sinopoli tried it last year, but got too much on the ball and couldn't recover it. I suppose it's not as easy as it seems - unless the player has a lot of rugby experience, or even better, Aussie rules.

Watch the Korey Jones play from last weekend. You will have the answers to your questions.

Play starts at 3:25 of first video in link.

Oops. Not the K Jones I was thinking of.

Yeah, no idea why they would have recorded that as a running play. Probably some should have been credited as a punt recovery, the same as Medlock's.

Hmm, as good an explanation for the current rule as I can imagine.
Thanks for posting it.

Only if yards are gained.

Not sure about that. The rule just says that the kick must be recovered after crossing the line of scrimmage.

Article 9 – Recovery Of Own Kick The kicker or an onside player may recover the kick across the line of scrimmage, in which case the ensuing down shall be first down whether or not the original yardage has been gained.
Not sure what would happen if the onside player recovers a kick and then retreats back across the line of scrimmage. I think it would still be a first down, but that's just a guess.

Well Catsfan...we're both right....kinda. I checked with one of my CFL buddies and you are correct, at the pro level the continuity of downs in broken and if the punting team legally recovers the ball, even an inch past the LOS, it is a first down regardless of the line to gain.

At amateur, where I officiate, yards would have to be gained assuming the punt was on 3rd down...one of thequirky differences in the rules between amateur and pro.

Sounds like you have a bit of an affinity for the rules pal...perhaps you should consider donning the stripes in your local association!

Interesting that the amateur level would have a different rule for that. Perhaps it was abused too often by a few coaches?

I wouldn't be a good official. Way too indecisive in the moment. (Found that out assisting at my kids' basketball practices.) But I have read the CFL rule book cover to cover a few times, so have a good understanding of the rules for this league. I even understand how the ratio works. I think so, anyway.

The fact you can get a new set of downs without advancing to the previous first-down marker is a bizarre anomaly that IMO should be changed in future. And there is no way in the world that this should be recorded as a rush. It is an onside kick and should be recorded as an onside kick recovery. No other offensive play description makes any sense.

In 2017 Brad Sinopoli tried a quick kick with similar intent of obtaining a 1st down without gaining the necessary yards.

Yeah, but he got just a bit too much on the ball and couldn't get to it. Adding insult to injury, it ended up with a no yards penalty because his lead blocker was inside the five yards.

If it was easy to pull off, everyone would do it.

I agree, as you imply, that the rule should be changed such that the onside kick AND any recovery must advance beyond the first down line.

Otherwise the recovered onside kick should count as a regular down.

The roots of this rule, much like the root of the rules for onside kick recovery, are likely another carryover from rugby.