NFL eyeing proposal to abolish extra points

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

NFL eyeing proposal to abolish extra points
1


By Marc Sessler
Around the League Writer
Published: Jan. 20, 2014 at 04:53 p.m.
Is the extra point about to go the way of the dinosaur?

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told NFL Network's Rich Eisen on Monday that the league's Competition Committee might eventually abolish the time-tested point after touchdown in favor of a brand-new scoring system.

"The extra point is almost automatic," Goodell said. "I believe we had five missed extra points this year out of 1,200 some odd. So it's a very small fraction of the play, and you want to add excitement with every play.

"There's one proposal in particular that I've heard about. It's automatic that you get seven points when you score a touchdown, but you could potentially go for an eighth point, either by running or passing the ball, so if you fail, you go back to six."

Extra points have become an afterthought. Unless you're up against Lawrence Taylor in Tecmo Bowl, there's virtually zero drama attached to the point after. Taylor's old coach Bill Belichick has often opined about about how unnecessary the extra point feels.

Goodell said "some issues" stand in the way of a change, asking: "Is that going to discourage people from going for two?"

We doubt it. Teams inclined to go for the deuce will continue to do so in situations that call for an eight-point score -- with the same potential consequences. Traditionalists might disagree, but this is a good idea long overdue.

Well, unless you're a kicker.

Goodell's entire interview will air Monday night at 8 p.m. ET on NFL Network's "Total Access."

[Sure-Oz]

Goodell to abolish form tackling and play with flags

[GoChargers]

Goodell needs to just go away, he's ruining the league.

[Discuss Thrower]

Hmmm... I want to hate this proposal but I really can't.

The downside is removing the tactic of lining up in the kick formation and running a fake but it's not like coaches opt for that option anyway.

[Bowser]

Goodell to abolish form tackling and play with flags

Goodell to abolish linemen going forward. No rushing of the passer allowed anymore.

[Eleazar]

:rolleyes:

[Pablo]

Hmmm... I want to hate this proposal but I really can't.

The downside is removing the tactic of lining up in the kick formation and running a fake but it's not like coaches opt for that option anyway.That's pretty much where I'm at as well.

I'd love to be all rabble, rabble, rabble "Goodell is ruining everything I love", but extra points are time wasted in a football game.

[GoChargers]

Hmmm... I want to hate this proposal but I really can't.

It's pretty easy to hate. All Goodell cares about is scoring, and this will force teams to go for two (as in, MOAR POINTZZZZ). He's watering down the league one rule change at a time.

[Deberg_1990]

Why don't they consider moving the extra point kicks back so they are not so automatic?


I posted a thread awhile back from a Peter King I think that argued that NFL kickers have become too good.

[Nightfyre]

Extra points are an opportunity for an extra commercial break for the NFL. I doubt they abolish them. That said, they should. What a waste of time.

[Discuss Thrower]

That's pretty much where I'm at as well.

I'd love to be all rabble, rabble, rabble "Goodell is ruining everything I love", but extra points are time wasted in a football game.

Also I feel like it might improve the game flow.

Say a team scores a TD that looks iffy and it goes to automatic review. TV timeout, but in the 30-45 seconds the play's upheld and scoring team opts to take the point and kickoff. When action resumes from a TV view's standpoint there's about to be a kickoff whereas currently they might break back in for the score and then take commercial after the XP or 2-point conversion.

[Easy 6]

It doesnt sound like such a terrible thing, whats irksome is just Goodells penchant for constantly changing shit, seems like this guy has made more changes than the last two commissioners combined.

I'm reeeally sick of this butthole.

[Bowser]

Why don't they consider moving the extra point kicks back so they are not so automatic?


I posted a thread awhile back from a Peter King I think that argued that NFL kickers have become too good.

Make it a 35 yard attempt.

[greatgooglymoogly]

The NFL could do what rugby does and force the kicker to attempt the XP from where on the field the TD was scored. That would make it more difficult.

Example: Charles hits the outside, and just sneaks inside the pylon for the TD. Succop then has to kick from that sideline.

[philfree]

I'd hate that. Why not move it back to a distance where it's not such a gimmie. Spot it on the 20 and let them kick a 37 yarder. Depending on conditions it might cause coaches to go for 2 points more often.

[Discuss Thrower]

I'd hate that. Why not move it back to a distance where it's not such a gimmie. Spot it on the 20 and let them kick a 37 yarder. Depending on conditions it might cause coaches to go for 2 points more often.

But there again it removes a fake FG formation from a coach's playbook..

[Start Croyle]

"There's one proposal in particular that I've heard about. It's automatic that you get seven points when you score a touchdown, but you could potentially go for an eighth point, either by running or passing the ball, so if you fail, you go back to six."

This is dumb. The outcomes are exactly the same as they are now, except that there is no chance at all to miss the extra point. That means less drama in the game than there is now. Wasn't the reason for changing the rules to increase the excitement?

[listopencil]

I like the idea of eliminating the point after. They just about never miss and it's boring. The scoring needs to be worked out so that there is a decent risk/reward involved. I guess I wouldn't mind giving the scoring team the option of taking the 7 or going for 8 after a score.

[GoChargers]

Wasn't the reason for changing the rules to increase the excitement?

No, the reason for this is the same reason for all of Goodell's other rule changes - to increase scoring with zero regard to its effects on the product as a whole.

[-King-]

It's pretty easy to hate. All Goodell cares about is scoring, and this will force teams to go for two (as in, MOAR POINTZZZZ). He's watering down the league one rule change at a time.

Why would it force teams to go for two? You make no sense.

[listopencil]

Also I feel like it might improve the game flow.

Say a team scores a TD that looks iffy and it goes to automatic review. TV timeout, but in the 30-45 seconds the play's upheld and scoring team opts to take the point and kickoff. When action resumes from a TV view's standpoint there's about to be a kickoff whereas currently they might break back in for the score and then take commercial after the XP or 2-point conversion.

Yeah, I agree with that.

[GordonGekko]

The NFL could do what rugby does and force the kicker to attempt the XP from where on the field the TD was scored. That would make it more difficult.

Example: Charles hits the outside, and just sneaks inside the pylon for the TD. Succop then has to kick from that sideline.

This actually sounds excellent, but make a maximum distance so that the 35 yard line or something like that is the maximum distance for a kick. But this also punishes teams for scoring long touchdowns so I don't know. Sounds exciting though.

Another option would be to bring in a random fan for the extra point. That would be cool but would never happen. Funny to think though a big 250 lb. woman coming in for the PAT. Haha

[KChiefer]

It's pretty easy to hate. All Goodell cares about is scoring, and this will force teams to go for two (as in, MOAR POINTZZZZ). He's watering down the league one rule change at a time.

Uh, no. A team would have the option of taking a free point, or going for two. It wouldn't force anything.

[cosmo20002]

The extra point is a worthless play. If they can do it successfully 99.9% of the time, it might not be worth doing.

This is a little confusing: "It's automatic that you get seven points when you score a touchdown, but you could potentially go for an eighth point, either by running or passing the ball, so if you fail, you go back to six."

So a TD is worth 7. Then you can go for an extra point via run or pass, but if you fail, you lose a point? That seems too weird.

[Just Passin' By]

This proposal would bring into question any FG attempts from that distance. Why would they not get that same status as being automatic?

[Donger]

Maybe they could toss some random animals onto the field to spice things up? Perhaps some of those little monkeys infected with hemorrhagic fever.

[cosmo20002]

It's pretty easy to hate. All Goodell cares about is scoring, and this will force teams to go for two (as in, MOAR POINTZZZZ). He's watering down the league one rule change at a time.

Not that I care about Goodell, but he's not in charge. He doesn't change shit unless the owners want him to change it.

[greatgooglymoogly]

This actually sounds excellent, but make a maximum distance so that the 35 yard line or something like that is the maximum distance for a kick. But this also punishes teams for scoring long touchdowns so I don't know. Sounds exciting though.

In rugby, I believe they have a set distance for those kicks, but I can't find it off-hand. Anyway, my intention was for this kick to be attempted along a horizontal line that stretches from sideline to sideline.

[philfree]

But there again it removes a fake FG formation from a coach's playbook..

Fake EP.

[listopencil]

The extra point is a worthless play. If they can do it successfully 99.9% of the time, it might not be worth doing.

This is a little confusing: "It's automatic that you get seven points when you score a touchdown, but you could potentially go for an eighth point, either by running or passing the ball, so if you fail, you go back to six."

So a TD is worth 7. Then you can go for an extra point via run or pass, but if you fail, you lose a point? That seems too weird.

Yeah, the sentence structure is weird in that quoted bit. What they mean is that when you score a TD you get 6 points. After that you can accept a free 1 point (for 7) and go kick off, or decide to run a 2 point play under current rules (for 8). If your play fails, you are left with the points you scored for a TD (6) and you go kick off.

[listopencil]

This proposal would bring into question any FG attempts from that distance. Why would they not get that same status as being automatic?

Because you haven't scored a TD to earn the right to kick for a virtually automatic score.

[KChiefer]

This proposal would bring into question any FG attempts from that distance. Why would they not get that same status as being automatic?

You have a point, but how many fgs are kicked inside the 2yd line in a game? Teams will still have to kick those.

[cosmo20002]

In rugby, I believe they have a set distance for those kicks, but I can't find it off-hand. Anyway, my intention was for this kick to be attempted along a horizontal line that stretches from sideline to sideline.

OK, just stop with the rugby.

[listopencil]

If this rule is enacted, expect some network to do a montage of every missed XP ever filmed. ESPN will do a forty five minute special on it. Hell, maybe a whole week.

[Rudy tossed tigger's salad]

good

[Raiderhater]

This proposal would bring into question any FG attempts from that distance. Why would they not get that same status as being automatic?

An excellent point.

[greatgooglymoogly]

OK, just stop with the rugby.

Yeah, fuck the sport that inspired the sport we're discussing.

[kcxiv]

The NFL could do what rugby does and force the kicker to attempt the XP from where on the field the TD was scored. That would make it more difficult.

Example: Charles hits the outside, and just sneaks inside the pylon for the TD. Succop then has to kick from that sideline.

So you punish team for making a great long play? but a 1 yard run gets free points? thats kinda dumb.

I dont hate his idea, but i would like to see them allow better defenses. So many games where teams are scoring in the 40s and 50's now. Its Arena Like.

[Raiderhater]

You have a point, but how many fgs are kicked inside the 2yd line in a game? Teams will still have to kick those.

Clearly you have not invested a lot of time in watching the Kansas City Chiefs.

[Nightfyre]

This proposal would bring into question any FG attempts from that distance. Why would they not get that same status as being automatic?

Field goals at this distance are not nearly as prevalent as extra points. Further, the field goal is for three points, where the extra point is just one point.

[Contrarian]

I like getting rid of the extra point for this scenario Goodell speaks of!! But don't remove the kicker entirely from the game please, move the damn kickoffs back to where they were so every one of them are not out the back of the endzone! Talk about boring!!

[listopencil]

OK, just stop with the rugby.


The try/convert is among the oldest parts of the game of gridiron football and dates to its rugby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_football) roots. In its earliest days, scoring a touchdown was not the primary objective but a means of getting a free kick at the goal (hence why the name "try," more commonly associated with rugby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_football) today, is still used in American football rule books), and thus early scoring rubrics for the game gave more points to the subsequent kick than the actual advancement of the ball into the end zone. The related term "conversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28rugby%29)" is still used in both rugby union and rugby league to refer to extra points scored by kicking the ball through the posts after a try has been scored.

By the start of the 20th century, touchdowns had become more important and the roles of touchdown and kick were reversed. By this time the point value for the after-touchdown kick had reduced to its current one-point value while the touchdown was now worth five. (This later increased to six points in American football in 1912 and in Canadian football in 1956.)<sup class="Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</sup>

Although a successful kick is only worth one point, missing one can decide the outcome of the game. Perhaps the most famous example to this was the 2003 game between the New Orleans Saints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_Saints) and Jacksonville Jaguars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonville_Jaguars) where, after scoring a touchdown as time expired as a result of the multiple-lateral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_pass) River City Relay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_City_Relay), Saints kicker John Carney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carney_%28American_football%29) missed the extra point, giving the Jaguars a 20-19 victory and eliminating the Saints from playoff contention. On November 11, 1979 the New York Jets lost to the Buffalo Bills 14-12 - the difference coming from two missed extra points by place kicker Toni Linhart. Linhart never played another game in the NFL.

Another 2003 game, this one between the Carolina Panthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Panthers) and Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Buccaneers), was sent to overtime after what would have been a game-winning extra point was blocked; the Panthers won the game in overtime 12-9. A 2005 game between the Green Bay Packers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers) and Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Buccaneers) is another notable exception, as the Buccaneers won 17-16, the difference being Ryan Longwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Longwell) missing an extra point after a Packers touchdown.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28gridiron_football%29#cite_note-1)</sup>



<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"></sup>

[DiaperBoy27]

This proposal would bring into question any FG attempts from that distance. Why would they not get that same status as being automatic?

Extra points are kicked from the exact middle of the field on the 2-yard-line. Field goals are kicked from where the play ended or one of the hash marks. With the angle, its a tougher kick (although not as tough as in college, which always confused me a bit)

[cosmo20002]

Yeah, the sentence structure is weird in that quoted bit. What they mean is that when you score a TD you get 6 points. After that you can accept a free 1 point (for 7) and go kick off, or decide to run a 2 point play under current rules (for 8). If your play fails, you are left with the points you scored for a TD (6) and you go kick off.

OK. But really the end result is still pretty much taking points off the board. You've got the free point in your pocket. But fail on your extra-extra point, you lose the free point you had.

But, I suppose the current kicking of the EP is about the same as a free point when they make it 99.9% of the time. Going for two is about like taking a free one off the board. Hmmm...

So it's about the same deal but "seems" different.

[Raiderhater]

Field goals at this distance are not nearly as prevalent as extra points. Further, the field goal is for three points, where the extra point is just one point.

You make it sound like 1 point ain't no big deal.

[listopencil]

In my kids' Pee Wee league, they gave 2 points for the kick and 1 point for a play. Because barely any of the kids could kick one. It was kind of funny and added excitement when a team would go for two.

[Just Passin' By]

Field goals at this distance are not nearly as prevalent as extra points. Further, the field goal is for three points, where the extra point is just one point.

Perhaps, but 99%+ is still 99%+. If they're going to consider it automatic for one point, it's got to be automatic for 3 points if they're going to be logically consistent, because the issue is the high success rate.

And, for the record, 1 point can be all the difference in the world. Just ask the Patriots about that after yesterday's missed conversion attempt. Had they only needed 7 there, that game's still in play game at that point.

[KChiefer]

Clearly you have not invested a lot of time in watching the Kansas City Chiefs.

I have, I've just taken to jamming a hanger up my nose on Mondays. It's bliss I tells ya!

[cosmo20002]

The try/convert is among the oldest parts of the game of gridiron football and dates to its rugby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_football) roots. In its earliest days, scoring a touchdown was not the primary objective but a means of getting a free kick at the goal (hence why the name "try," more commonly associated with rugby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_football) today, is still used in American football rule books), and thus early scoring rubrics for the game gave more points to the subsequent kick than the actual advancement of the ball into the end zone. The related term "conversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28rugby%29)" is still used in both rugby union and rugby league to refer to extra points scored by kicking the ball through the posts after a try has been scored.

By the start of the 20th century, touchdowns had become more important and the roles of touchdown and kick were reversed. By this time the point value for the after-touchdown kick had reduced to its current one-point value while the touchdown was now worth five. (This later increased to six points in American football in 1912 and in Canadian football in 1956.)<sup class="Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</sup>

Although a successful kick is only worth one point, missing one can decide the outcome of the game. Perhaps the most famous example to this was the 2003 game between the New Orleans Saints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_Saints) and Jacksonville Jaguars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonville_Jaguars) where, after scoring a touchdown as time expired as a result of the multiple-lateral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_pass) River City Relay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_City_Relay), Saints kicker John Carney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carney_%28American_football%29) missed the extra point, giving the Jaguars a 20-19 victory and eliminating the Saints from playoff contention. On November 11, 1979 the New York Jets lost to the Buffalo Bills 14-12 - the difference coming from two missed extra points by place kicker Toni Linhart. Linhart never played another game in the NFL.

Another 2003 game, this one between the Carolina Panthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Panthers) and Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Buccaneers), was sent to overtime after what would have been a game-winning extra point was blocked; the Panthers won the game in overtime 12-9. A 2005 game between the Green Bay Packers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers) and Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Buccaneers) is another notable exception, as the Buccaneers won 17-16, the difference being Ryan Longwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Longwell) missing an extra point after a Packers touchdown.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28gridiron_football%29#cite_note-1)</sup>



<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"></sup>

No argument will ever be won by saying, "In rugby they do this..."

[listopencil]

OK. But really the end result is still pretty much taking points off the board. You've got the free point in your pocket. But fail on your extra-extra point, you lose the free point you had.

But, I suppose the current kicking of the EP is about the same as a free point when they make it 99.9% of the time. Going for two is about like taking a free one off the board. Hmmm...

So it's about the same deal but "seems" different.


Pretty much. It's virtually the same gamble as now, but you eliminate the "gimme" play and just go kick the ball off. I think game flow would be better.

[KChiefer]

Perhaps, but 99%+ is still 99%+. If they're going to consider it automatic for one point, it's got to be automatic for 3 points if they're going to be logically consistent, because the issue is the high success rate.

You're simultaneously over and under thinking this one.

[Sannyasi]

Seems like a good change to me. I actually wouldn't mind forcing teams to go for 2 although I'm sure some purists will tell me why I'm a moron for wanting to replace a routine play with an exciting one. But at the very least let's get rid of the extra point. Its a waste of time.

[Rausch]

"The extra point is almost automatic," Goodell said. "I believe we had five missed extra points this year out of 1,200 some odd. So it's a very small fraction of the play, and you want to add excitement with every play."

And that, my friends, is the basis for all NFL decisions in teh degenerate-al age...

[cosmo20002]

Perhaps, but 99%+ is still 99%+. If they're going to consider it automatic for one point, it's got to be automatic for 3 points if they're going to be logically consistent, because the issue is the high success rate.

Well, but a EP is a set distance every time. A FG varies. If a team earns the field position for a short FG, that's just the way it is.

I do recall discussions from time to time about making longer FGs worth more, shorter ones worth less.

[Just Passin' By]

You're simultaneously over and under thinking this one.

I realize that the league will just ignore the logic problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't point it out.

[Rausch]

Hmmm... I want to hate this proposal but I really can't.

The downside is removing the tactic of lining up in the kick formation and running a fake but it's not like coaches opt for that option anyway.

So much for the "integrity of the game."

[listopencil]

No argument will ever be won by saying, "In rugby they do this..."

I posted it to point out how outdated the extra point kick really is. It's more like, "We should stop, because in rugby they do this and we aren't playing rugby."

[greatgooglymoogly]

I posted it to point out how outdated the extra point kick really is. It's more like, "We should stop, because in rugby they do this and we aren't playing rugby."

EP kicks in rugby aren't limited by a narrow set of hash marks. They can be attempted along the sideline, if that happens to be where the player scored the try.

Goodell's complaint was that EPs were too easy and "automatic". I proposed something to make them more difficult.

[Discuss Thrower]

Fuck it, ban the FG formation for the PAT and make the scoring team try a drop-kick or go for two.

[Zebedee DuBois]

no foot in football??

Instead of abolishing it, spice it up by erecting a giant skee-ball apparatus behind the goal posts. Now you have multiple scoring oportunites!!

[listopencil]

EP kicks in rugby aren't limited by a narrow set of hash marks. They can be attempted along the sideline, if that happens to be where the player scored the try.

Goodell's complaint was that EPs were too easy and "automatic". I proposed something to make them more difficult.

I would rather get rid of them.

[NinerDoug]

It's pretty easy to hate. All Goodell cares about is scoring, and this will force teams to go for two (as in, MOAR POINTZZZZ). He's watering down the league one rule change at a time.

How will it force teams to go for two? You get seven automatically. But if you go for two and fail, you get six. Same as now, only you just don't have to kick the extra point if you are ok with 7.

[greatgooglymoogly]

I would rather get rid of them.

The kicks, or the hash marks? I agree either way.

[Donger]

How many times did teams attempt two points this year instead of the EP? What percentage?

[Rausch]

I understand the dislike of Goodell, but I've thought about this idea for a long time.

There's not many other plays in sports (if any), where points are awarded in such an automatic fashion. It's a pointless play. Everyone equates a touchdown with 7 points anyway.

So move the XP to the 20.

At least then the wind and rush has a legitimate impact...

[listopencil]

The kicks, or the hash marks? I agree either way.

The kicks, but I wouldn't be upset if they dropped the hashes as well.

[BlackHelicopters]

Make it a longer kick. Simple.

[KChiefer]

I realize that the league will just ignore the logic problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't point it out.

There is no logic problem. If they do this they can remove 5-10 worthless plays per game. Heck, now when teams get inside the 2 often they'll just go for it on 4th. There were a whopping 12 19yd fgs in the entire NFL this year out of 998 total. There were 1267 xps.

[KChiefer]

So move the XP to the 20.

At least then the wind and rush has a legitimate impact...

Sweet then we can start valuing kickers more, just what everyone wants!

[Prison Bitch]

Why don't they consider moving the extra point kicks back so they are not so automatic?


I posted a thread awhile back from a Peter King I think that argued that NFL kickers have become too good.

I like it.

[TEX]

I understand the dislike of Goodell, but I've thought about this idea for a long time.

There's not many other plays in sports (if any), where points are awarded in such an automatic fashion. It's a pointless play. Everyone equates a touchdown with 7 points anyway.

Except on the rare occasions when it is missed/blocked and it ads something to the game. Im in favor of keeping it as is for that reason.

[kcpasco]

And the transformation of a once great game continues. Why in the hell do they have to keep ruining this sport.

[listopencil]

And the transformation of a once great game continues. Why in the hell do they have to keep ruining this sport.

You enjoy the PAT?

[KChiefer]

Except on the rare occasions when it is missed/blocked and it ads something to the game. Im in favor of keeping it as is for that reason.

5 out of 1267 kicks. Or 5 out of 256 games. 2% of games potentially affected.

[Rain Man]

"There's one proposal in particular that I've heard about. It's automatic that you get seven points when you score a touchdown, but you could potentially go for an eighth point, either by running or passing the ball, so if you fail, you go back to six."



Clark must be on Chiefsplanet, because I proposed this exact idea a while back.

Clark, if you're reading this, good job. Post once in a while, and be sure to vote in the sceneitall tournament. And my company does analytics if you ever want to get a competitive upper hand.

[Discuss Thrower]

What about making the amount of points variable by yardage and method for the Points After Attempt?

< 25 yardline for a kick is 1 point, conversion 2 points.
26-35 a kick is two, conversion 3.
36+ kick is 3, conversion 4 or 5 points...

[kcpasco]

You enjoy the PAT?

Yes I do like it actually because while its extremely rare to miss it has decided some games before.

[kcpasco]

5 out of 1267 kicks. Or 5 out of 256 games. 2% of games potentially affected.

Kind of like a 1 percent chance to blow a 28 point lead.

[Rausch]

Sweet then we can start valuing kickers more, just what everyone wants!

A fucking RT just went no 1 in the draft.

Yeah, that's fucking providing excitement...

[gblowfish]

No extra point gives time for two more network commercials. Cha-ching.

[Rain Man]

And here's my post suggesting it, made on October 28th.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=10135913&highlight=extra#post10135913


I'm not bragging, I'm just proud to be part of the Hunt consulting team.

[Rausch]

And the transformation of a once great game continues. Why in the hell do they have to keep ruining this sport.

This...

[KChiefer]

Kind of like a 1 percent chance to blow a 28 point lead.

That's lower than 1%.

[Rausch]

That gets around the issue. The point is, people always think of a touchdown as being 7 points. Why not just leave that alone, and get rid of the meaningless play that goes with it? Does anyone actually enjoy watching the extra point?

To move it back to the 20 would result in more 6 point touchdowns, with more misses. Maybe not many overall, because today's kickers are so good, but still enough to screw things up.

So you say it's meaningless.

Ok, fine. I offer a way to give it more meaning.

You complain that it might give it too much meaning.

Who's wife are you?...

[KChiefer]

A ****ing RT just went no 1 in the draft.

Yeah, that's ****ing providing excitement...

At least RTs actually play the game. We're talking about kickers, man, kickers /in best AI voice.

[Rausch]

Getting rid of the extra point is the transformation of a great game? Hardly, unless this brings other changes, which are less sensible.

When has this NOT been the case?...

[kcpasco]

Just automatically award FG's less then 30 yards. Those are rarely missed also.

[POND_OF_RED]

Sure it's pretty pointless, but I've never heard of anyone complaining about it. Just leave it alone. Gives me more time to refill my drunk or take a leak.

[KChiefer]

Just automatically award FG's less then 30 yards. Those are rarely missed also.

Ha. You know you're beat when you have to start saying retarded shit like this.

[chiefzilla1501]

Are we fucking serious here?

This rule would be so stupid in so many ways. It doesn't matter if the XP is pretty automatic. What's more important is that every time you kick an XP, you make a decision not to go for 2. I like the fact that teams have the option of laying up and getting a safe one point. Especially late in games.

[Rain Man]

Sure it's pretty pointless, but I've never heard of anyone complaining about it. Just leave it alone. Gives me more time to refill my drunk or take a leak.

Rob Gronkowski hates extra points.

[listopencil]

Are we ****ing serious here?

This rule would be so stupid in so many ways. It doesn't matter if the XP is pretty automatic. What's more important is that every time you kick an XP, you make a decision not to go for 2. I like the fact that teams have the option of laying up and getting a safe one point. Especially late in games.

This rule would not get rid of the option of getting the one point.

[KChiefer]

Are we ****ing serious here?

This rule would be so stupid in so many ways. It doesn't matter if the XP is pretty automatic. What's more important is that every time you kick an XP, you make a decision not to go for 2. I like the fact that teams have the option of laying up and getting a safe one point. Especially late in games.

They still get the option. And nobody runs fake xps if that's where you're going next.

[Rausch]

Well, I guess giving bigger distances more points does give the extra point more meaning, but I'm not willing to go that far. I just want a minor change to the system.

WHY?...

[Rain Man]

Well, I guess giving bigger distances more points does give the extra point more meaning, but I'm not willing to go that far. I just want a minor change to the system. I suspect most fans wouldn't accept a drastic change either.

The system in the OP, henceforth known as the "Rain Man Sytem", eliminates the boring part and makes the exciting part more exciting, while not changing the basic structure of scoring or the game. It satisfies every goal.

[Rausch]

Rob Gronkowski hates extra points.

He also hates the multitude of bacteria found in bath houses...

[Rausch]

I feel like I've answered both those questions already.

I'd disagree.

I don't think it adds to the "action" or "excitement."

I think it makes us more like fucking Canadian football...

[Rain Man]

He also hates the multitude of bacteria found in bath houses...

Based on the pictures I've seen, he also dislikes shirts.

[kcpasco]

Would you guys be in favor of this trickling down to the college and even high school levels?

[listopencil]

I'd disagree.

I don't think it adds to the "action" or "excitement."

I think it makes us more like ****ing Canadian football...

I think it would speed up the flow of the game. Score TD. Take the point, go to commercial while Special Teams sets up for the kick off/Go for two, go to commercial while Special Teams sets up for the kick off. Either way we come back from commercial and they kick it off to start the next series.

[Discuss Thrower]

Would you guys be in favor of this trickling down to the college and even high school levels?

I'd say half of all high school football teams can't make 75% of XPs on a regular basis.

[chiefzilla1501]

Well, I think you could still give the teams the option to go for 2. If they make it, they get 8 points, if they miss, they get 6.

If they score a touchdown and choose to do nothing else, they get 7.

You could do that, but I still hate the idea on principal. You're essentially saying that if you go for 2... you gain a point if you convert and lose a point if you don't. I don't like freebies. If you're going to go for 1, then earn it. You shouldn't take that away just because it saves you a few minutes of your day.

[Just Passin' By]

There is no logic problem. If they do this they can remove 5-10 worthless plays per game. Heck, now when teams get inside the 2 often they'll just go for it on 4th. There were a whopping 12 19yd fgs in the entire NFL this year out of 998 total. There were 1267 xps.

There is a logic problem. It's there. your numbers don't eliminate it.

[Rausch]

I think it would speed up the flow of the game. Score TD. Take the point, go to commercial while Special Teams sets up for the kick off/Go for two, go to commercial while Special Teams sets up for the kick off. Either way we come back from commercial and they kick it off to start the next series.

How about instead of that we invest more in the replay system and make sure ALL change of possession and game changing plays get reviewed?

That Seattle/49'er game was HORRID. There were three plays there that could have changed the game.

You know, improve the current product before we worry about changing it...

[Tombstone RJ]

NFL eyeing proposal to abolish extra points
1


By Marc Sessler
Around the League Writer
Published: Jan. 20, 2014 at 04:53 p.m.
Is the extra point about to go the way of the dinosaur?

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told NFL Network's Rich Eisen on Monday that the league's Competition Committee might eventually abolish the time-tested point after touchdown in favor of a brand-new scoring system.

"The extra point is almost automatic," Goodell said. "I believe we had five missed extra points this year out of 1,200 some odd. So it's a very small fraction of the play, and you want to add excitement with every play.

"There's one proposal in particular that I've heard about. It's automatic that you get seven points when you score a touchdown, but you could potentially go for an eighth point, either by running or passing the ball, so if you fail, you go back to six."

Extra points have become an afterthought. Unless you're up against Lawrence Taylor in Tecmo Bowl, there's virtually zero drama attached to the point after. Taylor's old coach Bill Belichick has often opined about about how unnecessary the extra point feels.

Goodell said "some issues" stand in the way of a change, asking: "Is that going to discourage people from going for two?"

We doubt it. Teams inclined to go for the deuce will continue to do so in situations that call for an eight-point score -- with the same potential consequences. Traditionalists might disagree, but this is a good idea long overdue.

Well, unless you're a kicker.

Goodell's entire interview will air Monday night at 8 p.m. ET on NFL Network's "Total Access."

I think this proposal is kind of stupid. Let me ge this right: if a team scores a TD they automatically get 7 points witout kicking the extra point, right? But if they choose to go for 2 points, but don't make the attempt, they get penalized for it and only get a total of 6 points?

Meh.

You gotta pay the kicker for something, right, I mean, the kicker has to contribute something to the friggen bottom line, right? So those extra points are important.

Here's what I'd do--if a team wants to not kick the extra point, but wants to "go for it" why not make it for 3 points? So, if a team scores a traditional TD for 6 points, but instead of kicking the traditional extra point, they decide to go for more points, get rid of the 2 points and have it be for 3 points.

So a TD and going for it will net a team 9 points. While a TD and a traditional extra point will still net 7 points. This way the kicker is still getting paid to make the extra point, which is the vast majority of how they contribute to scoring, but going for it, instead of kicking the extra point will really be more enticing as it's an additional 3 points, or the same thing as kicking a field goal.

[Rain Man]

You could do that, but I still hate the idea on principal. You're essentially saying that if you go for 2... you gain a point if you convert and lose a point if you don't. I don't like freebies. If you're going to go for 1, then earn it. You shouldn't take that away just because it saves you a few minutes of your day.

I would argue to take it away if it's a boring routine that takes a few minutes of your day and makes no difference at all 99.7% of the time.

[Rausch]

That kind of thing should be one of the top priorities. The replay system has been around since 1999, and it's still too broken. Shouldn't take that long to set up an almost foolproof system.

Other than challenging penalties, the replay system should be simple. Unfortunately, it isn't.

There we go: quit worrying about a given play and start worrying about the big plays this league consistently fucks up...

[KChiefer]

There is a logic problem. It's there. your numbers don't eliminate it.

.4%

That's what you're trying to protect.

[Sannyasi]

I think the only argument in favor of the extra point is "Well, this is how we've always done it."

[Chaunceythe3rd]

Make it a 35 yard attempt.

This. Would be incentive for teams go for the 2-point conversion.

[Rain Man]

.4%

That's what you're trying to protect.

It's also a 0.4% that really angers and frustrates a fan base. There's a marketing value in eliminating that 0.4%.

[Rain Man]

This. Would be incentive for teams go for the 2-point conversion.

It would be very hard to convert a two-point play from 35 yards out.


(I know. I just couldn't resist.)

[Rausch]

I think the only argument in favor of the extra point is "Well, this is how we've always done it."

I think the only argument for abolishing it is that it isn't exciting enough...

[Tombstone RJ]

Fact is, kickers are the highest scoring players in the overall history of the NFL and most of it is because of the extra points...

[Tombstone RJ]

for me, the extra point is like the cherry on top of the TD, it's kindof like, "it's a TD and here's the icing on the cake"

[ChiefRocka]

..

[Rain Man]

Maybe they should follow the lead of cricket and a team can keep taking extra points as long as they make it. If people like the extra point play, this would give us about 500 of them per game.

[Tombstone RJ]

I do like the idea of making the extra point mean something by pushing it out to the 35 yard line or so. If you combine that with having a 3 point conversion instead of a 2 point conversion (when teams want to "go for it") then maybe that would "make it more exciting"?

[Simplicity]

I'm in... Move it back to a challenging spot or just take it away... It's literally a waste of time in the NFL...

[Rain Man]

I do like the idea of making the extra point mean something by pushing it out to the 35 yard line or so. If you combine that with having a 3 point conversion instead of a 2 point conversion (when teams want to "go for it") then maybe that would "make it more exciting"?

Right now I think the expected value of an extra point versus a two-point play is about the same. It's about .997 points per attempt and 33 of 69 for two point plays, or .956 points per attempt.

If you make a two-point play suddenly worth three points, and you move the 1-point play out, the expected values will end up something like .96 points for the 1-point play and 1.5 points for the 3-point play. Teams would never go for the 1-point play other than rare situations.

[GloryDayz]

I think I'd prefer to the kicking team lose a player, maybe two for that play. Make it 9-on-11 if they line-up for a kick and you might see more blocked kicks (making it more exciting), and you'd not have to move the ball back to make it a harder attempt.

If they line up for a regular play, then you get all 11 players (and none can be a kicker). If 11 players can fake a real play and turn it into a kick, well that's fine and good luck.

[Rain Man]

Another option would be to have the cheerleaders run the extra point play against each other. That would be entertaining. Or maybe the coaching staff.

Or - OH! FANS! You pull fans wearing jerseys out of the stands, randomly assign them positions, and they run the extra point play. How exciting would that be?

[GloryDayz]

I think the only argument in favor of the extra point is "Well, this is how we've always done it."

Like hitting??? Yeah, Roger does what Roger wants (or is told to want)...

[Rain Man]

If a player scores, he turns and runs back in the opposite direction. If he reaches the 20, it's one point. If he reaches the 50, it's two points. If he reaches the other end zone it's three points and he turns back around to try again. The play keeps going until he's tackled.

[mikey23545]

Since a sack occurs on 10% of all passes, an automatic 10 yard loss will be called on every 10th pass play, and all pass rushing will be banned...

[mikey23545]

Since running plays average 3.9 yards per attempt...

[Brock]

I've heard the arguments. I acknowledge it's a worthless play.

I still vote no.

[Sannyasi]

Like hitting??? Yeah, Roger does what Roger wants (or is told to want)...

Good argument.

The extra point is like an appendix. It is a remnant from a different historical period, when football was not the same game that we know today. It serves no purpose anymore. If the extra point did not already exist, there would not be single person arguing in its favor.

Presumably the people who want to keep it around are the types that a century ago would have been arguing against the legalization of the forward pass.

[Rain Man]

How about this?

No two-point plays, and the extra point kick must be attempted from the spot in the end zone where the touchdown was scored. Catch a nice fade in the back corner? Let's see if your kicker can bend it like Beckham.

[-King-]

Since a sack occurs on 10% of all passes, an automatic 10 yard loss will be called on every 10th pass play, and all pass rushing will be banned...

Since running plays average 3.9 yards per attempt...

You'd have a point except here we're not talking averages. We're talking about near certainties.

[Brock]

Stop changing the game, unless we're changing it back to the near perfect game it was in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

[mikey23545]

You'd have a point except here we're not talking averages. We're talking about near certainties.

Bullshit. It's exactly the same thing. In the case of the extra point, the average is one missed extra point every 0.4% of attempts so they're saying let's just say they're all good...It's still being based on averages...

[Simplicity]

I've heard the arguments. I acknowledge it's a worthless play.

I still vote no.


I like to waste 30 mins a game on worthless plays also.


:shake:

[Brock]

I like to waste 30 mins a game on worthless plays also.


:shake:

So after 50 years of play, the games are too long all of a sudden?

[Simplicity]

So after 50 years of play, the games are too long all of a sudden?

Yes.

[tk13]

It's funny, at first I thought this idea had some merit. However, I was surprised there were even 5 misses last year. That almost makes me want to keep it. That's one game every 3 weeks affected by a missed XP. These guys are professionals, if you can't execute that play you almost deserve to be punished.

[Easy 6]

I think the only argument in favor of the extra point is "Well, this is how we've always done it."

Theres something to be said for tradition... Goodell has went ****ing bonkers with his power, one day its change the extra point the next its make the defense count to 3 mississippi before rushing the QB.

[listopencil]

How about instead of that we invest more in the replay system and make sure ALL change of possession and game changing plays get reviewed?

That Seattle/49'er game was HORRID. There were three plays there that could have changed the game.

You know, improve the current product before we worry about changing it...

They can do both.

[ILChief]

Make the player that scored the touchdown kick the extra point

[listopencil]

.4%

That's what you're trying to protect.

Is it 0.4% or 0.04%?

[Superbowltrashcan]

So here is the extra point rule:

After a touchdown, the scoring team is allowed a try during one scrimmage down. The ball may be spotted anywhere between the inbounds lines, two or more yards from the goal line. The successful conversion counts one point by kick; two points for a successful conversion by touchdown; or one point for a safety.
The defensive team never can score on a try. As soon as defense gets possession or the kick is blocked or a touchdown is not scored, the try is over.
Any distance penalty for fouls committed by the defense that prevent the try from being attempted can be enforced on the succeeding try or succeeding kickoff. Any foul committed on a successful try will result in a distance penalty being assessed on the ensuing kickoff.
Only the fumbling player can recover and advance a fumble during a try.

So based on all of this how does the offense score a safety? Sorry had a root canal today and still kinda foggy.

[Superbowltrashcan]

So here is the extra point rule:

After a touchdown, the scoring team is allowed a try during one scrimmage down. The ball may be spotted anywhere between the inbounds lines, two or more yards from the goal line. The successful conversion counts one point by kick; two points for a successful conversion by touchdown; or one point for a safety.
The defensive team never can score on a try. As soon as defense gets possession or the kick is blocked or a touchdown is not scored, the try is over.
Any distance penalty for fouls committed by the defense that prevent the try from being attempted can be enforced on the succeeding try or succeeding kickoff. Any foul committed on a successful try will result in a distance penalty being assessed on the ensuing kickoff.
Only the fumbling player can recover and advance a fumble during a try.

So based on all of this how does the offense score a safety? Sorry had a root canal today and still kinda foggy.
Found my answer:
The only scenario in which a one-point safety could be scored in NFL play would involve the defense kicking or batting a loose ball out the back of the end zone without taking possession of the ball.

[listopencil]

Found my answer:
The only scenario in which a one-point safety could be scored in NFL play would involve the defense kicking or batting a loose ball out the back of the end zone without taking possession of the ball.

I seem to remember that happening once.

[Dayze]

I know I'm probably in the minority, and probably just speaking from my bias, but I hate the extra point. It's just an extra, unnecessary play IMO.

[Superbowltrashcan]

Is there any thought given to moving the two point conversion closer? Maybe put it at the 1 or 1.5 yard mark while also putting the kick attempt out farther? Some combination could be figured out that makes both plays worth watching but still provides greater risk with the one worth twice the other.

[chiefzilla1501]

I think the only argument in favor of the extra point is "Well, this is how we've always done it."

No, the argument is that when you plan a major rule change like this and your only rationale is to shorten the game, that's silly. I was a huge fan of the OT rule change and still am. Because the old system was horribly broken. In this case, we're talking about a rule change that, even if only in a small way, makes the system worse.

[chiefzilla1501]

It's also a 0.4% that really angers and frustrates a fan base. There's a marketing value in eliminating that 0.4%.

Does it? Was anybody even talking about until the NFL brought it up?

[-King-]

No, the argument is that when you plan a major rule change like this and your only rationale is to shorten the game, that's silly. I was a huge fan of the OT rule change and still am. Because the old system was horribly broken. In this case, we're talking about a rule change that, even if only in a small way, makes the system worse.

Contradicted yourself in one post. Nice.

[Superbowltrashcan]

I seem to remember that happening once.
In the NFL it was 1940 I think but in the college game it happened in the KSU-Oregon Fiesta Bowl.

[listopencil]

In the NFL it was 1940 I think but in the college game it happened in the KSU-Oregon Fiesta Bowl.

I was just digging around and saw college examples, but couldn't find any NFL examples.

[chiefzilla1501]

Contradicted yourself in one post. Nice.

Why? We know that this affects a small % of points scored. But it's a change that majorly affects the way the game is played.

[Mr. Derek]

Thr extra point "try" in its current format is useless.
Need to make it much more challenging, however, increasing the distance substantially will eliminate the fake option.
How about ball must hit the crossbar (any of the three) for 1 point, 2 points rules stay the same?

[lcarus]

This actually sounds excellent, but make a maximum distance so that the 35 yard line or something like that is the maximum distance for a kick. But this also punishes teams for scoring long touchdowns so I don't know. Sounds exciting though.

Another option would be to bring in a random fan for the extra point. That would be cool but would never happen. Funny to think though a big 250 lb. woman coming in for the PAT. Haha

Scahrew that. What if a team is down 7 late? You wanna make them kick a 50 yard XP just because they scored a long TD?

[Dayze]

put the goal post on a golf cart and drive it back and forth like the old QB Skills competition in the Pro Bowl.

[listopencil]

put the goal post on a golf cart and drive it back and forth like the old QB Skills competition in the Pro Bowl.

I wish they still did that stuff. They should just do a skills competition instead of the Pro Bowl.

[Tribal Warfare]

Eliminating the extra point attempt, and extending the season into the playoffs while contradicting the notion of player safety? Man, Goodell really loves this games integrity.

:rolleyes:

[listopencil]

Wouldn't it be cool to see linemen pushing a sled that was rigged like a tractor pull?

[GloryDayz]

I wish they still did that stuff. They should just do a skills competition instead of the Pro Bowl.

This........

[ILChief]

I could see us losing a playoff game due to a missed extra point. So get rid of them

[Start Croyle]

The NBA will soon switch its rules and just award a team points when a player is fouled instead of having them shoot free throws,

[notorious]

First, they abolished defense, now they are going for X-pts.

[listopencil]

This........

Check this out, "the Playoff Bowl", a kind of sort/of precursor to the Pro Bowl:


Really, though, the whole thing seems kind of ridiculous. It'd never fly now. In fact, it barely did then. After his Green Bay Packers beat the Cleveland Browns in the 1963 game, Vince Lombardi called it (http://books.google.ca/books?id=K2pvvE8K0HIC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=The+Shit+Bowl.+A+loser%27s+game+for+losers.+Because+that%27s+all+second+place+is&source=bl&ots=Is0zKth5IU&sig=RtLe5al3yX4q-fgV8JHrisp0cdk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=547XUvu0LaaysAS7o4CQAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Shit%20Bowl.%20A%20loser%27s%20game%20for%20losers.%20Because%20that%27s%20all%20second%20pl ace%20is&f=false) "the Shit Bowl. A loser's game for losers. Because that's all second place is."

Awesome, Vince, but technically it was for third place.

http://www.bloguin.com/thisgivensunday/2014-articles/january/upon-further-review-nfl-third-place-games-used-to-be-a-thing.html

[New World Order]

Go for 2.

[Start Croyle]

Check this out, "the Playoff Bowl", a kind of sort/of precursor to the Pro Bowl:


Really, though, the whole thing seems kind of ridiculous. It'd never fly now. In fact, it barely did then. After his Green Bay Packers beat the Cleveland Browns in the 1963 game, Vince Lombardi called it (http://books.google.ca/books?id=K2pvvE8K0HIC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=The+Shit+Bowl.+A+loser%27s+game+for+losers.+Because+that%27s+all+second+place+is&source=bl&ots=Is0zKth5IU&sig=RtLe5al3yX4q-fgV8JHrisp0cdk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=547XUvu0LaaysAS7o4CQAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Shit%20Bowl.%20A%20loser%27s%20game%20for%20losers.%20Because%20that%27s%20all%20second%20pl ace%20is&f=false) "the Shit Bowl. A loser's game for losers. Because that's all second place is."

Awesome, Vince, but technically it was for third place.

http://www.bloguin.com/thisgivensunday/2014-articles/january/upon-further-review-nfl-third-place-games-used-to-be-a-thing.html

It wouldn' tbe that surprising if they bring it back. They are always looking to add more games to the season, more teams to the playoffs, etc. They have talked about dumping the pro bowl for years, too. Actually, that's what most of the pro-bowl coverage is, a bunch of debate every year about whether they should keep it.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they bring back a runner-up game, either replacing or in addition to the pro bowl.

[Reerun_KC]

FGs and extra points are for quitters.

[O.city]

Wouldn't have a problem doing away with it. Just make it automatic.

Same as with an Intentional walk in MLB, just say call for the IBOB and move on.

[notorious]

This is an easy way to boost scoring and keep current add time.

They will cut to commercial before going for "one"


Yay, yet another benefit for elite QB's.

[DaFace]

Though I don't conceptually like the idea of getting a point without having to do anything to get it, I agree that the XP is a useless play these days. I'd be fine with getting rid of it as described, though I'd be more in favor of altering the play itself to make it more interesting (moving it back to 30 yards or something)?

[cosmo20002]

The NBA will soon switch its rules and just award a team points when a player is fouled instead of having them shoot free throws,

Except NBA free throw % probably averages around 70% with some in the 50s. Extra point % is over 99%

[cosmo20002]

It wouldn' tbe that surprising if they bring it back. They are always looking to add more games to the season, more teams to the playoffs, etc. They have talked about dumping the pro bowl for years, too. Actually, that's what most of the pro-bowl coverage is, a bunch of debate every year about whether they should keep it.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they bring back a runner-up game, either replacing or in addition to the pro bowl.

There is no way in hell they are ever, ever doing that.

[FRCDFED]

Tony Romo approves this message

[GloryDayz]

If they just make the TD 7 points there's not giving anything that they didn't earn, it's just seven points. And I think it's important to keep a TD at seven to make sure a TD is worth more than two FGs.

That being said, and to sound a little bi-polar, wouldn't it be interesting to make FGs longer than 50 yards worth 4 points? Make it and get more points, miss it and setup the other team with awesome field position.

And while we're changing rules, I'd love to make catching the ball on fair catches mandatory. If not caught, it's a fumble. So get out of the way and let the D pin you back.

Sorry, getting ahead of myself...

[GloryDayz]

Tony Romo approves this message

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Rep!

[lcarus]

I don't like the idea of moving the XP back to make it more interesting. I'd rather them just get rid of it. I don't wanna make kickers a bigger part of the game.

[Bearcat]

If nothing else, he does a great job of creating hype around his product over stuff that shouldn't even be considered news. I wonder how many of these "proposals" are floating around at any given time.

[lcarus]

I'm down with just leaving the game alone. The XP doesn't bother me at all. There's always still that rare chance that it's blocked or missed.

[Rain Man]

Another option under consideration is to make the extra point subject to public voting. You text to 85774 for yes, or to 35432 for no. It costs 50 cents to vote. It would produce a lot of revenue and encourage fan participation.

[bowener]

Why don't they consider moving the extra point kicks back so they are not so automatic?


I posted a thread awhile back from a Peter King I think that argued that NFL kickers have become too good.

This. Why not move it back to the 25 and allow the defense to pick which hash mark to put it on? Better than Goddell's idea.

[lcarus]

This. Why not move it back to the 25 and allow the defense to pick which hash mark to put it on? Better than Goddell's idea.

I don't want games to be decided by the fucking point after.

[Rain Man]

How about dunking the ball over the crossbar as the extra point? If you score, you have to put the ball over the crossbar before being tackled or having it rejected.

[alnorth]

It's funny, at first I thought this idea had some merit. However, I was surprised there were even 5 misses last year. That almost makes me want to keep it. That's one game every 3 weeks affected by a missed XP. These guys are professionals, if you can't execute that play you almost deserve to be punished.

Those 5 games were probably not impacted because games aren't decided by 1 point very often, and the fact that the PAT was missed usually doesn't even impact decisions later in the game.

You are already at 99.6% chance of making it, the chance that you either make it or a miss doesn't impact a game is probably 99.9%.

The PAT is stupid, it should be done away with, and I'm surprised at how many people are defending the PAT. A few of the pro-PAT posts are exceptionally stupid.

[alnorth]

I also disagree with the argument that the PAT should be made more difficult, just get rid of the damned thing. If you are already willing to concede that the PAT as-is is a worthless thing that should be reformed or eliminated, then before you describe your new and improved PAT, you need to first explain why we should keep the PAT. "Because we've always done it" isn't a good enough reason, we don't play football to kick extra points, we play to score touchdowns.

If we didn't have the PAT and a TD was just worth 7 points, there is not a chance in hell that we'd think reducing it to 6 and introducing a PAT would be a good idea, even if it was a PAT that could be missed sometimes.

[morphius]

I really have no strong feeling on this at all. Of course it does sort of take even more of the "foot" out of "foot"ball.

[tk13]

Those 5 games were probably not impacted because games aren't decided by 1 point very often, and the fact that the PAT was missed usually doesn't even impact decisions later in the game.

You are already at 99.6% chance of making it, the chance that you either make it or a miss doesn't impact a game is probably 99.9%.

The PAT is stupid, it should be done away with, and I'm surprised at how many people are defending the PAT. A few of the pro-PAT posts are exceptionally stupid.

You're probably right, but then we'd have zero percent chance of finishes like this!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kTGco82JKHo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[chiefzilla1501]

You're probably right, but then we'd have zero percent chance of finishes like this!

2002 - Trey Junken botched a snap for the Giants, leading to a loss in the Wildcard
2003 - Carney misses on the play you referenced
2006 - Shayne Graham misses a go-ahead field goal try that would have clinched Cincy into the playoffs
2007 - Tony Romo botches a snap on what was basically a PAT (a 19 yard attempt) leading to a playoff loss

Lots of exciting endings we'd miss out on. And while we pass these off as boring, I certainly don't think PATs are boring when a team scores a game-winning TD in the playoffs and the last PAT will either tie or seal the deal. Are people really going to say they don't hold their breath a little?

[jd1020]

Are people really going to say they don't hold their breath a little?

Yes.

If a team down by 6 scores a TD with 0:00 left on the clock, I'm switching the channel because I have a 99.9% chance of knowing who just won the game.

[chiefzilla1501]

Yes.

If a team down by 6 scores a TD with 0:00 left on the clock, I'm switching the channel because I have a 99.9% chance of knowing who just won the game.

I am sure that if you're watching a game where you are rooting for a team in a playoff/play-in/super bowl game that you change the channel with 0 seconds to go, and one more play that needs to be run. Good point.

[chiefzilla1501]

Those 5 games were probably not impacted because games aren't decided by 1 point very often, and the fact that the PAT was missed usually doesn't even impact decisions later in the game.

You are already at 99.6% chance of making it, the chance that you either make it or a miss doesn't impact a game is probably 99.9%.

The PAT is stupid, it should be done away with, and I'm surprised at how many people are defending the PAT. A few of the pro-PAT posts are exceptionally stupid.

The reason people are defending the PAT is because you are taking a football play away, and the only reason you're doing that... it's not because it makes the game more fair. It's not to keep players safer. It's because apparently running 8-10 more plays in a game is apparently too much to handle, because we were all apparently complaining that the game was too long. Nevermind that nobody ONCE on this board complained about extra points until Goodell even brought it up.

That's the problem.

[cosmo20002]

2002 - Trey Junken botched a snap for the Giants, leading to a loss in the Wildcard
2003 - Carney misses on the play you referenced
2006 - Shayne Graham misses a go-ahead field goal try that would have clinched Cincy into the playoffs
2007 - Tony Romo botches a snap on what was basically a PAT (a 19 yard attempt) leading to a playoff loss

Lots of exciting endings we'd miss out on. And while we pass these off as boring, I certainly don't think PATs are boring when a team scores a game-winning TD in the playoffs and the last PAT will either tie or seal the deal. Are people really going to say they don't hold their breath a little?

OK, you named 4 plays out of probably 15,000 EP kicks. And two of those you listed for some reason aren't even extra point attempts.

[morphius]

The reason people are defending the PAT is because you are taking a football play away, and the only reason you're doing that... it's not because it makes the game more fair. It's not to keep players safer. It's because apparently running 8-10 more plays in a game is apparently too much to handle, because we were all apparently complaining that the game was too long. Nevermind that nobody ONCE on this board complained about extra points until Goodell even brought it up.

That's the problem.
My wife and kids have asked me to explain why the extra point. I could only come up with that is was a gift point for scoring a TD that you had to earn, and you have to kick the ball sometime for the sport to be called football.

[TLO]

You're probably right, but then we'd have zero percent chance of finishes like this!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kTGco82JKHo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

NOOOOOOO!!!

LMAO

[chiefzilla1501]

OK, you named 4 plays out of probably 15,000 EP kicks. And two of those you listed for some reason aren't even extra point attempts.

Shayne Graham's was an extra point. That's my bad. So 3 out of 4 examples I gave were PATs. Romo's botched snap... that was basically a PAT.

Let me ask you this. How many NFL playoff/super bowl games in a season have the last play in regulation come down to an extra point that ties or wins the game? Or a chip shot field goal within 20 yards? How about "play-in" regular season games?

Probably 2 or 3 per year. So if this kind of thing has happened about 25 times the last 11 years. Let's even be generous and say "50 times." If a play was botched 4 times, that's either 8% or 16% of the time. That is NOT insignificant.

[tk13]

NOOOOOOO!!!

LMAO

Yeah, that's a classic. That miss actually eliminated the Saints from playoff contention that year.

[Basileus777]

Removing extra points makes sense. It's a pointless play and getting rid of it helps the pacing of the game a bit.

[salame]

http://wrestling-match.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ScottHall028_display_image.jpg

[alnorth]

The reason people are defending the PAT is because you are taking a football play away, and the only reason you're doing that... it's not because it makes the game more fair. It's not to keep players safer. It's because apparently running 8-10 more plays in a game is apparently too much to handle, because we were all apparently complaining that the game was too long. Nevermind that nobody ONCE on this board complained about extra points until Goodell even brought it up.

That's the problem.

Its not a football play. Its an idiotic ritual that is now outdated.

Any event which has a 99.6% chance of succeeding can no longer be considered a play, it is boring, uneventful, and pointless. The announcers do not even waste any time describing the extra point unless the super mega ultra-rare disaster happens. They yammer on about the touchdown, pause a moment to say the PAT was good, then continue talking about the play that ACTUALLY matters.

Just because we have had a few momentous events occur due to the PAT does not justify its existence. We are literally wasting hours of time per interesting event. Lets say a PAT takes an extra 30 seconds of time from lining things up, to kicking, to getting off the field. You have to watch 2 freaking hours of boring uneventful PAT's to see a missed one, and even then it often doesn't impact the game. That is too high a price to pay for the remote chance of it not being a total waste of time. This dumb ritual that people only defend because we've always done it that way before, is a waste of the players time, it is a waste of the teams time, and it is a waste of the fans time.

[Amnorix]

100% agree with Alnorth. The PAT is a boring waste of time. How many people go to the bathroom or head for the kitchen for that snack after the TD but BEFORE the PAT? Yeah, me too.

It's completely pointless. IMHO it should either be eliminated altogether, or changed in a way to make it a WORTHWHILE football play. Peter King had an interesting option. Move the PAT back to some challenging (but not too terrible) distance for 1 point OR go for 2 from the current LOS after a TD.

But yeah, picking the PAT. The single stupidest play in sports that I can think of.

[alnorth]

To me, the PAT is similar to asking a player to run a 40-yard dash in 7 seconds after a touchdown on a wet muddy strip of turf to get the extra point. Even in domes, we could have a strip of wet muddy turf off the side of the field for the point after. You'll probably make it, but there's always a chance you slip and crash to the ground, probably a bigger chance than missing an extra point. Teams would probably have sure-footed fast specialists practicing the 1-point run, and we'd definitely have to watch it.

But it would be stupid. Just about as stupid, artificial, and contrived as the PAT. The only reason we don't think the PAT is stupid is because we've grown up with it.

[Jimmya]

Make it longer.

[BlackHelicopters]

Make it longer.

TWSS

[TheUte]

It's maybe ok, but there are other things the need to be fixed first.

We all feel in love with football, when it included XP's as they are, of all the thing that can be done why worry about something that really isn't broken.

[mikey23545]

Shayne Graham's was an extra point. That's my bad. So 3 out of 4 examples I gave were PATs. Romo's botched snap... that was basically a PAT.

Let me ask you this. How many NFL playoff/super bowl games in a season have the last play in regulation come down to an extra point that ties or wins the game? Or a chip shot field goal within 20 yards? How about "play-in" regular season games?

Probably 2 or 3 per year. So if this kind of thing has happened about 25 times the last 11 years. Let's even be generous and say "50 times." If a play was botched 4 times, that's either 8% or 16% of the time. That is NOT insignificant.


You're not getting it.

Some of the most self-centered posters on the board have said the extra point should be eliminated BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE IT.

Nuff said.

[Rain Man]

Make it longer.

Well, okay.

NnnnFffffLllll eyyyyyyeing prooooopoooooosal tooooooooo abolishhhhhhhhhh exxxxxxxtra pooooooooooints.

[Rain Man]

If you believe wikipedia, the extra point was once worth more than a touchdown. You scored a touchdown to get the opportunity to kick an extra point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(gridiron_football)

The try/convert is among the oldest parts of the game of gridiron football and dates to its rugby roots. In its earliest days, scoring a touchdown was not the primary objective but a means of getting a free kick at the goal (hence why the name "try," more commonly associated with rugby today, is still used in American football rule books), and thus early scoring rubrics for the game gave more points to the subsequent kick than the actual advancement of the ball into the end zone. The related term "conversion" is still used in both rugby union and rugby league to refer to extra points scored by kicking the ball through the posts after a try has been scored.

By the start of the 20th century, touchdowns had become more important and the roles of touchdown and kick were reversed. By this time the point value for the after-touchdown kick had reduced to its current one-point value while the touchdown was now worth five. (This later increased to six points in American football in 1912 and in Canadian football in 1956.)[citation needed]

[BlackHelicopters]

Ban extra points.

[bowener]

Narrow the goalposts by 3' on each side, making them 12'6" wide, and add another 10' at the top, and raise the bottom bar to 12' (which stops the stupid dunks). Have extra points be kicked from a hashmark of choice by the opposition. That would be a pretty extreme angle at 2 yards.

This would also make 60+ field goals much more difficult by raising the bar (literally). And I would like to add the extra 10' at the top to help take the error of human element out of the refs hands.

This all seems much more logical than doing away with the PAT.

[BlackHelicopters]

Narrow the goalposts by 3' on each side, making them 12'6" wide, and add another 10' at the top, and raise the bottom bar to 12' (which stops the stupid dunks). Have extra points be kicked from a hashmark of choice by the opposition. That would be a pretty extreme angle at 2 yards.

This would also make 60+ field goals much more difficult by raising the bar (literally). And I would like to add the extra 10' at the top to help take the error of human element out of the refs hands.

This all seems much more logical than doing away with the PAT.


Too logical. Will never happen.

[cosmo20002]

Make the goal posts 10 feet wide.

That will also make more teams go for it on 4th down because FGs will be harder (except the Chiefs, who will punt more).

PROBLEM SOLVED

[cosmo20002]

Narrow the goalposts by 3' on each side, making them 12'6" wide, and add another 10' at the top, and raise the bottom bar to 12' (which stops the stupid dunks). Have extra points be kicked from a hashmark of choice by the opposition. That would be a pretty extreme angle at 2 yards.

This would also make 60+ field goals much more difficult by raising the bar (literally). And I would like to add the extra 10' at the top to help take the error of human element out of the refs hands.

This all seems much more logical than doing away with the PAT.

Shit, beat me by a few minutes.

[scho63]

Abolish Roger Goodell-problem solved

[cosmo20002]

Remember when the goalposts were on the goal line? I don't, but I saw it on TV. Players kept cracking themselves on it so they moved it to the back of the end zone.

I wonder if there was a shit storm then about players being pussies and ruining the game by making FGs longer.

[cosmo20002]

Abolish Roger Goodell-problem solved

Why would that make a difference? Will the new commissioner not act as the owners want him to?

[tomahawk kid]

Abolish Roger Goodell-problem solved

God - so much of this.

That SOB just HAS to mess with EVERYTHING.

[cosmo20002]

God - so much of this.

That SOB just HAS to mess with EVERYTHING.

The owners must really be shocked at everything he is doing to screw with the game. They are defenseless against Goodell, who apparently is the boss of the owners.

[tomahawk kid]

The owners must really be shocked at everything he is doing to screw with the game. They are defenseless against Goodell, who apparently is the boss of the owners.

It sure didn't seem like as many things were being changed, or considered to be changed, under Paul T.

[cosmo20002]

It sure didn't seem like as many things were being changed, or considered to be changed, under Paul T.

You probably just don't remember, and a lot of the rule stuff is related to concussions which didn't really emerge as the major issue it is now until after Paul T. Point is, NONE of this stuff--rule changes, adding teams to the playoffs, what days games are played-- is done without explicit approval from the owners, and they likely suggest a lot of it. He is carrying out their wishes.

We can only imagine the kind of stuff that is suggested behind the scenes. I'd be surprised if there weren't at least proposals for TV games every night of the week, adding a couple rounds to the playoffs, teams in Mexico and London, and who knows what else.

Not that I'm a Goodell fan or anything, I just think the blame should go to where it belongs.

[GloryDayz]

The owners must really be shocked at everything he is doing to screw with the game. They are defenseless against Goodell, who apparently is the boss of the owners.

They are neither shocked nor defenseless, they are simply money-whores who are paying him well to take the heat for moves that might somehow lead to more money. But I think you already knew all of that.

[ChiliConCarnage]

If the extra point did not already exist, there would not be single person arguing in its favor.


This is a really salient point. If the game currently existed with every team going for two after a touchdown nobody would argue for a boring single automatic point kick to be added.

Either way, kicking in general has become too good. Ryan Succop had the 28th best kicking accuracy this season. That put him 12% better at kicking FGs than Jan Steneruds career average.

Just in the last decade there has been a huge jump. This year Rob Bironas was the 20th most accurate FG kicker at 86.2%. In 2002, that would have placed him as the 5th most accurate. That includes the fact that there are far more 50+ yarders taken this season.

Kickers haven't missed a kick inside of 40 yards yet in the playoffs.

[BigMeatballDave]

I don't really care about the PAT.

Also, I used to have a lot of anger towards Goodell.

After thinking about it, he's only doing what the owners want him to do.

[BigMeatballDave]

The owners must really be shocked at everything he is doing to screw with the game. They are defenseless against Goodell, who apparently is the boss of the owners.

LMAO Come on, man. You gotta be smarter than this.

[morphius]

If you believe wikipedia, the extra point was once worth more than a touchdown. You scored a touchdown to get the opportunity to kick an extra point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(gridiron_football)

The try/convert is among the oldest parts of the game of gridiron football and dates to its rugby roots. In its earliest days, scoring a touchdown was not the primary objective but a means of getting a free kick at the goal (hence why the name "try," more commonly associated with rugby today, is still used in American football rule books), and thus early scoring rubrics for the game gave more points to the subsequent kick than the actual advancement of the ball into the end zone. The related term "conversion" is still used in both rugby union and rugby league to refer to extra points scored by kicking the ball through the posts after a try has been scored.

By the start of the 20th century, touchdowns had become more important and the roles of touchdown and kick were reversed. By this time the point value for the after-touchdown kick had reduced to its current one-point value while the touchdown was now worth five. (This later increased to six points in American football in 1912 and in Canadian football in 1956.)[citation needed]
So we could take the rugby rule and where you score is where you kick from. So a fade corner route would lead you being stuck kicking it from the sideline.

(I believe it is where the player is forced to put the ball down in the try in rugby area is where you kick from on the field)

[cosmo20002]

LMAO Come on, man. You gotta be smarter than this.

Well, I was being sarcastic if that's what you mean. Goodell acts on behalf of the owners.

[GloryDayz]

Well, I was being sarcastic if that's what you mean. Goodell acts on behalf of the owners.

You, sarcastic??? No!!!!!!!!!!

[BlackHelicopters]

The owners are trying to maximize revenue any way possible. If eliminating the extra point is profitable, they will find a way to make it happen.

[alnorth]

Narrow the goalposts by 3' on each side, making them 12'6" wide, and add another 10' at the top, and raise the bottom bar to 12' (which stops the stupid dunks). Have extra points be kicked from a hashmark of choice by the opposition. That would be a pretty extreme angle at 2 yards.

This would also make 60+ field goals much more difficult by raising the bar (literally). And I would like to add the extra 10' at the top to help take the error of human element out of the refs hands.

This all seems much more logical than doing away with the PAT.

Or we can just get rid of the stupid PAT.

There is no logical reason for the PAT to even exist, other than "we always had it".

[Dayze]

make it to where the QB hands the ball off to the kicker, and he must run it in the A gap.

[BigMeatballDave]

Well, I was being sarcastic if that's what you mean. Goodell acts on behalf of the owners.

Awe, shit. LOL

[chiefzilla1501]

Or we can just get rid of the stupid PAT.

There is no logical reason for the PAT to even exist, other than "we always had it".

There is no logical reason to get rid of it other than "it saves time," even though nobody was ever complaining about games being too long in the first place.

[Big Poppa Payne]

If Goodell had his way he would do away with running the football and shorten the field by 40 yards so there is non stop scoring.

[chiefzilla1501]

Narrow the goalposts by 3' on each side, making them 12'6" wide, and add another 10' at the top, and raise the bottom bar to 12' (which stops the stupid dunks). Have extra points be kicked from a hashmark of choice by the opposition. That would be a pretty extreme angle at 2 yards.

This would also make 60+ field goals much more difficult by raising the bar (literally). And I would like to add the extra 10' at the top to help take the error of human element out of the refs hands.

This all seems much more logical than doing away with the PAT.

This is an interesting idea.

I'd also love to see the NFL widen the hash marks like in college.