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."

[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]

Originally Posted by Sannyasi

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]

Originally Posted by Rausch

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]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

.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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Superbowltrashcan

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]

Originally Posted by Sannyasi

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]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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-]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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]

Originally Posted by listopencil

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]

Originally Posted by Superbowltrashcan

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.