On the front page of the Sunday Globe sports section is Chris Gasper's column entitled "What's the point, NFL?".
Gasper makes most of his points in the following passage:
"The assault on the extra point is the most unnecessary, superfluous sports rule change in recent memory. There was no great groundswell of demand from fans to increase the degree of difficulty of an NFL afterthought. There is an increased risk of injury — and special teams health and safety hypocrisy — by taking a non-play and making it a play. There is the chance that games, seasons, jobs, and fan fulfillment could be lost on a trivial aspect of the game."
Even by the low standards of current sports journalism, this column stands out as being exceptionally lazy and thoughtless. Take his first point on the lack of demand from fans. Remind me which, if any, of the current rules were passed based on such a demand. And why is that such a good idea anyway? I bet a secret poll of the fans would find overwhelming support for celebratory BJs from the cheerleaders after a TD, but that doesn't mean the NFL Rules Committee should be rushing to go back into emergency session.
Second point on the risk of injury. Really? Following that logic to its conclusion, the NFL should not only keep the extra point as is, but award 6 points upon successful execution of three successive snaps to the QB. Voila, risk of injury minimized! No, the simple fact is that they're adding a play that is inherently more interesting while not introducing some radical new risk to the players. Does Gasper want to argue that somehow this new 33-yd extra point stands out from all the 120-odd other plays in a game in level of risk? I think not.
Last point. Does he mean to imply here that this chance doesn't already exist in every NFL game for a myriad of seemingly trivial aspects, like taking a few extra seconds here and there, and suddenly having a time crunch late in a game-ending drive? And if it isn't trivial because it can cost you a game, then how is an extra point trivial?
I've given this much more space than it deserves, primarily because I've been do disappointed in Gasper lately. Earlier in his career he seemed like a calm, relatively thoughtful voice but recently he seems headed down the Shaughnessy Snark Road, but without any of Dan's writing chops. Sad.
Gasper makes most of his points in the following passage:
"The assault on the extra point is the most unnecessary, superfluous sports rule change in recent memory. There was no great groundswell of demand from fans to increase the degree of difficulty of an NFL afterthought. There is an increased risk of injury — and special teams health and safety hypocrisy — by taking a non-play and making it a play. There is the chance that games, seasons, jobs, and fan fulfillment could be lost on a trivial aspect of the game."
Even by the low standards of current sports journalism, this column stands out as being exceptionally lazy and thoughtless. Take his first point on the lack of demand from fans. Remind me which, if any, of the current rules were passed based on such a demand. And why is that such a good idea anyway? I bet a secret poll of the fans would find overwhelming support for celebratory BJs from the cheerleaders after a TD, but that doesn't mean the NFL Rules Committee should be rushing to go back into emergency session.
Second point on the risk of injury. Really? Following that logic to its conclusion, the NFL should not only keep the extra point as is, but award 6 points upon successful execution of three successive snaps to the QB. Voila, risk of injury minimized! No, the simple fact is that they're adding a play that is inherently more interesting while not introducing some radical new risk to the players. Does Gasper want to argue that somehow this new 33-yd extra point stands out from all the 120-odd other plays in a game in level of risk? I think not.
Last point. Does he mean to imply here that this chance doesn't already exist in every NFL game for a myriad of seemingly trivial aspects, like taking a few extra seconds here and there, and suddenly having a time crunch late in a game-ending drive? And if it isn't trivial because it can cost you a game, then how is an extra point trivial?
I've given this much more space than it deserves, primarily because I've been do disappointed in Gasper lately. Earlier in his career he seemed like a calm, relatively thoughtful voice but recently he seems headed down the Shaughnessy Snark Road, but without any of Dan's writing chops. Sad.