NFL exploring eliminating extra point or make it a 43-yard attempt
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I think we should make kickers use the opposite foot on extra points that they do on field goals. So Gost can kick FG's righty, but must attempt XP's lefty. It would not be automatic.
I'm ready to start up an youth ambidextrous kicking camp.
I'm ready to start up an youth ambidextrous kicking camp.
Which is why, as much as I hate TMQ, his idea is more interesting: TD's remain worth 6, 2-point conversion is required, PAT is abolished. Basically turn it into high school football.bankshot1 said:
Harry Hooper said:
PaulinMyrBch said:
... and if the try is successful, jugglers and tiny cars filled with clowns appear on the field to lead the celebration.
If you'll forgive a tangent...
In principle: I hate the entire idea of place-kicking for points in football. Having a specialist try to put a ball through a goal for points has so little to do with the rest of the sport. Why not, after a touchdown, have a specialist come out and try to hit a free throw for the extra point? Or, on fourth down, try to hit a three-point shot? These ridiculous ideas are only a bit more incongruous with the rest of the game than place-kicking for the points.
In practice: The field goal is such a long-standing part of the game that its incongruity doesn't really bother people. Furthermore, it does often lead to some very exciting potential game-winning drives, which significantly increase the entertainment value of the game.
Back on topic: having the option of 7 points or 6 plus a two-point attempt after a TD is a perfectly reasonable idea. It eliminates a vestigial play without changing any of the current football strategy.
[edit: The more I think about it, requiring the player who scored the TD to attempt the PAT - as mentioned up-thread - would be awesome. Mixing incongruous sports/events can be cool, but only if it's the same person doing both; think biathlon or chess boxing.]
In principle: I hate the entire idea of place-kicking for points in football. Having a specialist try to put a ball through a goal for points has so little to do with the rest of the sport. Why not, after a touchdown, have a specialist come out and try to hit a free throw for the extra point? Or, on fourth down, try to hit a three-point shot? These ridiculous ideas are only a bit more incongruous with the rest of the game than place-kicking for the points.
In practice: The field goal is such a long-standing part of the game that its incongruity doesn't really bother people. Furthermore, it does often lead to some very exciting potential game-winning drives, which significantly increase the entertainment value of the game.
Back on topic: having the option of 7 points or 6 plus a two-point attempt after a TD is a perfectly reasonable idea. It eliminates a vestigial play without changing any of the current football strategy.
[edit: The more I think about it, requiring the player who scored the TD to attempt the PAT - as mentioned up-thread - would be awesome. Mixing incongruous sports/events can be cool, but only if it's the same person doing both; think biathlon or chess boxing.]
You could also keep the dimensions of the field and the core structure of the game as-is but require that the extra point is a drop kick. That bounce off the ground would change the % pretty fast (you could spice up the field goal situation this way too).
Not happening any time soon, but I think Id enjoy seeing them tweak the rules so a FG is worth less relative to a TD. Maybe make them 2 points instead of 3 or narrow the crossbars to reduce FG success rates. FG %'s have risen over time, Id like a little bit more of a reward for being able to get the ball all the way to the end zone as opposed to getting to the 35 yard line.
I also think a safety should be worth something like 4 points instead of 2. A small way to increase the value of defense and special teams in a game skewed towards the offense without hurting player safety and I dont like that its sometimes strategically better to take a safety rather than keep the ball in the field of play.
Just my crazy opinions there though.
I also think a safety should be worth something like 4 points instead of 2. A small way to increase the value of defense and special teams in a game skewed towards the offense without hurting player safety and I dont like that its sometimes strategically better to take a safety rather than keep the ball in the field of play.
Just my crazy opinions there though.
Use college hashmarks for kicks, and XP must be kicked from the side of where the TD was scored. There are two reasons XPs are automatic: it's short and it's dead-on straight. An angled kick would be a bit more difficult.
It may also lead to players that score a TD down the sideline to go to the center of the field and invite contact.
It may also lead to players that score a TD down the sideline to go to the center of the field and invite contact.
This is all consistent with my lifelong quest to eliminate D/ST and K from fantasy football. Fuck the XP. Go for two or an auto 7 works for me
I think making the point after more difficult is the way to go. Either the person scoring, from some line out from where he scored (if he squeaked jn at the pylon, he can kick from 15-20 yds out, to trade added distance for better angle).
or possibly the QB could kick, on a pass play, but from the spot of the pass.
And I'd be ok with it being an almost-free kick: you can press the line and jump to block it, but you're not allowed to rush from the corner behind the o-line (to try and prevent injuries to a QB). Add in the top bar, and that makes it interesting.
OR you can try for 2.
If you botch a kick, no opportunity to run it in.
(Added issue: if it's supposed to be the player that scored, and he's injured, you must go for 2)
or possibly the QB could kick, on a pass play, but from the spot of the pass.
And I'd be ok with it being an almost-free kick: you can press the line and jump to block it, but you're not allowed to rush from the corner behind the o-line (to try and prevent injuries to a QB). Add in the top bar, and that makes it interesting.
OR you can try for 2.
If you botch a kick, no opportunity to run it in.
(Added issue: if it's supposed to be the player that scored, and he's injured, you must go for 2)
SeoulSoxFan said:
I like having the kicker skillset in the game.
I'd be in favor of introducing the rugby conversion (worth one point and not two).
Place the ball on the 25 or 30 (to make it a 35- or 40-yarder), but also locate the ball along the line of the field where the TD was scored. A conversion on a TD scored from a corner fade pattern would be from a more severe angle (against the sideline) relative to a dive play up the middle (directly in front of the goalposts).
I'd make it a free kick, meaning there would be no conversion "team" on the field... this would eliminate the Gronk arm injury. Just the kicker.
This would introduce a) distance, b) angle, c) coaching strategy on red zone playcalling and defense, d) player situational adjustments when approaching the end zone (i.e. how close to the middle of the field can I get before getting tackled), and e) potentially bring the weather/elements much more into play.
I bet Coach Bill would love this.
I think making the point after more difficult is the way to go. Either the person scoring, from some line out from where he scored (if he squeaked jn at the pylon, he can kick from 15-20 yds out, to trade added distance for better angle).
or possibly the QB could kick, on a pass play, but from the spot of the pass.
And I'd be ok with it being an almost-free kick: you can press the line and jump to block it, but you're not allowed to rush from the corner behind the o-line (to try and prevent injuries to a QB). Add in the top bar, and that makes it interesting.
OR you can try for 2.
If you botch a kick, no opportunity to run it in.
(Added issue: if it's supposed to be the player that scored, and he's injured, you must go for 2)
So you are going to punish 65 yard bombs from the QB? That's idiotic.
or possibly the QB could kick, on a pass play, but from the spot of the pass.
And I'd be ok with it being an almost-free kick: you can press the line and jump to block it, but you're not allowed to rush from the corner behind the o-line (to try and prevent injuries to a QB). Add in the top bar, and that makes it interesting.
OR you can try for 2.
If you botch a kick, no opportunity to run it in.
(Added issue: if it's supposed to be the player that scored, and he's injured, you must go for 2)
So you are going to punish 65 yard bombs from the QB? That's idiotic.
PC Drunken Friar said:
I meant it (and wrote it) as "or"....sorta like a mulligan in golf.
You can either drop the ball in-line from the spot of the TD (e.g. you can move the ball farther away to improve the kicking angle if it's along the sidelines, and the scoring receiver or runner has to kick it) OR you could choose to have the QB kick from the spot of the throw.
Obviously a 65 yd bomb you would go with the scoring player. But if Brady from the 25 yd line threw to Gronk at the sideline, do you want Gronk to kick it from somewhere on the sideline, or Brady to try to kick a 35-yarder from between the hashmarks?
DrewDawg said:
your long wait is over....
(keep in mind that the d-line would be allowed to push the o-line and jump to block, but not to rush from the corners behind the o-line...this is explicitly to avoid running-into-the-kicker injuries)
southshoresoxfan said:
I didn't even think of the fantasy implications this decision could have. Kickers will somehow become even less valuable.
Morten Anderson will probably love this decision. No one will ever beat his points scored record.
I find the "purity of the game" aspect of having the player scoring the TD kick the XP, but I think people would soon tire of seeing elite offensive weapons pull hamstrings and groin muscles kicking the ball.
The cross-bar at the top of the uprights is an intriguing idea, but there's the possibility of making some more distant kicks easier than closer kicks, and you generally don't want to disincentivize yardage.
The cross-bar at the top of the uprights is an intriguing idea, but there's the possibility of making some more distant kicks easier than closer kicks, and you generally don't want to disincentivize yardage.
wiffleballhero said:
So basically you need to have your 3rd stinger in there for this play, because you sure as hell aren't going to run Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or Colin Kaepernick headlong into that pile over and over.
Peyton Manning with 55 touchdown passes, plus every other touchdown scored. Sounds like a great investment for the team to run them headfirst into a pile of football players. Wonder what could possibly go wrong.
Scoring player to kicking = pitchers hitting. Nothing says excitement like someone doing something they totally weren't hired to do.
Yeah those Vrabel plays used to suck, and they should have let someone else shoot free throws instead of Shaq.Infield Infidel said:
I see what you're saying though.
It might be enough to say that it had to be at (or in line with) the spot of the TD (or choose spot of the pass, in my setup) but have a real kicker.
If that is still too easy, make it a drop kick.
It would be fun as a novelty at first, like the shootout in hockey, but would get old quickly, especially as it has a deciding effect in games.simplyeric said:
The pitchers hitting analogy would be stronger if position players were all .998 hitters. Hitting a baseball is super hard. Kicking an extra point is not. I bet it wouldn't take very long for most skill players to get good enough at it to make maybe 80% of them, and for the ones that are truly inept, coaches would opt to go for 2.
As a non-serous alternative , maybe instead of the same player kicking the extra point, the same 11 players have to stay on the field for the conversion. Conversions after defensive and special team touchdowns would be fascinating.
As a non-serous alternative , maybe instead of the same player kicking the extra point, the same 11 players have to stay on the field for the conversion. Conversions after defensive and special team touchdowns would be fascinating.
Certainly places a premium on a good snap. Running around and heaving it 40 yards for two points is a lot harder than taking it around the right end and making a two-yard dive. Figure you fall on it at the 45 at that point.soxhop411 said:
Of course, if the NFL upped the ante and decided the defense could return an XP attempt for points in conjunction with this, you might be looking at something pretty interesting...
I like it, it's football, not handegg. Kicking is the oldest part of the game. But it makes the PAT about a 3 in 4 chance, which is closer to what it was 80-90 years ago.
Wouldn't a team want to always go for 2 if that became a rule? Using Brian Burke's numbers from this article, two-point conversions are successful about 47.9% of the time. That would give a 2-pt attempt an EV of 0.958 points, meaning that any extra point kick with an average chance of success below 95.8% would make it optimal to go for 2 all of the time. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a kicker that has a 95-96% success rate on 43 yard field goals.
^yeah, but teams are dumb, as evidenced by the amount of punting still in the game, so they'd probably all still kick except in late-game situations.
I hate this, honestly.
Half the time you're kicking it's worth 1 point and the other half it's worth 3 points. How does that make any sense (and yeah, I know that exists even now, but not many teams kick FGs from the 2 yard line)? Just eliminate the extra point.
Every game you'd have kicks shorter than your extra point worth more. That bothers me for some reason.
Half the time you're kicking it's worth 1 point and the other half it's worth 3 points. How does that make any sense (and yeah, I know that exists even now, but not many teams kick FGs from the 2 yard line)? Just eliminate the extra point.
Every game you'd have kicks shorter than your extra point worth more. That bothers me for some reason.
Eliminating the XP or moving the line completely eliminates fake XP's. I guess it doesn't matter that much because no one ever goes for 2 unless they really have to but they're still taking that aspect out of the game.
Changing the goalposts somehow or making them snap from some wider hashmarks or something would increase the difficulty without having other unintended consequences.
Changing the goalposts somehow or making them snap from some wider hashmarks or something would increase the difficulty without having other unintended consequences.
I'm sort of rooting for this to happen b/c how can it not be good for the pats relative to the rest of the league? I'd think belichick is smart enough to take full advantage via personnel (have a smashmouth unit) and/or a wide variety of misdirection plays. Plus he's smart enough to calculate the EV coldly rationally.
Klostrophobic said:
I don't think that's necessarily a fair comparison. Punts/4th downs are a bit messier for coaches because there are more variables involved. Based on field position, distance to go, score of the game, time left.... the right answer isn't always clear cut, especially in the heat of the moment. In this situation, the length of the kick and the spot of the ball for a 2-point try would always be the same. Time/score would only really factor in a risk aversion sense, or in a situation where it's obvious what the right play is (e.g, down by 6 or 8 (pre-TD) late).
It would seem to be simply about your personnel and how it matches up against your opponent. Maybe you don't feel very confident in your 2-pt plays against the defense you're playing, and you have a really awesome kicker, which makes you less confident in your offense to convert enough of the time to make it worthwhile. But I think that would be a pretty rare combination of circumstances.
I think the math here is obvious and clear enough that even old school coaches would have a hard time arguing against it.
Speaking as a kicker, I love this if it happens. Not because of any competitive balance reasons, but just because it will be much less embarrassing missing one of these damn things now.
I presume even under this proposal, teams that declare that they are going for two will get to start from the 2-yard line? Because otherwise this essentially gets rid of going for 2.
I would think so.singaporesoxfan said:
I'm for moving it back some but I think back to the 25 is probably too far. 83% success rate would affect most games. But if it is a straight on kick, the % probably wouldn't be nearly as low as FG tries from that distance. I guess it depends on how often you want the extra point to effect a game. I think I read a 97% success rate means an average of missed extra point in 1 out of 8 games.
I like the idea of narrowing the goal posts and also of moving them back another 5 yards. FG kickers are getting better and better. I'd like to see teams have to drive a little deeper before a FG is safe bet.
EP from the hash is also not a bad idea although I'm not sure about the college hashmarks.
This creates a scenario where you have a now-potentially blockable PAT combined with absolutely no need to guard against a fake (who is going to run a fake from 25 yards out vs. a real play from 2?). At least in the case of most FGs, the defense will typically keep somebody back to guard against a fake for a first down or TD. We're going to see some balls-out 11-man PAT block attempts this year if this goes through.
Also, unlike a FG attempt, if you hit the kicker you're not giving the other team a first down. You're really not giving up much of anything, just 15 yards on the kickoff which likely turns a touchback into...a touchback. If I'm a kicker, I'm nervous because there's gonna be a lot of caution thrown to the wind.
Also, unlike a FG attempt, if you hit the kicker you're not giving the other team a first down. You're really not giving up much of anything, just 15 yards on the kickoff which likely turns a touchback into...a touchback. If I'm a kicker, I'm nervous because there's gonna be a lot of caution thrown to the wind.
My thought is to keep the extra point the same as it is, but add the option to take the ball at the 30-yard line for a three-point conversion - either for a 48-yard field goal, or a play from scrimmage that gets into the end zone.
Benefits:
- The value of a 48-yard field goal remains at three points regardless of the situation
- The value of a score from the 30, either from a designed play, botched snap, fake, etc. should be higher than the value of a 2-point conversion
- Preservation of the "automatic" existing extra point maintains the value of the touchdown as superior to two field goals. Without it, the incentive to be *less aggressive* earlier in games and settle for a field goal increases
- Preservation of the "automatic" existing extra point keeps a "conservative" option - so coaches must make the *choice* to be bold
Benefits:
- The value of a 48-yard field goal remains at three points regardless of the situation
- The value of a score from the 30, either from a designed play, botched snap, fake, etc. should be higher than the value of a 2-point conversion
- Preservation of the "automatic" existing extra point maintains the value of the touchdown as superior to two field goals. Without it, the incentive to be *less aggressive* earlier in games and settle for a field goal increases
- Preservation of the "automatic" existing extra point keeps a "conservative" option - so coaches must make the *choice* to be bold
I'm not sure whether this is a pro or a con, but the change would make post-touchdown unsportsmanlike conduct penalties much more meaningful.
BigJimEd said:
Well, making an on-field action meaningful is the point of the change, so making sure that it would affect most games is kind of the point. That being said, I think you're overstating the significance of the change.
If we take the 83% chance at face value, that means slightly more than 1 of every 7 XP's are missed. I think the average NFL team scores fewer than 7 TDs per week, and if you believe this site it's somewhere around 2.5 touchdowns per game for an average team last season. So this would equate to a missed field goal slightly more frequently than once every third game per team, or once every other game when you factor in two teams play in each game.
Let's consider margin of victory. According to this site , about 4.5% of all games are decided by one point (or fewer). To be fair, this doesn't necessarily reflect all games that would be impacted by a missed XP (e.g. a team misses an XP that would have given them a 1pt lead leaves them tied, then the other team kicks a field goal and wins the game), so let's widen it and say that any game decided by 3 points or less is theoretically 'impacted' by a potential missed XP. That equates to 23.6% of all games.
Now it's just a matter of simple math to estimate how many games would be impacted on average by this change:
2.5 TDs per game at 17% chance of an XP miss, means an average scoring team with an average kicked would expect to miss 1 point every 2.35 games, or 6.8 games per season. 23.6% of all games would be impacted by a 1 point swing, meaning, on average and roughly, it would change the result of 1.6 games per team per season.
Does my math look right there?
I'm in favor of the change. The players are out there risking injury for XPs (see Gronk) , make it meaningful. Meaning implies that it could influence the results of a game.
Couldnt they just make adjustable goal posts? Say adjust them in to 12 feet? or 10? For a point after?
I suppose the possibility exists that the system could break during the game and be a hassle but thats seems pretty minor in the scheme of things.
I suppose the possibility exists that the system could break during the game and be a hassle but thats seems pretty minor in the scheme of things.
I hate all of this. The only suggestion that I like is making a TD worth 7 points, and you can then go for 2 to get 8 points and fall to 6 points if you miss it. Everything else is such a drastic change that's just too much in my opinion. I personally don't really want to have to worry about my team making the extra point after scoring the TD. Maybe that's just because gimme extra points are what I'm used to but it's all so gimmicky to me.
I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but - if they do move XPs back to the 25 and 2 pts to the 2, shouldn't you still be able to dropkick from the 2?
If I were czar for a day, the rule change I'd want is stop the clock on negative yardage plays with less than 2 minutes left. No kneeling - push forward or surrender the football to someone who's trying to score!
If I were czar for a day, the rule change I'd want is stop the clock on negative yardage plays with less than 2 minutes left. No kneeling - push forward or surrender the football to someone who's trying to score!
I agree with the first point. And I think the player safety implications make the proposal DOA.Hendu for Kutch said:
Disagree on the second point -- the incentives to maul the kicker are already there with the kick from the 2.