NFL exploring eliminating extra point or make it a 43-yard attempt

[Hendu for Kutch]

I agree with the first point. And I think the player safety implications make the proposal DOA.

Disagree on the second point -- the incentives to maul the kicker are already there with the kick from the 2.

 
On the second point, there's a key difference I believe you're missing.  There's no legitimate shot to block an XP from the 2.  Hence why nobody really tries all that hard.  But once there's a legitimate shot to block the XP, the balls-out rush will come.
 
Now, I'm not suggesting they'd hit the kicker intentionally or to injure him.  Nothing like that.  I'm just saying that that if I'm flying in off the edge or shooting a gap up the middle, I'm going full out dive for the ball without any sense of hesitation or concern for missing it and hitting the kicker.  Because there's legitimately almost no penalty if you miss the ball and crush the kicker instead.
 
Current XP has no opportunity and no penalty.
Current FG has opportunity and penalty.
Proposed XP has opportunity and no penalty, which is the dangerous combination for a kicker.

 

[wildeman]

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!

+1

 

[Average Reds]

Great point, and probably the reason it won't happen.

 
Could not disagree more.

 

[reggiecleveland]

I think the guy that scores the td should kick.

 

[Soxy]

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 agree that this would be the best and simplest solution, and what I would like to see implemented.
 
If they want to move the kick back, move it to a spot on the field where it's essentially the same EV as a 2-pt try from the two.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but that would probably be somewhere between the 10-20 yard line (closer to the 10 I would imagine).  The 30 is simply too far. (Though it's worth noting that the 83% figure was on all kicks between 40-49 yards.  A 43 yard attempt is going to be made more often than 83% of the time.  I forget where I saw it and couldn't find it when googling, but someone somewhere did a breakdown of all FG attempts yard-by-yard, and it was a far better way to judge kicks than in arbitrary 10 yard chunks, especially once you get beyond 40 yards.  A 49 yard kick is a much different animal from a 40 yard kick.  Lumping them together in the same bucket is simply adding noise to the numbers, though everyone does it.)
 
I don't think you can move the 2-pt try back much, if at all, because then you risk eliminating running plays as viable options for the offense.  That would likely lower the success rate of 2-pt tries, as the Advanced NFL Stats piece I linked to earlier shows that running on a 2-pt try is successful far more often than passing, even when accounting for QB scrambles.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

Just narrow the goddamned uprights and raise the frigging crossbar.
 

During the playoffs of the 06-7 season, I noted this on another board:

This year, 29 of the 30 NFL kickers made at least one kick of at least 47 yards. 22 kickers hit 50-yarders, and 2 kickers made 60+ yard kicks. 

ESPN.com a week later published the following stats:
 
 
Placekickers are 42-of-45 in field goal attempts in the postseason, or 93.3 percent. 

93.3 percent success on field goal attempts is better than PAT success in the regular season 30 years ago, when placekickers hit on 90.8 percent of attempts. 

The overall field goal success rate was 81.4 percent during the 2006 regular season. 


*****Thirty placekickers who attempted 10 or more field goals achieved a better kicking percentage than the 66.8 percent career accuracy of Jan Stenerud, the only full-time placekicker in the Hall of Fame.*****
 
 

 
Raise the crossbar to 12 feet, and narrow the uprights to 15 feet, and be done with it.

 

[Oppo]

How about adding a crossbar to the top of the goalposts

 

[simplyeric]

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.

 
That's no different then the 2-point conversion.  Sometimes running/throwing it in from the 2 is worth 6, sometimes it's 2...

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

Put the goalposts on a sliding track and make the kicker have to hit it while it's in motion, left-to-right, and back again... at a brisk pace. Also, play carnival music.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I think the guy that scores the td should kick.

 
Gino Cappelletti likes this post

 

[Dogman]

Just narrow the goddamned uprights and raise the frigging crossbar.
 
 
Raise the crossbar to 12 feet, and narrow the uprights to 15 feet, and be done with it.

 
This is what I do, except raising the crossbar.  Do it for all kicks. 
 
For an extra point, the uprights are narrowed 15 feet.
For a 25 Yard FG, the uprights are narrowed 10 feet.
For a 35 yard FG, the uprights are narrowed 5 feet.
Anything over 40 yards and the current system remains the same.
 
Oh, and extend the height of the uprights by 5-10 feet.

 

[IdiotKicker]

Look, the extra point is pretty unique as far as scoring in American sports.  There's no other sport where you get a chance to add another point after you've already scored.  I know a lot of NFL kickers are up in arms about the proposal because they're worried about their value decreasing.  But honestly, tough shit.  The extra point is boring as hell and doesn't serve any real purpose.  Your team has already accomplished what it needed to do in order to score.  It would be like awarding a penalty shot that could be taken by any player on the team every time you score a goal in hockey, but they only count for a third of a goal each.  It's just a relic from rugby that doesn't really need to be there.  In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to get rid of it, and just make touchdowns worth 7 points.  Keep the two point conversion if you want to run/pass.
 
Now, what I'd like to see them do in order to balance this, since I do have to represent the kicker union to some extent, is to make longer field goals worth more.  They can figure out the math how they want, but something along the lines of 4 points beyond 50, and 5 points beyond 60.  You don't want to make kicking too valuable, but it might change the calculus enough to make those kicks happen a little more often.  And, as opposed to extra points, this actually rewards kickers with greater skill, as opposed to those who have good teams around them and just score a shitload of touchdowns.

 

[bobbo]

I would love the NFL to go to penalty kicks after overtime. Thirty-five yard FGs from everyone on the roster until you miss.

WHO WOULD SAY NO? /simmons

 
That would actually be pretty awesome.......as for the proposed rule change- I'm old fashioned and think it should just stay. I know during the games I've probably said countless times that it's pointless but what the heck are kickers going to do now..they're hardly on the field as it is.

 

[crystalline]

The least intrusive way to encourage long field goals would be to remove the field position penalty on a miss. For example change the rules so after a missed FG you kick off, or its an automatic touchback at the 20.

 

[Super Nomario]

The least intrusive way to encourage long field goals would be to remove the field position penalty on a miss. For example change the rules so after a missed FG you kick off, or its an automatic touchback at the 20.

It would be stupid to ever punt in that case.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Now, what I'd like to see them do in order to balance this, since I do have to represent the kicker union to some extent, is to make longer field goals worth more.  They can figure out the math how they want, but something along the lines of 4 points beyond 50, and 5 points beyond 60.  You don't want to make kicking too valuable, but it might change the calculus enough to make those kicks happen a little more often.  And, as opposed to extra points, this actually rewards kickers with greater skill, as opposed to those who have good teams around them and just score a shitload of touchdowns.

 
This would be rewarding teams more for not being able to move the ball closer to scoring territory. Might also get weird situations where a team, on 3rd and long at the 30/40, would lose three yards intentionally to get a a 50/60 yard fg. 
 
I really like the idea of having a 50+ yard PAT being worth 3 points. I'd probably make it 55 or 60 yards so it doesn't become too common. Makes a 9-point lead late vulnerable. I thing the NFL got a lot more exciting when they re-introduced the 2 pt. conversion

 

[crystalline]

It would be stupid to ever punt in that case.

 
Good point.  
How about "On any FG try where the ball crosses out of the back/side of the end zone, the other team gets possession via a touchback, on the 20." 
I think that's a minimal change: On FG tries that miss by falling short, the other team still has the option of catching and running the ball back, as now.  On successful FG's, there's a kickoff, as now.  The only difference is that misses that clear the end zone result in a touchback.
 
So if you're on the 50 yard line, you have to decide whether to try a long FG which risks a long runback, or whether to punt and try to pin them inside the 20.  If you're on your own 40, you always punt because any FG try would land short and your return coverage would be poor with the FG team on.  I suppose one unintended consequence might be increased kicker injury risk because on long FGs you woud want a gunner or two to be taken away from blocking.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

I favor moving the extra points and not eliminating them altogether. Make it a 35 yarder -- only 12 kickers had a 100% record kicking between 30-39 yards (http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/field-goal-percentage-30-to-39). 

 
I was pretty close. Patriots propose a couple of changes to the extra point:
 
@BenVolin #Patriots have officially proposed to NFL competition committee to move the extra point line of scrimmage to the 25 yard line
 

@BenVolin #Patriots also propose extending the goal posts 5 feet higher, and to permit a coach to challenge any play except for a scoring play
 

@MikeReiss Another proposal the Patriots have made is to place fixed cameras on all boundary lines for better views on instant replay.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

Can someone tell me whats wrong w a td is worth 7 or you can go for two? The rest of these proposals honestly sound ridiculous

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Can someone tell me whats wrong w a td is worth 7 or you can go for two? The rest of these proposals honestly sound ridiculous

 
The one about reviewing any play would have gotten the Pats home-field advantage in AFC Championship last year, so I don't think that's ridiculous at all.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

 
The one about reviewing any play would have gotten the Pats home-field advantage in AFC Championship last year, so I don't think that's ridiculous at all.

Sorry. Obv i was just referring to the nonsense of 5pt fgs like this is a half ass fantasy league pr something. I totally agree you should be able to review anything you want. With every turnover and scoring play reviewed automatically the coaches just toss the flags out for spots or sideline catches now. Be interesting to bring strategy back in there. All for that. Extend the goal posts too or at least a laser sensor shooting straight up which could register if the ball went in or out.

Xps from the 25? I guess thats just too much for me. Auto 7 or you can go for two. Simple.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

Not that I expect any diehard NFL fan to give a crap about rugby, but in this context I think it's worth pointing out the clear links between the extra point in football and the conversion kicked after you score a try in rugby. A try happens at the point where you ground the ball with downward pressure in rugby's equivalent of the end zone - this is where the term "touchdown" comes from - and is worth 5 points, and then you try to kick a conversion worth 2 points. The conversion is kicked from any spot along a line extending back from the point where the try was touched down, parallel to the sideline; there are clear benefits to scoring in the middle of the field, where the conversion is nearly automatic, instead of out by the sidelines, where the angle can be incredibly severe even after pulling the ball back 20 or 30 yard from the end zone. So you will often see a free-running player who has crossed the goal line out on the wing turn and head toward the middle of the field to try and improve the angle of the conversion; occasionally, a defending player will force a fumble or tackle the attacking player in such a way that he can't ground the ball to score the try. 
 
Anyway, in the early days of college football, in the late 19th century, touchdowns were worth 5 points and the kick which followed was worth 2 points, just like rugby, and it was only in the early 20th century that the current values were implemented. But the changes being proposed seem clearly aimed at returning the risk/reward ratio to something nearer rugby, which seems a great principle to follow. My vote would probably be to have a separate set of very wide hashmarks (even wider than what you seen in college) and spot the ball for the extra point along the hashmarks in exactly the same way that every other play is spotted, i.e., relative to where the previous play ended; the scoring team could then decide how far back from the goal line to spot the ball, so as to improve the angle...or, to save time there could instead be an arc drawn on the field indicating the standard angle where the ball would be spotted relative to where on the field the touchdown was scored. But as simpler solutions go, moving the ball back to the 25 yard-line works for me as well.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I like that idea, but I just don't see the NFL recognizing the important place that Rugby holds in the game's history

 

[SMU_Sox]

Not that I expect any diehard NFL fan to give a crap about rugby, but in this context I think it's worth pointing out the clear links between the extra point in football and the conversion kicked after you score a try in rugby. A try happens at the point where you ground the ball with downward pressure in rugby's equivalent of the end zone - this is where the term "touchdown" comes from - and is worth 5 points, and then you try to kick a conversion worth 2 points. The conversion is kicked from any spot along a line extending back from the point where the try was touched down, parallel to the sideline; there are clear benefits to scoring in the middle of the field, where the conversion is nearly automatic, instead of out by the sidelines, where the angle can be incredibly severe even after pulling the ball back 20 or 30 yard from the end zone. So you will often see a free-running player who has crossed the goal line out on the wing turn and head toward the middle of the field to try and improve the angle of the conversion; occasionally, a defending player will force a fumble or tackle the attacking player in such a way that he can't ground the ball to score the try. 
 
Anyway, in the early days of college football, in the late 19th century, touchdowns were worth 5 points and the kick which followed was worth 2 points, just like rugby, and it was only in the early 20th century that the current values were implemented. But the changes being proposed seem clearly aimed at returning the risk/reward ratio to something nearer rugby, which seems a great principle to follow. My vote would probably be to have a separate set of very wide hashmarks (even wider than what you seen in college) and spot the ball for the extra point along the hashmarks in exactly the same way that every other play is spotted, i.e., relative to where the previous play ended; the scoring team could then decide how far back from the goal line to spot the ball, so as to improve the angle...or, to save time there could instead be an arc drawn on the field indicating the standard angle where the ball would be spotted relative to where on the field the touchdown was scored. But as simpler solutions go, moving the ball back to the 25 yard-line works for me as well.

 
Fantastic post on the games history, sir. I was completely unaware. I also support auto-7 or go for two but I can see why the Pats (who have a good kicker) would want to propose what they did.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Not that I expect any diehard NFL fan to give a crap about rugby, but in this context I think it's worth pointing out the clear links between the extra point in football and the conversion kicked after you score a try in rugby. A try happens at the point where you ground the ball with downward pressure in rugby's equivalent of the end zone - this is where the term "touchdown" comes from - and is worth 5 points, and then you try to kick a conversion worth 2 points. The conversion is kicked from any spot along a line extending back from the point where the try was touched down, parallel to the sideline; there are clear benefits to scoring in the middle of the field, where the conversion is nearly automatic, instead of out by the sidelines, where the angle can be incredibly severe even after pulling the ball back 20 or 30 yard from the end zone. So you will often see a free-running player who has crossed the goal line out on the wing turn and head toward the middle of the field to try and improve the angle of the conversion; occasionally, a defending player will force a fumble or tackle the attacking player in such a way that he can't ground the ball to score the try. 
 
Anyway, in the early days of college football, in the late 19th century, touchdowns were worth 5 points and the kick which followed was worth 2 points, just like rugby, and it was only in the early 20th century that the current values were implemented. But the changes being proposed seem clearly aimed at returning the risk/reward ratio to something nearer rugby, which seems a great principle to follow. My vote would probably be to have a separate set of very wide hashmarks (even wider than what you seen in college) and spot the ball for the extra point along the hashmarks in exactly the same way that every other play is spotted, i.e., relative to where the previous play ended; the scoring team could then decide how far back from the goal line to spot the ball, so as to improve the angle...or, to save time there could instead be an arc drawn on the field indicating the standard angle where the ball would be spotted relative to where on the field the touchdown was scored. But as simpler solutions go, moving the ball back to the 25 yard-line works for me as well.

 
Who are you and won't you post more? Kudos.

 

[Reverend]

 
Who are you and won't you post more? Kudos.

 
Judging by his username, he may be limited in what he can accomplish as a poster as compared to what others would like to see out of him.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

You're all being very kind and generous today...but for what it's worth, my memory was slightly off regarding the evolution of the scoring system in college football. Here's the actual progression, starting in 1883 when the scoring system first resembled something like rugby (instead of the more soccer-like system of a single point being scored for both kicks and touchdowns):

1883--Safety 1, touchdown 2, extra point 4, field goal 5
1884--Safety 2, touchdown 4, extra point 2, field goal 5
1898--Safety 2, touchdown 5, extra point 1, field goal 5
1904--Safety 2, touchdown 5, extra point 1, field goal 4
1909--Safety 2, touchdown 5, extra point 1, field goal 3
1912--Safety 2, touchdown 6, extra point 1, field goal 3

So it took more than 20 years to realize that field goals ought to be less valuable than touchdowns! Thus began the progression toward the increase in kicking specialism we now see fully realized today, at least in football; more than anything, it's the advanced skill levels of the specialists at the NFL level which is driving this discussion within the competition committee. (For what it's worth, in rugby there are no specialist placekickers or punters as such; all players are still expected to have some punting skills, and it's not uncommon for multiple players to rotate goal-kicking duties within a given match.)

 

[KiltedFool]

Interesting counter-idea I ran into on my tours through my daily football reads, from comments Art Rooney II made as he prepares to attend the owners meetings next week:
 
Moving the PAT
 

Moving the PAT: Another rule change the NFL Competition Committee has put forth is moving the line of scrimmage for the extra point back to the defense’s 25-yard line. Rooney said Steelers’ Coach Mike Tomlin came up with an idea that might prove to be more worthwhile, but he doesn’t expect to see anything change.

“Mike Tomlin’s idea and I don’t know if he’s commented on it publicly, but his idea was to move it to the one-yard line,” said Rooney. “You can either kick or go for two from the one, which to me, there’s something to be said for it. It certainly would encourage people to go for the two. It’s not as extreme as moving the ball back to the 20 or 25-yard line. So I kind of like that proposal.”
 

 
Comments on the idea from a Steelers blog

 

[Infield Infidel]

I'm all for a kick from wider hashes. Maybe from the 10. I've never understood why the NFL has narrower hashes than college, at least for kicking. A kick from wherever the TD was scored, up to the hash.
 
I also like the longer PAT being worth 3 pts, like a 55 or 60 yard PAT. That brings a 9 pt game into play, which would be exciting IMHO.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Interesting counter-idea I ran into on my tours through my daily football reads, from comments Art Rooney II made as he prepares to attend the owners meetings next week:
 
Moving the PAT
 
 
Comments on the idea from a Steelers blog

 
Get a life, nerd.

 

[tims4wins]

So there were 8 misses on 141 attempts in the first two weeks of the preseason, or a 94.3% rate, vs. 99.6% last regular season. Wonder if that is enough of a reduction for them to chose the 15 yard line, or if they will push it back further. Not sure what their goal % is, but I would think it should be less than 90%. Of course, the preseason is played in pretty good weather compared to later in the year, so the percentage could decrease. On the flip side, kickers who may not make rosters could be missing in the preseason.
 
I think they need to go back to at least the 20 yard line, if not the 25 to make this a competitive play.

 

[mulluysavage]

I agree with the specialization argument, and would like to see position players kick or kickers play other positions. I think the baseball purists have a compelling argument about he NL.

Further down that road... one time I was watching with a newbie friend who was like, so, there are basically four entirely different teams playing the football game? Which is true.

Two way play all the way!

Or... your offense goes on the road while your defense protects this house.

 

[caesarbear]

We are way, way past the point of no return for reversing specialist play. Besides, gridiron football is the only sport that can enable such detailed specialists. The sport is as much about the coaching/personal management/rule changes as it is the on field play. There is no "purity" in football. Being a "purist" means clinging to a preference for the game that was/is a temporary circumstance. We don't know what football will look like in 100 years. That's it's advantage, not it's failing. Otherwise we'd be watching rugby.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

NL baseball sucks and so does your idea of two way play. This isnt division 7 hs JV football

 

[mulluysavage]

I thought everyone was smoking dope in this thread and coming up with bizarre ideas. You two need to take a hit.