Potential NFL Scoring Rule Change

[wizards8507]

Overtime hockey is only great during the playoffs. Shootouts after only 5 minutes are a complete joke. Granted I am biased as the Blackhawks in recent years have a good track record in playoff OTs but suck in regular season shootouts.

Like I said, I'm not a hockey fan at all and I had no idea the rules were different in the playoffs versus regular season. I can probably name three players on the Bruins and only because it's fun to pronounce "Milan Lucic." That speaks to just how awesome playoff overtime hockey is. A guy who has no clue (me) turns into a raging maniac, punching pillows and screaming at the TV.

 

[irishog77]

I watched RG's interview last night. I'm not sure if I'm for or against the idea of extra points possibly dying off. That being said--

-RG is the commissioner of the NFL. The owners of the 32 franchises hired him. He speaks for them. Every rule change and every proposed rule change isn't his brain child. If the owners go to him saying they want something done about something, by definition of his job, he's supposed to do something.

-The league does countless "exploratory scenarios" every year. The extra point idea, is just that right now-- an idea. They're looking into it.

-Sure, extra points were a part of the game we grew up playing and they're still part of the game we love watching. People complaining about the pussification of football should save their complaining for actual rule changes aimed at pussifying the game-- as this is not. 99.9% of PAT's are converted. A player getting injured on a play that is as automatic as they come in football sucks. That was RG's point. Why risk an injury on essentially a meaningless play? Under one of the scenarios being discussed, if a team scores a TD, they can automatically take 7 points...or take 6, with a try for 8 by running an actual play to convert. If a player were to get injured on the conversion attempt in that scenario, at least then it would have been a meaningful play.

-Under this logic, I'm not sure there are any owners, GM's, coaches, (or even players-- but it's a bit different with players since they aren't directly represented by the commissioner of the league), who would argue against exploring an idea that ensures every snap is meaningful. The idea is at least somewhat based in putting the best product out on the field that they can for their audience. By my experience, I can't fault any company or entity for trying to do that.

 

[wizards8507]

I watched RG's interview last night. I'm not sure if I'm for or against the idea of extra points possibly dying off. That being said--

-RG is the commissioner of the NFL. The owners of the 32 franchises hired him. He speaks for them. Every rule change and every proposed rule change isn't his brain child. If the owners go to him saying they want something done about something, by definition of his job, he's supposed to do something.

-The league does countless "exploratory scenarios" every year. The extra point idea, is just that right now-- an idea. They're looking into it.

-Sure, extra points were a part of the game we grew up playing and they're still part of the game we love watching. People complaining about the pussification of football should save their complaining for actual rule changes aimed at pussifying the game-- as this is not. 99.9% of PAT's are converted. A player getting injured on a play that is as automatic as they come in football sucks. That was RG's point. Why risk an injury on essentially a meaningless play? Under one of the scenarios being discussed, if a team scores a TD, they can automatically take 7 points...or take 6, with a try for 8 by running an actual play to convert. If a player were to get injured on the conversion attempt in that scenario, at least then it would have been a meaningful play.

-Under this logic, I'm not sure there are any owners, GM's, coaches, (or even players-- but it's a bit different with players since they aren't directly represented by the commissioner of the league), who would argue against exploring an idea that ensures every snap is meaningful. The idea is at least somewhat based in putting the best product out on the field that they can for their audience. By my experience, I can't fault any company or entity for trying to do that.

Like I said before, the EXACT same logic can be used to eliminate the Center-Quarterback exchange. 99.9% of them are successful, so why risk someone getting injured for a play that is just about automatic? Let the quarterback, punter, or holder start with the ball in his hands.

Reductio ad absurdum.

 

[NDohio]

Like I said before, the EXACT same logic can be used to eliminate the Center-Quarterback exchange. 99.9% of them are successful, so why risk someone getting injured for a play that is just about automatic? Let the quarterback, punter, or holder start with the ball in his hands.

Reductio ad absurdum.

I don't agree that it is the exact same logic. The center to QB exchange is simply an element of a play. It is a part of a larger dynamic where all of the pieces have to come together for it to be successful.

Extra points are an entire play, the complete package, and it is a scoring play that is successful 99.99% of the time.

Not the same IMO.

I am OK with getting rid of extra points if - and only if - teams are then required to go for two after each TD. This will add excitement to the post touchdown scoring play and takes away the dynamic of two FGs equal a TD.

Currently EPs are a snack and bathroom break.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

This is Belichick's idea by the way, not Goodell.

Belichick thinks extra points are a waste of time | ProFootballTalk

If they keep it, they should consider moving it back to the 20 yard line instead of the 2 or rugby style where someone who was on the field for the score needs to kick it.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

It's fucking football... not table tennis. Jesus. I'm so tired of the let's change it because people get hurt. I know I started playing football at a young age so I COULD hit people... legally. Goodness. The pussification of America.

Change it because it's a pointless risk. I could drive with my head sticking out of the window with no seatbelt on. It's pointless and there is a much safer alternative. Extra points are football's equivalent of busy work.

 

[Cackalacky]

So lets get rid of one of the three times a foot actually touches a ball during the game. Might have to consider changing the sports name from "football" to "throw ball" or "run ball."

 

[irishog77]

Like I said before, the EXACT same logic can be used to eliminate the Center-Quarterback exchange. 99.9% of them are successful, so why risk someone getting injured for a play that is just about automatic? Let the quarterback, punter, or holder start with the ball in his hands.

Reductio ad absurdum.

I don't agree that it is the exact same logic. The center to QB exchange is simply an element of a play. It is a part of a larger dynamic where all of the pieces have to come together for it to be successful.

Extra points are an entire play, the complete package, and it is a scoring play that is successful 99.99% of the time.

Not the same IMO.

I am OK with getting rid of extra points if - and only if - teams are then required to go for two after each TD. This will add excitement to the post touchdown scoring play and takes away the dynamic of two FGs equal a TD.

Currently EPs are a snack and bathroom break.

Mostly what NDohio said. It's not the same thing. At all.

The only other comparable play, that I can think of off the top of my head, to PAT's as far as %outcome (for an entire play, not just one aspect of many) are QB kneel downs to end a half.

 

[ACamp1900]

Don't forget to take away points for fumbles lost and interceptions thrown. Give points for yardage gained.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And this part of the game ain't broke.

This... it's change for the sake of change.

 

[irishog77]

Was the DH in baseball change for the sake of change? 3-point line? Shot clock?

I'm not saying that getting rid of PAT's would be some sport-altering change, but I think it could have the potential to make football better, similar to DH's making baseball better, 3-point shots making b-ball better and the shot clock making college b-ball better.

 

[wizards8507]

Was the DH in baseball change for the sake of change? 3-point line? Shot clock?

I'm not saying that getting rid of PAT's would be some sport-altering change, but I think it could have the potential to make football better, similar to DH's making baseball better, 3-point shots making b-ball better and the shot clock making college b-ball better.

The DH is the worst rule in all of sports.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[NDohio]

There should never be a scoring play in football that has a 99.99% succession rate. That is entirely too easy.

 

[peoriairish]

#FreePat

The funny thing is that my name is actually Patrick.

 

[wizards8507]

There should never be a scoring play in football that has a 99.99% succession rate. That is entirely too easy.

The certainty of the extra point is what makes the decision to go for two interesting. It's choosing to take a risk or go for the sure thing. The play itself isn't exciting but the decision is.

Also, what about a 4th and goal field goal attempt from the 2? That's just as certain as an extra point so why not just award the team 3 points and move on to the kickoff?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[chicago51]

This discussion on the extra point has made me truly appreciate how unique and fun it is to be coaching 7th and 8th graders extra points are actually very difficult and can mean the ball game. In fact kicking is 2 points and running/passing is one point.

Our best years we might have been over 50 percent maybe 55-58 percent on kicks. This year we had a championship caliber team but our kicker was streaky both good and bad. I'd say we were 65-70 percent runs/passes and 35-40 percent on kicks so the numbers say 37.5 x 2 is better than 65-70 so we usually kicked but if he was off we had to rethink things. I think it makes the games really unique plus the my 12 and 13 year old players if they had to could give much better interviews than Winston and Sherman.

I was an assistant for high school in the past and my schedule no longer allows it. HS though especially on varsity the extra point starts to become almost although not quite automatic, thus not as much fun if you ask me.

 

[Irish YJ]

I'd keep the extra point, but make it from 40 or 45 yards. Give them the option of a 45 yard kick for 1pt, or 2pts if they can stick in the end zone from the 5 or 10 yard line.

At least then it's somewhat challenging.

 

[irishog77]

The DH is the worst rule in all of sports.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Not if you don't like seeing .137 guys bat...particularly in an all-star game.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

If the situation was reversed, would all of you be pushing for a movement FOR the extra point? If football was played where touchdowns were worth 7 unless you went for two, would you all be saying, "Man, we really need a tedious way to earn that last point!" ???

 

[NDohio]

The certainty of the extra point is what makes the decision to go for two interesting. It's choosing to take a risk or go for the sure thing. The play itself isn't exciting but the decision is.

Also, what about a 4th and goal field goal attempt from the 2? That's just as certain as an extra point so why not just award the team 3 points and move on to the kickoff?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

I know you will hate this, but I will say it anyway.

Have a sliding scale fro FGs:

1-15 yards = 1 point
16-30 yards = 2 points
31- 50 yards = 3 points
51 + yards = 4 points

This would really add some excitement and 'cause coaches to go for more fourth downs when they get inside the red zone. I want to see more real plays and add some drama of having to make a decision on whether to go for it on fourth down.

 

[wizards8507]

Not if you don't like seeing .137 guys bat...particularly in an all-star game.

I don't love seeing .137 guys bat but I LOVE the strategy of managing around your .137 hitter. And when that .137 guy gets a big hit, it's even better.

That's the whole issue. We've come to equate "good" with "points." People don't appreciate pitchers duels or defensive struggles anymore.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[wizards8507]

I know you will hate this, but I will say it anyway.

Have a sliding scale fro FGs:

1-15 yards = 1 point
16-30 yards = 2 points
31- 50 yards = 3 points
51 + yards = 4 points

This would really add some excitement and 'cause coaches to go for more fourth downs when they get inside the red zone. I want to see more real plays and add some drama of having to make a decision on whether to go for it on fourth down.

That would literally halt offense. Down by 3? First and 10 from the 32? Stop advancing. Take a knee or spike it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Rhode Irish]

How can people be getting so riled up about stupid extra points? The play is automatic and a waste if time. If you score a TD you should just get seven points, unless you want to "wager" a point on a conversion. It simplifies the game and takes nothing of value away.

By the way, nobody dislikes Goodell more than I do, but this isn't a Goodell idea. This is an idea that comes from football people like Bill Belichick (who may be the game's foremost historian in addition to being a great coach), and Goodell co-opted it when it became popular. This is going to eventually happen because the coaches and players want it to happen. It makes sense and takes nothing away from the game. The XP is a non-play as it is; might as well remove it.

 

[wizards8507]

I'd keep the extra point, but make it from 40 or 45 yards. Give them the option of a 45 yard kick for 1pt, or 2pts if they can stick in the end zone from the 5 or 10 yard line.

At least then it's somewhat challenging.

That option eliminates fake attempts and that "see how they line up and then decide whether to go for it" that I think USC does. If there's going to be a play, it needs to be from a consistent spot on the field. A bad hold, for example, can turn into a broken play that actually gets run in for two. Thus, a "kick attempt" can't be limited to a "kick is good or nothing" because that's not the only possible outcome.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Rhode Irish]

The DH is the worst rule in all of sports.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Wow...we just couldn't disagree more. The AL fixed baseball's only problem when they instituted the DH. (I would have also been OK with 8-man lineups, but it would take some symmetry out of the game.) NL baseball is almost impossible to watch because once you get past the #5 hitter you can go take your dog for a walk and not miss anything. It may have been the way the game was at the start, but it was a mistake. The DH fixed it.

 

[wizards8507]

If the situation was reversed, would all of you be pushing for a movement FOR the extra point? If football was played where touchdowns were worth 7 unless you went for two, would you all be saying, "Man, we really need a tedious way to earn that last point!" ???

I don't like the choice to go for two to be something that you tell the referee. I like that it's something where you send guys onto the field and choose what you do that way.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Rhode Irish]

That option eliminates fake attempts and that "see how they line up and then decide whether to go for it" that I think USC does. If there's going to be a play, it needs to be from a consistent spot on the field. A bad hold, for example, can turn into a broken play that actually gets run in for two. Thus, a "kick attempt" can't be limited to a "kick is good or nothing" because that's not the only possible outcome.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

How many 2 point tries have been attempted with fake kicks as opposed to lining up and running a play in the 20 years the NFL has allowed for conversions? I can't remember any.

 

[wizards8507]

Wow...we just couldn't disagree more. The AL fixed baseball's only problem when they instituted the DH. (I would have also been OK with 8-man lineups, but it would take some symmetry out of the game.) NL baseball is almost impossible to watch because once you get past the #5 hitter you can go take your dog for a walk and not miss anything. It may have been the way the game was at the start, but it was a mistake. The DH fixed it.

Statistically, that's a myth. The DH is only worth about 1/3 of a run or 1/4 of a hit per game. That's 1.5 hits and two runs per week.

Also, again, why does "good baseball" need to equal "high scoring baseball." Regardless, the rule should at least be consistent in both leagues.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Rhode Irish]

I don't like the choice to go for two to be something that you tell the referee. I like that it's something where you send guys onto the field and choose what you do that way.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Your pearl clutching about this is because you want to send a team on the field rather than tell the referee what you're doing? That makes literally no practical difference and no sense.