Extra point proposals

**BcRaven** · 05-14-2015, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by ERey

LEAVE THE FUCKING EXTRA POINT ALONE!!!

I have no idea why they feel the need to mess with this. The whole reason an extra point is easy is because scoring a TD is supposed to be rewarded more than kicking two field goals. A score of 7-6 means the team who reached the end-zone is winning over the team that can't make it past the 20 and settles for two FGs. There's no reason to make the extra point harder. It's supposed to be an EASY 1 point since the team reached the end-zone.

Furthermore, who wants to see their team drive 80 yards with under two minutes to go to tie the game pending the extra point only to see their kicker miss the kick? This is the stupidest idea the NFL has ever had. Why are they fucking with a great game? It's like they forgot the whole reason the extra point is set so close.

However, I do like the idea that the 2 point conversion is a live ball and the defense can score.

I agree with your points. Call me old-fashioned, but why change (spoil ?) the game we love... Bc

**Shas** · 05-14-2015, 01:08 PM

I'll take your notion of old-fashioned and one up it.

I think it's worth tinkering with the XP if they can come up with a rule change that isn't silly.

My issue with the current rules is that it takes way too much time to complete what is essentially an automatic one point conversion. Post-touchdown, we fans have to sit through not only the XP, but a set of commercials, then and increasingly irrelevant kick off, then more commercials, and then finally restart of play.

I understand safety issues related to kick offs, but if they can make conversions more interesting without jeopardizing safety, then at least the time investment in watching it is worth it.

My proposal is simple. Go back to an essential element of the original rules. I'm talking about rugby rules. Not the full set of rules regarding conversions, which give 5 points for a touchdown (a try) and 2 for a conversion (union rules). I'd keep the football point values the same, 6/1.

But there is a reason its called a touchdown. In rugby the ball must be grounded in the try zone in order for a conversion to be awarded. The conversion then takes place from a point in the field of play parallel to the sidelines from where the ball was grounded. So if the ball is grounded in the center of the endzone, it is kicked through the uprights from a straight-on angle. If it is grounded in the sides/corners of the endzone, the kick takes place from a severe side angle, making it much more difficult to convert.

I would suggest, for football, all kicks take place from the 15. There probably would need to be a maximum offset location near the sidelines, but not all the way to the sides, for cases when the touchdown was grounded in the far corners. You still need room for players to set up on the line (although you could also force offset lines when the ball is near the sidelines)

For football, I think they would need to mark the conversion kick location from where the player grounded the ball, or from where he exited the side or back of the end zone. You wouldn't want to disqualify touchdowns that occur on fades to the corner, dives to the pylon, or catches /foot-drags in the back of the end zone. A player could run out the back-center of the endzone, or touch it down in a preferable spot to dictate the try.

My proposal would not only make conversions less of a sure thing, and therefore add a more competitive element to the game, but it would also make touchdowns more strategic.

Defenses would have incentive to tackle scoring players while they are in the endzone to prevent a favorable conversion angle. Offensive playcallers would have to weigh the merits of throwing a fade to the corner--better chance of scoring perhaps, but less chance of converting-- rather than running the ball up the middle--perhaps lesser chance of scoring, but better chance of converting.

To me, it would address what they are trying to solve, and would create decent fan interest.

Can you imagine the tension of a tying score at the end of regulation that is grounded at a bad location, a then having to sweat-out a very tough conversion to secure the win?

**Ravenswintitle** · 05-14-2015, 01:22 PM

of the 3 options I like Chip Kelly's the best. Putting the ball on the 1 and going for 2 points would add excitement for sure.

**Uli2001** · 05-14-2015, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ngata_Ate_My_Lunch

I like the idea of making the play 'turnover-able' if the offense is going for 2. It adds more risk to the play, and should set up for some more explosive plays. That should be a WIN for the fans.

Originally Posted by BlackBeak

Definitely! I don't see any down side to this.

I personally don't like it. It makes the players have to run the entire field on a defensive score, increasing the chances for injuries, and for what? A mere two points.

**Uli2001** · 05-14-2015, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Shas

I'll take your notion of old-fashioned and one up it.

I think it's worth tinkering with the XP if they can come up with a rule change that isn't silly.

My issue with the current rules is that it takes way too much time to complete what is essentially an automatic one point conversion. Post-touchdown, we fans have to sit through not only the XP, but a set of commercials, then and increasingly irrelevant kick off, then more commercials, and then finally restart of play.

I understand safety issues related to kick offs, but if they can make conversions more interesting without jeopardizing safety, then at least the time investment in watching it is worth it.

My proposal is simple. Go back to an essential element of the original rules. I'm talking about rugby rules. Not the full set of rules regarding conversions, which give 5 points for a touchdown (a try) and 2 for a conversion (union rules). I'd keep the football point values the same, 6/1.

But there is a reason its called a touchdown. In rugby the ball must be grounded in the try zone in order for a conversion to be awarded. The conversion then takes place from a point in the field of play parallel to the sidelines from where the ball was grounded. So if the ball is grounded in the center of the endzone, it is kicked through the uprights from a straight-on angle. If it is grounded in the sides/corners of the endzone, the kick takes place from a severe side angle, making it much more difficult to convert.

I would suggest, for football, all kicks take place from the 15. There probably would need to be a maximum offset location near the sidelines, but not all the way to the sides, for cases when the touchdown was grounded in the far corners. You still need room for players to set up on the line (although you could also force offset lines when the ball is near the sidelines)

For football, I think they would need to mark the conversion kick location from where the player grounded the ball, or from where he exited the side or back of the end zone. You wouldn't want to disqualify touchdowns that occur on fades to the corner, dives to the pylon, or catches /foot-drags in the back of the end zone. A player could run out the back-center of the endzone, or touch it down in a preferable spot to dictate the try.

My proposal would not only make conversions less of a sure thing, and therefore add a more competitive element to the game, but it would also make touchdowns more strategic.

Defenses would have incentive to tackle scoring players while they are in the endzone to prevent a favorable conversion angle. Offensive playcallers would have to weigh the merits of throwing a fade to the corner--better chance of scoring perhaps, but less chance of converting-- rather than running the ball up the middle--perhaps lesser chance of scoring, but better chance of converting.

To me, it would address what they are trying to solve, and would create decent fan interest.

Can you imagine the tension of a tying score at the end of regulation that is grounded at a bad location, a then having to sweat-out a very tough conversion to secure the win?

Interesting points, but football is not rugby. In football, a score is awarded when the plane of the goal line is broken. That's a very fundamental thing to change in order to implement your idea.

**mmi16** · 05-14-2015, 11:36 PM

While it is none of the 3.

TD = 7 and no PAT. If the team want to try for 2, it counts for 6 and the 2 point try is made or not - Int or fumble recovery into the end zone for the defending team is a point for them.

KO from the 50 - if it goes through the uprights, a point for the kicking team and the receiving team get the ball at the 40. If the ball otherwise goes through the end zone or results in a touchback, the ball goes to the 20.

**Mista T** · 05-15-2015, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Shas

My issue with the current rules is that it takes way too much time to complete what is essentially an automatic one point conversion. Post-touchdown, we fans have to sit through not only the XP, but a set of commercials, then and increasingly irrelevant kick off, then more commercials, and then finally restart of play.

Agree that all the above takes some time, but that is a good thing. Enough time to walk to restroom, or concession stand, and return to seats without missing any of the next drive.

**Ngata_Ate_My_Lunch** · 05-15-2015, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Uli2001

I personally don't like it. It makes the players have to run the entire field on a defensive score, increasing the chances for injuries, and for what? A mere two points.

That's a pretty valid point. I thought about it merely as a spectator, but the risk to injury does go up.

**TonyD79** · 05-15-2015, 10:15 AM

The only change I'd make is allow the defense to score on failed extra points. It is the only play that they cannot. The argument about injury in a return? What? Let's just stop playing football. Someone might get injured.

**saintmatthew** · 05-15-2015, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by TonyD79

The only change I'd make is allow the defense to score on failed extra points. It is the only play that they cannot. The argument about injury in a return? What? Let's just stop playing football. Someone might get injured.

In the 2010 game at Atlanta that we lost, Ed Reed picked off the 2pt conversion. If he gets to run it back for 2 we only need a FG to force OT, vs. a TD to win on that last possession. That was when I found out defense couldn't score on PAT/2pt Conv attempts and I was so pissed. Hell, I was like, hahahah....we just won.....oh wait....why's he stopping? It then occurred to me to award 7 pts on 2pt would be kind of unbalanced but then, why not the 2 at least right?

**TonyD79** · 05-15-2015, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by saintmatthew

In the 2010 game at Atlanta that we lost, Ed Reed picked off the 2pt conversion. If he gets to run it back for 2 we only need a FG to force OT, vs. a TD to win on that last possession. That was when I found out defense couldn't score on PAT/2pt Conv attempts and I was so pissed. Hell, I was like, hahahah....we just won.....oh wait....why's he stopping? It then occurred to me to award 7 pts on 2pt would be kind of unbalanced but then, why not the 2 at least right?

And it is not just failed 2 pt conversions. It is any return on a failed kick. Fumbled snap, block. It may actually mean that the defense takes pats more seriously.

**Shas** · 05-15-2015, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Uli2001

Interesting points, but football is not rugby. In football, a score is awarded when the plane of the goal line is broken. That's a very fundamental thing to change in order to implement your idea.

That wouldn't change under my proposal. The touchdown still occurs as soon as the ball breaks the plane. The conversion location would not be determined however until the ball (or player) is grounded or carried beyond the end or sideline.

It's no different than a reception by a receiver. The catch occurs as soon as the player controls the ball and touches his feet down in play (or makes a football move). The instant that happens, it's a catch. The new line of scrimmage, however, isn't marked until the the player is tackled. The play doesn't end with the catch. I'm suggesting, likewise, that the play doesn't end with the ball crossing the plane; not until the player is tackled or downs himself. Sometimes, like catches, these two things happen simultaneously and the spot is marked there.