NFL considers nixing the PAT

[Jacie]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1930570-roger-goodell-says-nfl-is-considering-eliminating-the-extra-point?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=cnn-sports-bin&hpt=hp_bn15


Roger Goodell Says NFL Is Considering Eliminating the Extra Point

By Tim Keeney
(Featured Columnist) on January 20, 2014

The extra point may soon be extinct in the NFL.

In an interview with Rich Eisen of the NFL Network on Monday, Jan. 20, commissioner Roger Goodell revealed that the league is at least considering abolishing the point-after attempt.

NFL.com's Marc Sessler provides the quote from Goodell:

The extra point is almost automatic. I believe we had five missed extra points this year out of 1,200 some odd (attempts). So it's a very small fraction of the play, and you want to add excitement with every play.

According to Goodell, one new proposed system would award teams with seven points for a touchdown. They could still attempt a conversion (presumably still from the 2-yard line) for a chance at an eighth point, but if the attempt fails, the touchdown would only be worth six points.

Essentially, it would be the exact same as the current system, only with extra points being automatic. In other words, it would be NFL Blitz.

To be fair, extra points are already more or less automatic at the professional level. If Goodell's 5-of-1,200 stat is accurate, that means there was a 99.6 percent success rate on PAT attempts in 2013. Moreover, according to Sessler, there has been a 99.1 percent success rate since 2004.

Is that 0.4 or 0.9 percent chance at a missed attempt really worth it to run a play that no one seemingly cares about? Or a play that provides an opportunity for players to unnecessarily injure themselves?

Probably not.

[oupride]

Because it is not automatic is why it will probably stay.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Honestly, the person that I feel sorry for on PATs is the kicker. I'd say he hits the ground 1/2 the time from someone coming in from the side.

[NorthernIowaSooner]

Everyone would go for 8 if 7 is guaranteed. There is no risk then. Keep the PAT

[nanimonai]

Everyone would go for 8 if 7 is guaranteed. There is no risk then. Keep the PAT

It's not guaranteed though. If the conversion misses, they only get 6.

I don't have a strong opinion either way but I lean to no. Tired of all the constant tinkering with the game. Also the real reason is to give them another 30 seconds of commercial time.

[NorthernIowaSooner]

Also kickers only missed 6 FGs between 20-29 yards this season. http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/kicking/sort/fieldGoalsMade20_29/seasontype/2 Might as well make that automatic if we're headed down that slippery slope. Those aren't terribly exciting either.

[yermom]

move XPs to be from the 13 yard line and FGs moved back there if a team wants to kick from anywhere closer than that. (30 yd attempt)

that will make it harder to tie as well

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

move XPs to be from the 13 yard line and FGs moved back there if a team wants to kick from anywhere closer than that. (30 yd attempt)

that will make it harder to tie as well

That would be an interesting rule -> A minimum distance for field goals (IE 35 yards)

[JLEW1818]

It's not broke. Quit trying to make change you lib-tards.

[yermom]

chipshot field goals are boring. just like all the foul shots at the end of basketball games

[JLEW1818]

Do away with fouls in basketball then. I'm cool with that. Lebron wouldn't be what he is

[8timechamps]

I really don't understand Goodell's reasoning here. Is there some extreme danger that has been identified to occur only during PATs? PATs are about as "soft" a play as there is in the game. I can understand getting rid of kick-offs (not that I'm for it, but I can understand the reasons), but the PAT is not hurting the game at all.

There are plenty of things that can be improved in the NFL, or changed to protect players, but this isn't one of them.

[Harris County Sooner]

Make it like flag football. Pass it in for one, run it in for two.

[ouwasp]

Hope they leave it alone. I don't really care about the NFL...but this just seems like change for change's sake.

[BigTip]

Fans get to cheer twice for a score. The touchdown (yay!) then after the PAT (yay again!)

Reason enough to me to keep it the same.

What's the motive? To speed up the game? Hey, I pays me money fer my dang ticket and I want me money's worth!

[BoulderSooner79]

I would guess the motivation is to limit total game time. Maybe adding in automatic reviews on scores and turnovers has pushed them over budget. I'd be okay either way as it wouldn't change the decision of when to go for 2. I don't see any slippery slope argument here - dragging in FG rules is just a red herring.

[jkjsooner]

Let's put it this way. Let's say American football had not been invented and you and your friends are determining the rules of the game that you are inventing. You have the basics down - first downs, touchdowns, field goals, punts.

Let's say one kid decided it was a good idea to have that field goal kicker (the one player who has no skills in common with anyone else) kick a 20 yard field goal for an extra point. What do you think the other kids would think. What the heck? Why? What's the point? Why are we going out of our way to make the kid who can only kick the ball an even larger part of the game?


Extra points originated from rugby. In rugby when a player scores a try, that player is allowed to attempt a conversion from a point that is no further from the sideline than the point at which the ball was downed behind the goal line.

The key points here is that it is the same player who scored (meaning he has to gain this skill himself) and the difficulty of the conversion depends on how close to the middle of the field the player was able to down the ball.

Makes sense in rugby. In American football it's just a somewhat pointless holdover that is successful 99% of the time.

Maybe tradition should hold but nobody in their right mind would have designed the game that way from the beginning. It's sort of like after every basket in basketball bringing a kid off the bench to shoot a layup. Why the hell would anyone want to do that?

[badger]

If it's automatic, can we move the kick back a bit to make it more exciting?

[jkjsooner]

If it's automatic, can we move the kick back a bit to make it more exciting?

Then you make the kicker an even bigger part of the game. I don't think most people are in favor of that.

I say make the guy who scores kick it like in rugby. That'll reduce the percentage significantly and force every skill player to learn the skill. (The game is named "foot"ball afterall. Maybe people should learn to kick a ball since the name originated from games - namely soccer/football and rugby - where kicking was expected of every player.)

[deweydw]

move XPs to be from the 13 yard line and FGs moved back there if a team wants to kick from anywhere closer than that. (30 yd attempt)

that will make it harder to tie as well


If it's automatic, can we move the kick back a bit to make it more exciting?

Move it back to the 15 yrd line. Either hash left or right. No straight on kicks.

Touchdowns, no more breaking the plain of the goal line. You must touch the ball down in the end zone. Unless a pass play into the endzone, two feet in good enough. Unless the receiver catches the ball in the feild of play, he then must touch the ball down in the end zone "touch down".

Just sayin...

[badger]

Then you make the kicker an even bigger part of the game. I don't think most people are in favor of that.

I say make the guy who scores kick it like in rugby. That'll reduce the percentage significantly and force every skill player to learn the skill. (The game is named "foot"ball afterall. Maybe people should learn to kick a ball since the name originated from games - namely soccer/football and rugby - where kicking was expected of every player.)

You mean like a drop kick? Lol (I've seen the movie Invictus!)

[jkjsooner]

You mean like a drop kick? Lol (I've seen the movie Invictus!)

Not necessarily a drop kick. You could do the normal formation but the guy who scores the TD has to kick it. It would bring the game back to its roots.

If a TD is scored on a pass play you could give the team the choice - either the passer or receiver could kick.

[jkjsooner]

Touchdowns, no more breaking the plain of the goal line. You must touch the ball down in the end zone.

European rugby guys say the break the plane rule is stupid because they're used to having to touch the ball down - or whatever exactly they have to do.

The problem is that that doesn't jive very well with the forward progression concept in American football. If your forward progression is in the endzone but you aren't able to down it there, where would you spot the ball on the next play?

I'd imagine the concept of downs and forward progression is exactly the reason that we no longer had to down the ball in the endzone because once these things were introduced it just didn't make sense.

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't know if this comment by Goodell will result in serious discussion of a rule change. But it really is a minor thing compared to what is being discussed here. Changing the odds of 1 pt. to 100% from 99.6% with the same option of risking that 1 pt in order to get 2 is not a big change. And out of that .4% that missed, many had no impact on the game. Moving the kicking point around or making the scoring player kick it would be a *huge* change relative to this suggestion.

[jkjsooner]

Moving the kicking point around or making the scoring player kick it would be a *huge* change relative to this suggestion.

I agree and I was suggesting it in jest mostly - although I wouldn't be entirely against making the scoring player kick.

Moving the kick back is a really bad idea. It would just increase the odds that a kicker decides the game and I'm all for reducing the role of the kicker.

I hate the idea that a guy who possesses one skill that has nothing in common with any other player on the field plays a prominent role in the outcome of a game. (I'm sure Alabama fans agree.) You can't get rid of field goals as there has to be a reward for driving the ball deep into the opponent's territory but getting rid of the extra point would be perfectly fine with me.

[Jacie]

I hate the idea that a guy who possesses one skill that has nothing in common with any other player on the field plays a prominent role in the outcome of a game. (I'm sure Alabama fans agree.) You can't get rid of field goals as there has to be a reward for driving the ball deep into the opponent's territory but getting rid of the extra point would be perfectly fine with me.

Reminds me of Garo Yepremian, parodied in the movie Semi Tough and whose career highlights include kicking for the Dolphins perfect season and throwing a pick six on a field goal attempt that went awry during a Super Bowl.

[BoulderSooner79]

If the NFL goes this way, it will be interesting to see what CFB does. Kickers/holders/snappers are all less skilled on average at the college level and the XP rate must be a bit lower. Get down to highschool level, and XPs are often a crap shoot.

[8timechamps]

The only thing I've seen that could reasonably be a motive is the time issue. Even that is a stretch, because I think PATs (for an average game) take less than 15 seconds off the game clock (total). If the issue is time, then do away with kick-offs, or only allow 2 first half time-outs for each team.

[BoulderSooner79]

The only thing I've seen that could reasonably be a motive is the time issue. Even that is a stretch, because I think PATs (for an average game) take less than 15 seconds off the game clock (total). If the issue is time, then do away with kick-offs, or only allow 2 first half time-outs for each team.

I assume you mean game duration, not game clock (as that's not running). But 15 seconds is significant. If the average number of TDs scored is 5 or 6 per game, that's 75-90 seconds. The target window for the NFL is 3 hours and they have changed rules before when the average duration creeps a minute or 2 above that limit. I'm sure they have gained some time from the shorter kickoffs/less returns. But they have definitely added some time with the new rule that all scores and turnovers are reviewed. And this is just speculation, but I could see them trying to buy time to squeeze in another commercial or 2 (okay, too cynical?).

[8timechamps]

I assume you mean game duration, not game clock (as that's not running). But 15 seconds is significant. If the average number of TDs scored is 5 or 6 per game, that's 75-90 seconds. The target window for the NFL is 3 hours and they have changed rules before when the average duration creeps a minute or 2 above that limit. I'm sure they have gained some time from the shorter kickoffs/less returns. But they have definitely added some time with the new rule that all scores and turnovers are reviewed. And this is just speculation, but I could see them trying to buy time to squeeze in another commercial or 2 (okay, too cynical?).

Yeah, I meant duration.

This is not even close to the rule changes they've made in the past to speed up the game time. I don't think there is any chance this is a discussion because of game duration, but that was the only thing anyone mentioned that made any sense. There's been talk, within the league, of getting rid of kick-offs, and if they're really looking to pick up more time, that's the first place they should look, as this isn't really going to do much.

[jkjsooner]

I assume you mean game duration, not game clock (as that's not running). But 15 seconds is significant. If the average number of TDs scored is 5 or 6 per game, that's 75-90 seconds. The target window for the NFL is 3 hours and they have changed rules before when the average duration creeps a minute or 2 above that limit. I'm sure they have gained some time from the shorter kickoffs/less returns. But they have definitely added some time with the new rule that all scores and turnovers are reviewed. And this is just speculation, but I could see them trying to buy time to squeeze in another commercial or 2 (okay, too cynical?).

You also have to consider the time between the TD and the PAT. I don't know exactly what it is but I'd bet it averages about 45 seconds.

[badger]

You also have to consider the time between the TD and the PAT. I don't know exactly what it is but I'd bet it averages about 45 seconds.

Longer if they're reviewing the touchdown in more detail, since all scoring plays in the NFL are now reviewed :(