NFL considering proposal to abolish extra points

[Deadskins]

More Goodell BS.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... tra-points

[yupchagee]

More Goodell BS.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... tra-points

Does Roger know ANYTHING about football?

[Countertrey]

Well... did you know that when you remove a flag from the ball carrier, the play is over...

Everybody knows that. Hump DAYYYYYYYAAAAAAH

[ACW]

Not entirely opposed.

[Deadskins]

Should they make FGs from two or less yards automatic, too? It's preposterous. Games have been won and lost because of missed PATs. What I hate to see is players taking the play off. D Hall pissed me off repeatedly this season by just jogging to the sidelines on PATs. smh

[DarthMonk]

There is no compelling reason to eliminate the PAT kick for one point.

I do like that, in college, the defense can score 2 points on a blocked PAT kick or on a turnover on 2-point try by returning the ball all the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0mzUoqK1RM

And then there is this cuz ... you know ... Gano sucks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3qFse6U3_o

BTW - Intentional grounding rule is whack ... you know ... appalling in nature.

[DarthMonk]

Report: NFL exploring 43-yard extra point for 2014 preseason



http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... -preseason

[Deadskins]

God, that's even more stupid. So now you would have to declare your intentions to go for two? Leave the fricking game alone, a-hole!

[Chris Luva Luva]

I'm curious to see this in action. The extra point is essentially pointless. The extra point wasn't an original part of football, so the purists can calm down in that regard as it too was an addition.

What this projected change does is allow the teams unit a real shot at blocking the extra point.... Interesting.

[Deadskins]

I'm curious to see this in action. The extra point is essentially pointless. The extra point wasn't an original part of football, so the purists can calm down in that regard as it too was an addition.

What this projected change does is allow the teams unit a real shot at blocking the extra point.... Interesting.

There's no more chance of a block, but there is more chance of a miss. But this also eliminates the fake FG, or flub by the holder turing into a 2 point conversion.

[Chris Luva Luva]

I'm curious to see this in action. The extra point is essentially pointless. The extra point wasn't an original part of football, so the purists can calm down in that regard as it too was an addition.

What this projected change does is allow the teams unit a real shot at blocking the extra point.... Interesting.

There's no more chance of a block, but there is more chance of a miss. But this also eliminates the fake FG, or flub by the holder turing into a 2 point conversion.

Explain to me how there isn't an increased chance of a block when the trajectory of the ball will be considerably lower from that distance. Please explain to me how that makes any sense at all when you admit there's more of a chance to miss it... That's a huge contradiction.

[Deadskins]

I'm curious to see this in action. The extra point is essentially pointless. The extra point wasn't an original part of football, so the purists can calm down in that regard as it too was an addition.

What this projected change does is allow the teams unit a real shot at blocking the extra point.... Interesting.

There's no more chance of a block, but there is more chance of a miss. But this also eliminates the fake FG, or flub by the holder turing into a 2 point conversion.

Explain to me how there isn't an increased chance of a block when the trajectory of the ball will be considerably lower from that distance. Please explain to me how that makes any sense at all when you admit there's more of a chance to miss it... That's a huge contradiction.

What makes you believe there's any difference in the trajectory on a 40+ yard kick from a 19 yard kick? Kickers don't change they way they kick the ball due to the distance. They always try to strike the ball with the exact same motion. The greater chance to miss comes from the angles of allowable accuracy from a greater distance being much smaller, and any crosswinds. There's no contradiction.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Kickers don't change they way they kick the ball due to the distance.

Who said anything about a kicking motion, pre kick rituals or how they kick it? You can have the same kicking motion but kick the ball at a diff angle. We're talking about the trajectory of the ball. So you're saying that the trajectory of a 60 yard FG is the same as a 40 yard FG? And that the trajectory of a 60 yard FG is the same as an XP? LMFAO. Sir, you cannot be serious.

But to answer your question...

1. Because Chris ey said so on ESPN 980. He stated that XP are basically pooch kicks, aimed straight up in the air to stop defenders from being able to block it. Moving the kick further back, means that the kick will have to be lower. And I'd assume that the kickers leg strength, would determine the trajectory of the ball.
2. Also, because common sense says.
3. Also, because physics say so.

It's a simple point really. The further back you go, the lower the ball is kicked, especially if weather is in play. THUS... An increased chance for a block. Very simple. Aside from it making 110% sense, hearing it from a NFL player who u know, played in the NFL gives it some credibility. Especially over a person who thinks the trajectory of a ball doesn't change with distance.

[Deadskins]

Kickers don't change they way they kick the ball due to the distance.

Who said anything about a kicking motion, pre kick rituals or how they kick it? You can have the same kicking motion but kick the ball at a diff angle. We're talking about the trajectory of the ball. So you're saying that the trajectory of a 60 yard FG is the same as a 40 yard FG? And that the trajectory of a 60 yard FG is the same as an XP? LMFAO. Sir, you cannot be serious.

But to answer your question...

1. Because Chris ey said so on ESPN 980. He stated that XP are basically pooch kicks, aimed straight up in the air to stop defenders from being able to block it. Moving the kick further back, means that the kick will have to be lower. And I'd assume that the kickers leg strength, would determine the trajectory of the ball.
2. Also, because common sense says.
3. Also, because physics say so.

It's a simple point really. The further back you go, the lower the ball is kicked, especially if weather is in play. THUS... An increased chance for a block. Very simple. Aside from it making 110% sense, hearing it from a NFL player who u know, played in the NFL gives it some credibility. Especially over a person who thinks the trajectory of a ball doesn't change with distance.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

[Countertrey]

I'm with Chris on this one...


Chris wins! Chris wins!

[Deadskins]

Well, I can admit when I'm wrong. I did a little research, and it turns out Chris is correct on this. The chance of a block does increase as the distance goes up (though the percentages of blocks are still really low).
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/10 ... ocked.html

[DarthMonk]

I'm curious to see this in action. The extra point is essentially pointless. The extra point wasn't an original part of football, so the purists can calm down in that regard as it too was an addition.

Not disputing but curious:

Wiki~

History

The try/convert is among the oldest parts of the game of gridiron football and dates to its rugby roots. In its earliest days, scoring a touchdown was not the primary objective but a means of getting a free kick at the goal (hence why the name "try," more commonly associated with rugby today, is still used in American football rule books), and thus early scoring rubrics for the game gave more points to the subsequent kick than the actual advancement of the ball into the end zone. The related term "conversion" is still used in both rugby union and rugby league to refer to extra points scored by kicking the ball through the posts after a try has been scored.

By the start of the 20th century, touchdowns had become more important and the roles of touchdown and kick were reversed. By this time the point value for the after-touchdown kick had reduced to its current one-point value while the touchdown was now worth five. (This later increased to six points in American football in 1912 and in Canadian football in 1956.)

Although a successful kick is only worth one point, missing one can decide the outcome of the game. Perhaps the most famous example to this was the 2003 game between the New Orleans Saints and Jacksonville Jaguars where, after scoring a touchdown as time expired as a result of the multiple-lateral River City Relay, Saints kicker John Carney missed the extra point, giving the Jaguars a 20-19 victory. On November 11, 1979 the New York Jets lost to the Buffalo Bills 14-12 - the difference coming from two missed extra points by place kicker Toni Linhart. Linhart never played another game in the NFL.

Seems like it goes WAAAAAAAAAAY back and has always been part of the NFL.

[Irn-Bru]

Yeah, the conversion attempt might be the oldest institution in football after picking up the ball and running with it. As DM's quote says, the touchdown was basically invented in order to give a team more chances at kicking them. What I've read/heard is that tries/touchdowns at first didn't give you any points; they simply gave you a chance at kicking a goal (without being harassed by defenders). Game records of very old international rugby games have scores of 1-0, 1-1, 2-1, etc. — all of the points coming from goal kicking, usually following a try.