[youtube]kTGco82JKHo[/youtube] Heres a prime example, this play meant nothing because they missed the PAT and it meant the difference between the Saints going to the playoffs or a different team, this is why it cant just be handed over because its slightly inconvenient. (ill never get how to post a youtube vid properly, apologies)
Hmmm, I guess he's worried about his kicking game and wants the NFL to change the rules for him. :wink:
All you put in between the youtube thingys is the numbers/letters after the v= so for that one you would just put in kTGco82JKHo
It only happened once, last year. I may be off, but not by that much. Missed PATs in 2010, and how the game turned out: http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=301128007 the team that missed won http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=301114019 the team that missed won http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=301225022 Dallas missed and lost by one point... one example http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=301107002 Bills missed, lost by 3 http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=300909018 Vikings missed, lost by 5 http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=301031025 Broncos missed, lost by 8 http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=301205004 Bengals missed, lost by 4 http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=301226004 Bengals missed, won by 14 http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010111411/2010/REG10/patriots@steelers Pats missed, won by 13 http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010121200/2010/REG14/patriots@bears Pats missed, won by 29
faking A PAT is not the same as going for two just because the results are the same. I can use my breaks or run my car into a wall, doesn't mean I did the same thing because the car came a stop both times.
No fake xtra point in the NFL. If the snap is bad on a kick, and the holder runs it in, it's good for 1 point.
No way. Just because the announcer says it might come back to haunt them, it doesn't mean it does. I personally don't care what they do with the xtra point, but the idea that missed ones affect 3 or 4 games a year is ridiculous. There were 9 missed xtra points last year. Suh missed 1, Buehler missed 2 and some dude named Stitser missed 2 for the bengals. There were 851 attempted.
I dont find it ridiculous at all, just because the final outcome isnt a 1 point difference doesnt mean that the 1 point didn't impact the decisions the rest of the game.
When he said "4 or more" I think he meant in a more direct sense than that. Besides, 1 point can only amount to a coaching decision of "do I go for a TD or FG" at the very most. Looking through the games I listed from 2010, I literally don't see any where you can logically say that a coach would have made different decisions. As I said before, I am not personally arguing either way. I was just replying to something that I thought was not entirely accurate. I understand that missed PATs happen, and occasionally they do affect the game, but I really don't think that it is an integral part of the football. If they were removed from the game I just don't see fans calling for reinstatement 5 or 10 or 50 years later. The game would be different in a very slight sense, but the overall feel would be the same. The good teams would still be good. Although a different team may win in a VERY rare circumstance, at the end of the day people would still be saying the better team won.
I agree slight but thats all it takes, one instance one little thing can change everything, and its so slight that its tough to track down the series of events that caused it. Step on a fly next thing you know Hitlers in charge lol. Like that vid i posted, a teams playoff hopes destroyed after one of the most incredible plays in nfl history, because of a little slight missed PAT. On the other hand a different team may have made it into the playoffs because of that loss, and they changed the outcome for other teams not even involved with that missed PAT, another reason why you cant just look at the straight facts laid down in a record book, they dont tell the whole story. Overall feel the same...sure why not? You can make a good pot of chili that tastes good and feeds you well, but sometimes its that little pinch of an extra ingredient that makes a huge difference.(yeah crude analogy but its all i could think of) Ill admit that 4 games a season was a bit of an exageration, but 4 times a decade was in the same sense i think. But one game is enough.
My point is I don't think we would ever find ourselves in a position where you could say that the better team did not win "because of the changed PAT rules"... sure a different team might have won, but which team was really better in the first place? You are just changing something that is abstract and creating abstract results. The integrity of "football" as we know it would be 99.9% the same. Rule changes regarding "defenseless receivers" and "arm moving in a forward motion" and numerous other changes over the years most likely have had greater impacts than the PAT ever could. As I said, if a change were introduced people might opposite it for the simple reason that people generally oppose change in something traditional like football... but what would people think looking back 20 years from now? I honestly think that they would hate the idea of a PAT.
But that is the very heart of football, that is why they play the games, that is "Any given sunday" its that the better team can lose. With a mentality like that it would be the Paper football league, all results predetermined by which team was better because the possibility of mistakes taken out of the game. Your talking about just putting a free point on the board that has not been earned, and it might have made a difference. It is the unknown that keeps us watching, the action is good, but the drama is good to. I was gonna post a link to a playoff game but i rememebr you were a pats fan and felt it was a low blow, you get my point though.
Lets just have the coin-toss determine who wins the game. All that tackling and shit is just a waste of time.
Ok... I guess I can understand opposition in that regard because there is the sense that a team is being given a "free" point. What about different scenarios though? What if the PAT is just moved back to make it harder? Or what about a more radical idea... what if PATs are eliminated entirely and teams are forced to try to convert 2 points every time? This would take away one of the most boring parts of football, and even adds a more dynamic substitute to replace it. Both of these ideas are likely to create different winners on occasion, however it is still a competitive game that is much the same as what we have now. You still have two teams that both have the opportunity to win "every given Sunday". Don't act like we are talking about giving teams handicaps or anything. These are just slight changes to the nature of the competition.
Ya know what i understand that my last post, it wasnt really what this whole thing was about, although you did say it haha. Anyway, although my opinions on the PAts importance just as single point still stand im gonna go back to my post on the 1st page of this thread. lets say they did get rid of the Pat, is a TD now worth 7 points? and a 2pt conversion now worth 1 pont? Or is a TD still 6 and and the only option is the 2pt conversion? That now takes that piece of strategy and excitement and drama out of the game. Gutsy 2 pt conversion calls, GONE! edit: I posted this before reading your last post, but i think it still does the job.
In response to that, it is also one of the shortest parts in football, dont tell me that you are actually bothered by and untimed play that is over before you realize its even happening, and they go to commerciall afterwards anyway! That wouldnt change.
