According to reports, it's becoming more and more likely that the PAT is changed this week. In case you aren't familiar with the 3 proposals being voted on, here they are: http://bleacherreport.com/tb/dgFRF Peter King says "who doesn't want the chance for the defense to be able to score on a conversion?" Am I alone on this? I think it's incredibly dumb. Why should you reward the defense with the opportunity to score after surrendering a touchdown? I've always thought that the college rule was silly and that the NFL had it right, it'd be a shame if they changed it. I would like moving the PAT back to the 15 but allowing defensive scores would upset me. Update: 30 out of 32 owners voted to approve the Competition Committee's proposal; next year teams will have the choice to kick a PAT for 1 point from the 15 or go for a 2 point conversion from the 2 yard line. Defenses can return blocked PATs or turnovers to the opposite endzone for 2 points. In the rare event of a safety, the scoring team will get 2 points.
it's an interesting discussion. i definitely think it should be a live play. the defense has an opportunity to score a TD while defending a TD. while defending a FG, there is an opportunity to also score a TD. while defending a conversion attempt, whether it PAT or 2pt attempt, there should be an opportunity to score the 2pts as well. gives special teams a little additional weight in the game, and does make the play more interesting, even if that will be a rare occurrence. i'm not in favor of making the 2pt conversion easier, so i'd rule out the Eagles proposal. i dont want games being decided by which team is better at a 2pt conversion. always thought the rugby conversion would be an interesting attempt. kick it off tee, no defense, from the vertical plane in which the Try (or TD) was scored. it's tougher as the kicker is dealing with varying angles. I'd prefer that to moving the ball back to the 15, but obviously that wasn't proposed. so i guess i'd vote in favor of competition committee's proposal, or no change at all.
they should leave it how it is. but no matter what defenses should NOT be allowed the opportunity to score.
why not make it a live play with 2pts on the line for either team? would be very rare for a defensive 2pt conversion, as they have to go the length of the field.
if the NFL does adopt the conversion as a Live play, with the potential for a defensive 2pt conversion, it brings up an interesting scenario: the Conversion Safety this occurs when the defense recovers the ball in their own endzone, does not take a knee, and gets tackled in the end zone. in college, they only award 1pt for this very rare scenario. personally, i think it should be 2pts, just like a regular Safety, and that equates to the successful 2pt conversion via a much more difficult route.
because if you give up a TD you don't deserve the opportunity, no matter how rare it is, to get some points back
that logic doesn't make sense to me. the TD is complete. 6pts are on the board. maybe the defense allowed that TD, maybe the offense or special teams allowed it. the conversion attempt is now a new play, worth 1 or 2 pts, which needs to be defended. they can allow those additional points, but they cannot turn offensive in the process? it's the only time in NFL football where that is the case. it should be a live play, like any other football play. to me, that's the only good change proposed here. kicking from the 2, or kicking from the 15, doesn't really mean much. but making it an actual live football play has merit.
it's a play on the field, and that play should be a football play. if they don't want it to be a football play, just put the kicker out there alone rugby style.
Not sure about that Matt. I think it gives too much weight to a "point after" and by extension subjects the 60-minute efforts of the entire team onto a specialist (inc. a holder and a snapper). From the 30 you're looking at a 47 yd. PAT which can be hit or miss especially when the weather turns for the worse during the course of a game and one team ends up on the short end of the stick through no fault of their own. I think it would result in too many games "being lost" when the excitement of the kicking game (if there is such a thing) should be more along the lines of a kicker with a formidable 50+ yarder staring him in the face in the closing seconds of a game (a la John Hall vs. Oakland) coming through big-time with a clutch '9th inning' bomb. Besides, there's always the 2-point conversion there on the table....not to mention the occassional Billy Cundiffs to brick a gimme. Short story long, imo I don't see the PAT as something broken and in need of a fix. Heaven knows, what with the "kicking game" rules changes, i.e. ball placement after a missed FG, goal posts moved to the back of the endzone, kickoffs moved from the 40 to the 35 to the 30, special 'K' balls introduced, etc., etc., the kicking game's been tinkered with enough. LGR.
it's also actually a conversion attempt, not an 'extra point try' could be 1 or 2 pts on the conversion
the point of their existence is to reward the scoring team with possible extra points. A touchdown involves 6 points plus the reward to have an extra attempt to score more. the reward is part of the score. a free chance at more points, no other time are you allowed that If you allow the defense to score off of it, it eliminates the whole reason the extra play exists
on a side note, if the NFL wants to alter senseless plays, they should look at modifying the kickoff. make it more like a punt return. all touchbacks now, less chance at altering field position and changing momentum. boring as hell.
i disagree that this is the whole reason the play exists. if it's just a 'free' play, then no defense should be out on the field, just the Kicker. you have to earn those points, just like you do on offense. and just like any other offensive (or special teams) play, you can allow points to the other team in the process. have to weigh in the risk, especially if attempting to go for 2.
Another reason why allowing the defense to score points in an extra point play is stupid is that you are damaging the incentive for teams to go for 2 points. I think we all would like to see people "go for 2" more. Well then you have to consider what will make them WANT to go for 2 more. Allowing a free opportunity at 2 points no matter what happens is a much higher incentive towards going for 2 than if you enable the possibility for the other team to score 2. If you just move the kick back some and allow the opportunity for the defense to score you are halfassing it and it won't change anything. Much safer and easier to kick, even at the slightly further distance away. If you want to see people go for two more... move the kick back even more & yet still allow the free opportunity for 2 points. Or just eliminate the kick option all together and make people go for the free 2 point conversion.
you aren't disagreeing with me you are disagreeing with the fabric of the game: 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.
We don't want our kids getting hurt playing football! But I think I have a way to make it even better! Why don't we have the players just wear bras?! And instead of helmets, they should wear little tinfoil hats, 'cause, you know, it's the future and we shouldn't be so barbaric! While we're at it, we'll have a balloon instead of a ball, and whoever catches the balloon tries to run while all the other players hug!
