You aren't rewarding the defense with a chance to score on the extra point. It's a completely independent play from the TD regardless if it is only available due to scoring a TD, and if the offense has a chance to score on it so should the defense. Why should you reward the offense if they turn it over with no ramifications? The whole point of changing the rule is to make it a meaningful part of the game. Part of the problem with it as it stands now is there is no risk to it.
You should reward the offense with the chance at scoring more points without the ramifications of a turnover because they scored a TD and that's part of the reward for scoring a TD
it's been a good debate and discussion. i think it comes down to whether you feel the conversion is a 'free' play, and whether or not it should be. i'm fully aware of the rugby rules, as i'm a fan of rugby. the term conversion is the correct term, i agree, and pointed this out earlier as well. in rugby, the conversion attempt is a free kick. only the kicker is out on the field, attempting a free kick for 2pts (at least in rugby union). despite being a free kick, it is still challenging, as the kick needs to be attempted from the same vertical plane in which the Try was scored. leads to a lot of poor angles and difficult kicks. where gridiron football differs: - the kick is not a free kick, the defense is out on the field - the kick is way easier as its right down the center of the field - there is also an opportunity to convert w/o kicking, to score even more points. again the defense is out on the field for this. so really, i feel you need to go one way or the other. make it like rugby, and have a free kick conversion attempt, albeit a more difficult one. OR, keep it consistent with gridiron football, and have it a complete football play, in which you can score points, or allow points. this is how the NCAA and Canadian football does it, so obviously its not going against the fabric of gridiron ball. the NFL stands alone on this rule.
it isn't always the offense scoring.. one team gets 6pts for an interception return. but the other team can't even get 2pts for an interception return on the ensuing conversion?
It's an extra point, not free point. Nothing about that is a reward, which is an emotional description of the play, it's simply a extra opportunity, a non-emotional description. Nothing about that opportunity should be absent of risk for the offense. Neither team is getting a reward, they are simply playing the down, and that down is worth 1 point. That's the equivalent of arguing the return team shouldn't be able to return the kick off after a score for a TD because it rewards the team for giving up a score since that kick off is the result of a score. No, it's am independent free play regardless of the fact of the play that makes it possible, just like an extra point.
Joe it's a boring, bland play...time to get another beer while they kick that gimme....something needs to change, how about drop kicking like Doug Flutie? LGR!
loved the drop kick. not sure why they banned it, as it is so difficult to do with today's angled footballs. the league has killed special teams. after a TD, there is a boring automatic conversion attempt, commercials, then boring automatic touchback on the kickoff, commercials again. there's enough time to get that beer, and finish half of it before any actual football resumes. also kills momentum and the flow of the game. too many commercials, too many pointless plays.
You two: the kickoffs are another story and I made mention of the league continually trying to take the 'kicking' out of the kicking game. In the case of FGs, taking them out of the game (i.e. reducing them) it's a good thing in because you don't want the game to turn into a FG contest. And in the same logic, I don't want a game to come down to a PAT either. At least FGs are the result of gaining field position either by the offense moving the ball or the defense taking it away. When you have two teams trading TDs, it just seems unfair to have the whole kit and kaboodle rest on a 45(!!) yard point after attempt. About FGs: remember the original rules, when FGs were a no-risk endeavor: you could theoretically get to midfield (when the goal posts were on the goal line) and once you got to midfield you could attempt a FG. Granted it was going to be a 57 yard bomb, HOWEVER, if you missed it and the ball went into the endzone it was treated as a touchback and the other team would get the ball on their own 20 yard line, that is, you'd actually enjoy a net gain of 30 yards just by attempting it. Then the (soccer style) kickers brought their bigger range and better FG pct. into play and the NFL moved the goal posts back, then had the defending team get the ball at the line of scrimmage that the kicking team attempted the (missed) FG from, then the league further attempted to dissuade FGs by giving the ball back to the defending team from where the (missed) FG attempt came from, i.e. an additional 7 yards, and still the attempts are being made because today's kickers are hitting them longer and the percentages continue to soar through the roof. This PAT 'fix' is a not a pressing item imo, and beside those 'boring gimmies' the kicking game will always have a place in the game especially given the long range field goal percentages today's kicker produce. As for the kickoffs I agree that it shouldn't turn into a touchback-fest either....again, blame the league for that. I'm only saying that the PAT isn't going to kill anybody as it is, and to screw with it too much could have a tail-wags-dog impact. Let blown FGs lose games (and made ones win games) but not a stupid veritable foul shot-turned-3-point-shot. You hate it so much? Go to the fridge and get yerself a funky cold Medina. LGR!
lol wtf Joe, no one is talking about FG's. where u getting that argument from? In terms of the conversion, i agree it's not really a pressing item to address. If there was a choice between adjusting the conversion, or adjusting the kickoff, i take adjusting the kickoff as the bigger need. both could use adjusting tho.. also agree that if they were to adjust the conversion, it shouldn't be anything that would drastically alter the outcomes of games. I'd vote no to the Eagles proposal of making the 2pt play easier, and wouldn't be in favor of moving the ball back for a 40+ yd kick. i do like the minor adjustment of making it a live play, and not blown dead the second the offense loses the possession. if they want to make it a 30yd kick, that's fine too, but i don't really think it necessary.
I hate the concept of moving the extra point back. I'd hate to be down 7 points with 90 seconds left and you're starting at your 5 yard line, you make an improbable 95 yard drive including a handful of dazzling breathtaking plays capped off by an incredible catch and or run for a TD. Only to lose on a blown 40+ yard PAT. Why does everything not broken need to be fixed? _
Chances are that you only got down 7 points because the other team had to kick an extra point from 15 yards out, and if you are only down by 7 points no matter how it happened it also makes the decision making to go for the win (2pt conversion) a lot more interesting. The extra point has become such an irrelevant part of the game as to be an afterthought, they may as well make crossing the goal line for a TD worth 7 points
I think your point about the 2 pointer at the end of a game is a red herring, you always go for the tie. And that someone else hit a 45 yard PAT does not negate the point that an heroic comeback can become an irrelevancy if your PAT is missed. I guess I'm just not that torqued off about the automatic nature of the PAT. I'm old fashioned. I also only drive a stick. _
So now that it's been approved I wonder...I guess that's the end of the fake field goal on point after attempts.
If you are down by 3 and there is a significant distance between you and the end zone you always go for the tie with a FG, if you are down 7 and you score a TD you take the easy 1 point that almost never misses because it gives you a better chance for the win. Just saying "you always go for the tie" is the type of thing people lifting their wine pinkies at week 8 of 2008 toasting their Super Bowl plans say
Lol so I've been a fan since I'm 10 and been going to college games since 1977 and been a STH since 2000 and I'm a pinky lifting wine drinker. We woulda gone if he wasn't injured. _
