Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How to Improve the NFL’s Goofy Point-After-Touchdown
The 25-yard point-after-touchdown kick is a bad rule change. It introduces uncertainty, but at the cost of reduced heroics, which is the lifeblood of any spectator sport, and greater disappointment and heartbreak, which only sells tickets in certain unusual markets.
One of the most exciting, dramatic, and satisfying aspects of football is the fourth-quarter comeback. The trailing team gets the ball deep in their own territory with the clock breathing down their necks. But they hit a couple of key passes, step out of bounds at the right times, and make efficient use of their timeouts. As the seconds wind down, they put the ball in the end zone for the game-tying touchdown!
…except the game’s not tied, they just lost in the most anti-climactic way, a missed PAT from 25 yards out. A PAT missed by a professional placekicker, whose only job is to kick the ball off the ground and through uprights. He’s the most specialized player on a team of hyperspecialists. Even the punter usually has a second job, to hold the ball for the placekicker.
A miss from that distance is uncommon enough that it’s considered an automatic make. Then the gut-wrenching critical miss happens. It’s an awful way to lose; no colossal hit forcing a fumble, a leaping interception, or herculean fourth down defensive stand that puts a decisive end to the game. It’s a kick that drifts wide of the goalposts because, in the strangest formation in the game, one guy sets the ball on the ground so another guy can kick it and the laces were turned the wrong way.
Winning on a missed PAT is even worse than winning on a missed field goal. It leaves the trailing team stunned, forced to hide their frustration and console the hapless placekicker, and the winning team with a victory they didn’t quite earn. It’s bizarre to watch players jump and cheer and high-five each other after winning on a missed placekick. Their defense failed to hold, allowing the other team to move down the field into kick range or score a touchdown — they just got lucky that the other team failed in execution. Nine times out of 10 the missed kick had nothing to do with the special teams coverage, but an error by the kicker, holder, or long snapper.
The 25-yard PAT is bad for the game because it reduces heroics by negating a higher number of potentially game-tying touchdowns, while concomitantly creating more goats. And what’s the upside? More unusual scores like 22-16? More two-score games that remain two-score games after a missed PAT?
If the goal is to make the PAT less of a sure thing, but avoid neutering tying-touchdown heroes and increasing the placekicker’s already high goat potential, I propose the following: The PAT should not be kicked from the 15, but rather from the 2, but it has to be kicked by the player who scored the touchdown.
This way, hotshot players who score a touchdown still have an incentive to focus on the next play. They won’t be able to do a ridiculous dance and strut off the field, leaving the finishing work to the lowly placekicker. They’ll have to develop a secondary skill and finish the job themselves.
In baseball, there are players who can field but not hit, and players who can hit but not field. Players who can do both well are at a premium. Imagine how the market for football players will change when some players’ touchdowns are worth more, on average, than others’ because of their secondary kicking skills.
Published in Sports
Back when the Gipper played, wasn’t it a drop kick for field goals? Why not a drop kick for field goals and PATs? Less static more dynamic.
I like it.
Another option is simply to give them the ball at the one yard line and they get two points if they can move the yard in a single play. Or somesuch.
If you went that route, PAT could vary on distance from the goal line. An example, from the 2 yard line 2 point, from the 4 yard line line 3 points. The team that scored the touchdown could choose how many points to go for.
I’m not really a fan of this. Part of the appeal of certain sports is the inherent tension caused by the discontinuities in the scoring rules. Having a continuum of scoring options makes the game more like grocery shopping.
Did the NFL rule out the 2 point conversion? I’m not promoting the idea. Although, I kind of like the drop kick, vaguely remember that was once the rule.
The 2-point conversion is still available. It is taken from the 2 yard line like before. You have to tell the officials which you are trying for, and I guess there is no longer such a thing as a fake attempt.
Ooh! The game theorist LIKES. It would make fans and coaches REALLY get into it.
Except, of course, the odds can be rigged – so 5 points are 10 or 20 times harder to gain than 1.
Makes for some fun strategerizing.
How about this: Only allow teams to kick 2 PATs in a game. After you use your 2 kicks, you have to try for 2.
Perhaps they start the PATS at the 25 and progressively back them up by 10 yards per attempt?
The drop kick still is legal in the NFL. Doug Flutie used it to score an extra point in 2006; Mat McBriar tried one in 2010, but messed it up badly; Steve Gostkowski tried one as an onside kick in 2011, but messed it up; Drew Brees tried one for an extra point in 2012, but left it…short.
Eric Hines
I love how after 75 years of doing something one way and becoming the #1 sport in America by a very wide margin someone at NFL HQ said “I know how to fix this!”
Bet he was an MBA.
I’d say go for two every time, all season and get really good at it eventually.
Or they could do it like rugby. You kick the extra point on a line perpendicular to the goal line from where the goal line was crossed. This would place a premium on scoring near the center of the field.
This is dumb, because it eliminates the ability to have fake kicks. What’s the point of changing the rule?
Put the ball on the 2 yard line. The offensive can 1) line up for a 1 point kick and do so, 2) line up for a 2 point conversion and go for it, or 3) line up for a kick and fake it, going for 2 points.
I disagree completely. What is the point in having any play in a football game be a certainty? Why not do away with the extra point entirely? I like the rule change. It adds an acceptable level of uncertainty to an otherwise certain aspect of the game, and it will lead to increasingly skilled kickers.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I’m absolutely not saying the PAT should be automatic. I’m proposing that non-placekicker specialists should take the kick. The new rule increases uncertainty, but uncertainty can be good or bad for a game. (An example of bad uncertainty is the soccer shootout — it turns a game of skill into a game of luck.)
A well-designed rule change to increase uncertainty would create do so in such a way that it creates more opportunities for heroics. But as I wrote above, the new PAT rule decreases heroics and increases tragic failures, overall worsening the game. A different way to inject uncertainty would be better for the game.
I assume “this” refers to the current rule to spot the ball on the 15 yard line for kicks, right? I agree it’s dumb, but for other reasons. When was the last time an NFL team attempted a fake PAT kick and went for 2?
As much fun as your suggestion would be, it would never work. The first time Julio Jones pulls a hammy trying to kick a FG, owners will scream bloody murder.
Dave Dameshek suggests that the placekicker have to play X number of snaps at some other position over the course of the game. Either he has to split out wide for a few downs, or try to play defense, something else to justify his existence on the team. I like this idea.
My own suggestion? Literal moving goalposts.
This idea would suffer from the same injury argument you posed. The kicker would be even more injury prone playing regular snaps than a wide receiver would be place kicking.
Besides, I am not aware of rugby players injuring themselves while kicking their own PATs.
This thread highlights why I have little interest in professional football, it’s no longer a sport -it’s more and more like a choreographed show. Back when Frank Gifford made $7,000.00/year playing for the NY Giants it was still a game played for fun and was fun to watch.
You forgot to add “Get off my lawn, you whippersnappers…” *shakes cane*
What does this nostalgia have to do with the topic of this thread?
The NFL has become a reflection of the Mega Federal Bureaucracies micro managing our lives -e.g. players are fined if there jerseys aren’t tucked in or their socks aren’t exactly right, big play celebrations unsportsman like, special rules for QBs.. it stopped being real football
I suspect John Madden would say something similar.
Dear Sir,
There’s safety in numbers.
Sincerely,
Scott Norwood
The NFL is well down the NBA’s road of fixing what wasn’t broken. There was nothing wrong with the old PAT. Someone just decided it needed to change. Why? Because it was automatic. So? Why does there have to be drama on every play? If you really want to make it challenging, put one upright out there and require the kicker to hit it.
Like the NFL doesn’t change rules every year anyway…
Agree, but I’m still not seeing the connection. I’m proposing a rule change to make the game ever so slightly grittier. Nothing to do with fines, attire, concussions, or delicate QBs.
I like this.
And as long as we’re improving the rules of professional sports, let’s talk about instant replay in baseball. The current situation su…is a mess. The intent of instant replay was to catch the really egregious mistakes, like the blown call at first base that cost a perfect game. But the way it’s implemented now they have people arguing over whether a ball is caught when it’s at the front of the mitt or the back of the mitt., along with interminable delays while the manager looks at the replay before he goes out to tell the umpire that he wants a review.
A simple fix:
1: The replay must be called for by a player involved in the play.
2: The call for the replay must be made within 5 seconds of the call.
3: If the call is not overturned, the player who asked for the replay is ejected from the game.
With these changes, only the most obvious blown calls will be appealed.
It’s not your OP, the comments highlight what’s wrong with professional football -it’s all about the choreography.