The Most Boring Play in All of Sports Has Been Changed

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/19/nfl-o...tee-new-england-patriots-philadelphia-eagles/

pat-960.jpg

David E. Klutho for Sports Illustrated/The MMQB

Fixing the Most Boring Play in All of Sports
At the NFL owners meetings in San Francisco, 24 of 32 votes are needed to turn the point-after touchdown from the ultimate gimme into must-see TV. A close look at the three proposals on the table, and my pick for the likely winner
By Peter King

In 1912, eight years before the birth of the professional football association now known as the National Football League, the system of scoring that would serve the pro game was adopted. The touchdown was changed from five to six points, a two-point safety was added, and the field goal and point-after-touchdown remained at three points and one, respectively.

Today, at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in San Francisco, there’s a good chance the NFL’s 32 owners will vote for the biggest change in scoring in 103 years. It’s not quite a revolution, but when kickers are well nigh perfect with chip shots—they’ve made 99.5 percent of extra points over the past four seasons—it’s time for the league to do something to make the PAT remotely interesting.

The owners are slated to hear three proposals—one from the NFL’s Competition Committee, one from the Patriots, and another from the Eagles that coincidental or not has Tim Tebow written all over it—starting at 5:30 p.m. ET today. And with pressure from the league office to change the scoring system after touchdowns, it’s thought to be very likely that one of the three proposals will be passed either late today or by the conclusion of the two-day meetings on Wednesday.

The pressure, one club official said, is not particularly overt. But this club official also said it’s no secret that Roger Goodell has been pushing the Competition Committee to work on a rule that will make the PAT something other than the most boring play in the nation’s most popular sport. And the Competition Committee, most notably co-chair Rich McKay of the Falcons and Mike Brown of the Bengals, has been trying to make something happen with the extra point over the past several years. It’s the play fans use to refresh their beers, to use the bathroom, to check fantasy lineups … and then comes one of 20 TV timeouts per game.

Following a season in which just 59 two-point conversions were attempted—teams made 28, a success rate of 47.5 percent—three similar proposals, but each with its own distinction, are up for debate. A three-quarters vote by the owners is needed to pass a new rule, meaning one of these proposals needs 24 votes to be enacted.

A look at the three plans…

The Competition Committee proposal
After scoring a touchdown, the offensive team would choose whether to go for one, a PAT kick, with the ball at the 15-yard line, or go for two from the 2-yard line. The PAT kick would essentially be a 32- or 33-yard kick.

If the offensive team has the kick blocked, or the two-point try is fumbled or intercepted, the defensive team could run the ball back to the opposite end zone for two points.

The change would be for the 2015 season only, meaning if the owners wanted to continue it in 2016, they would have to vote it into the game again. This would be a one-year trial, with fixes possible after seeing potential problems this fall.

The New England proposal
Same as the Competition Committee’s proposal, with two exceptions:
  • The defensive team cannot score points by returning a failed PAT or two-point try.
  • The rule would be permanent; getting rid of it in future years would require 24 team votes.
The Philadelphia proposal
The Eagles also propose the PAT be snapped from the 15-yard line, but the line of scrimmage for the two-point conversion be the 1-yard line. Any missed conversion returned to the opposite end zone would result in two points for the defense. The change would apply only to the 2015 season.

pat-800.jpg

The Baltimore Colts’ Lou Michaels kicks an extra point against the Cleveland Browns at Municipal Stadium in 1968 NFL Championship Game. The Colts won, 34-0, and went on to play Joe Namath’s Jets in Super Bowl III. (Neil Leifer/Sports Illustrated)

Four points of interest:

1) The line of scrimmage for the two-point play has been the biggest haggling point. In March, at the league meetings, one GM proposed the line of scrimmage for two points be either the 1.5- or the 1.75-yard line. Why? Because there’s a feeling that plays run from the 2-yard line would result in about a 50-50 conversion rate, which would push leery coaches to the more sure thing—the PAT. In essence, because GMs and coaches and owners couldn’t agree on putting the ball at the 1-, the 1.5- or keeping it at the 2-yard line, it was kept at the two in two of the three proposals. But who’s to say this couldn’t change during a debate in San Francisco today?

2) I think it’d be an upset if the Eagles’ plan passed, in part because of fear of injury to quarterbacks. Think of Chip Kelly taking starting quarterback Sam Bradford off the field for two-point conversion plays, and subbing in the multi-faceted Tebow for:
  • a quarterback keeper.
  • a fake dash into the line, followed by a jump pass into the end zone, something Tebow used successfully several times at Florida.
  • a la Tom Brady, the simple act of piercing the goal line with a quick jump and extending the ball over the line before pulling it back.
  • rolling left with five receivers on the field, and either throwing it or keeping it with a wide run and bull-rush into the end zone.
Of course, if Mark Sanchez wins the backup job in Philadelphia and Tebow doesn’t make the Eagles, he is quick enough to do some of the change-up stuff for the two-point play as well.

But—and this is a big but—I’ve talked to some decision makers who think there will never be a two-point play from the one-yard line for a simple reason: too much risk for quarterbacks. Imagine if a quarterback gets a reputation for quick-snapping at the 1-yard line and shoving the ball over the line and quickly pulling it back. Think of the defensive plan to stop that. My guess is that many foes would have 250-pound middle-backer types time a rush with the snap of the ball, intending to blow up the middle of the line—and to clock the quarterback on a sneak. There’s too much chance for injury, I think, for the Eagles’ plan to win the day today.

3) The Competition Committee clearly views its plan as a starting point, a trial for a year. The committee understands that more than nine of 10 field goals from the 32- and 33-yard range are made (90.1 percent of all 30- to 39-yard field-goal attempts were successful last season). This proposal being for one year only is to get coaches used to a longer PAT, and to the strategies they might use. For instance, what if a coach believes that, with practice, his team can convert six of 10 two-point plays, on average? If that happens, a coach might be more inclined to consistently go for two, except when one point is needed for strategic reasons late in games.

4) Who doesn’t want a chance for the defense to be able to score on a conversion? If the defensive team knows a blocked kick and a return to the opposite end zone would result in two points, wouldn’t that alone make a boring PAT more interesting?

* * *
The proposal with the best chance to pass is probably the Competition Committee plan, if only because the prospect of New England’s permanent idea will be troubling to some who aren’t enthused about changing the PAT in the first place. And so the idea of putting a plan in place that would require 24 votes to kill it next year is something that, I believe, would make more than a few owners skittish.

My problem with the Competition Committee plan is that it doesn’t go far enough. If a coach thinks he has a 90 percent chance to score one point, and a 50 percent chance to score two, most coaches—and they are largely a conservative sect—will opt for the relatively sure thing: the PAT. I’d have pushed the kick back even farther, another five, seven or even 10 yards. If the league is trying to inject exciting plays into the game, there should be ample motivation for a coach to go for two.

That’s why I think it’s important that this proposal be for 2015 only, and to think of the plan for the extra point to be a progression. If the proposal is passed for 2015 only, it will be relatively easy next year to tinker with the PAT—meaning it could be pushed back so that teams start going for two more often in 2016.

Anything that brings more strategy and more potential drama into the game, I’m all for it. If we have to wait till 2016 to max out on strategy, it’ll be worth the wait. This year’s plan is a good starting point.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/19/extra-points-may-change-today/

Extra points may change today
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 19, 2015

By the end of the day today, the NFL could have a new extra point rule.

The owners are meeting today and will hear proposals for changing the current extra point format. Although it’s possible that they won’t vote until tomorrow — and also possible that they’ll end up deciding not to change extra points at all — there’s a good chance that before they adjourn this evening, the NFL will have a new extra point rule for the 2015 season.

These are the three proposals on the table:

Competition Committee proposal: Allow a team scoring a touchdown to either kick for one point with the ball snapped at the 15-yard line or go for two points with the ball snapped at the 2-yard line. The defense would have the opportunity to score two points by returning a blocked kick, fumble or interception to the opposite end zone.

Eagles proposal: Same as the Competition Committee proposal except the snap for two-point conversions would be moved to the 1-yard line.

Patriots proposal: Same as the Competition Committee proposal except the defense would not be able to score.
 

TheDYVKX

#TeamMcVay
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
4,703
Name
Sean McVay
PAT is fine, they're just changing the game to change the game. I don't care how automatic it is, leave the game as it is.
 

DaveFan'51

Old-Timer
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
18,666
Name
Dave
I'm never big on change. I say "If it ain't broke don't change it!"
 

Legatron4

Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
9,427
Name
Wes
Not everything has to be MUST SEE TELEVISION. I use extra points use the bathroom, get a drink or even go onto ROD. Stop changing things.
 

psxpaul

Rookie
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
Messages
323
Name
Paul
I like the idea of narrowing the goal posts more than any of these proposals.
 

Elmgrovegnome

Legend
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
21,515
4) Who doesn’t want a chance for the defense to be able to score on a conversion? If the defensive team knows a blocked kick and a return to the opposite end zone would result in two points, wouldn’t that alone make a boring PAT more interesting?

I do agree with this. Too many times the defense juts allows the extra point to be kicked.

The proposed changes would help the Rams immensely if their young Olinemen pan out. They could pound the ball in from the 2, or run Tavon around the end for the easy walk in. No trick passes would be needed.

I like the idea of narrowing the goal posts more than any of these proposals.

I don't like the effect it would have on long field goals.

Anything the cheatriots suggest needs to be rejected immediately.

I was thinking the same thing. Don't ever trust any proposal coming from the Patriots.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Don't change the PAT. It's the perfect time to grab a beer after a long drive.
 

Fatbot

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,467
Interesting this got out of the competition committee given Fisher's stance against the change. He still has a pretty good point when he said, “Personally I don’t want to kick a 19-yard field goal to win a game, and then miss a 35-yard extra point in Green Bay when it’s 20 degrees to lose a game.”

I wonder if change has to occur if Fisher would back the 1-yard line option? I think that's where running the ball is best versus from the 2-yard line where statistically a pass play is best?

The GZ worriers will also have more to fret about since his FG% at the new extra point range is 5% worse than average. So maybe Fisher should take that massive disadvantage into account and vote for the easiest 2-point option?
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
22,838
I'm in the dont fix what aint broken catagory.
You know what I'd like fixed?
The automatic tv time out AFTER the meaningless extra point.
Heck throw in the automatic tv time out AFTER the following kick off.

I dont care that its automatic, I hate the 5-6 minutes of dead time between the TD actually scored and the 1st down snap on the next official play
 

CodeMonkey

Possibly the OH but cannot self-identify
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
3,449
I'm for changing it to make some close games more interesting. And, PATs are boring. That said, Fuck the Patriots!
 

tklongball

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Messages
1,201
To me the 7 Point (TD + XP) vs. 6 Points for 2 FGs is brilliant. I don't like the 2 point conversion, but I understand it. I, personally, like the fact that 99% of XPs are made, because it is a game changing moment when one is missed. If you are going to have a 2 point conversion, you should be giving up an almost automatic 1 point, for something that is less than a 50% play. Otherwise it is no longer a risk/reward play. If I have a 60% chance of making a 2 point conversion, why would I ever kick the XP, except in really rare circumstances. I think if you mess with it too much, you take the strategy out of it.
 
Last edited:

HE WITH HORNS

Hall of Fame
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
3,821
How about just make the one point automatic, unless the teams wants to go for 2? Then we won't have missed extra points deciding games.
 

RaminExile

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
3,065
How about just make the one point automatic, unless the teams wants to go for 2? Then we won't have missed extra points deciding games.

But it isn't automatic! And it can affect the outcome of games if its missed. If anything its a pressure moment. Don't change stuff just for the sake of changing stuff. There is so much wrong with the game today that needs fixing so change that stuff instead!
 

Leuzer

Daniel Leu
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
2,166
I think the first PAT attempt would be kind of neat, but I would prefer they only try it for the preseason and see how well it works. If everything goes smoothly, then have the teams vote again to use it for the season. Then eventually have the teams vote if they would prefer to keep the change for good.

Personally, I like the way the PAT is now. However, I'm all for trying to make the game a bit more interesting. Change doesn't always have to negative.
 

Stranger

How big is infinity?
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
7,182
Name
Hugh
The New England proposal
Same as the Competition Committee’s proposal, with two exceptions:
  • The defensive team cannot score points by returning a failed PAT or two-point try.
  • The rule would be permanent; getting rid of it in future years would require 24 team votes.
I would never ever trust any propospals comong out of that stink hole :)
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
9,901
Name
Wil Fay
I like letting the defense score 2 if they run it back.

but I would keep it where it is - both for 1 and 2.
 

Warner4Prez

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
2,265
Name
Benny
It's not like this is added motivation to a ST unit is it? It's still one point we're fighting over, it's just a bit further back. If the assumption is that making a PAT 12 yards further back is going to somehow motivate teams to try harder to stop it, I think they might be thinking too hard.
 

HE WITH HORNS

Hall of Fame
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
3,821
But it isn't automatic! And it can affect the outcome of games if its missed. If anything its a pressure moment. Don't change stuff just for the sake of changing stuff. There is so much wrong with the game today that needs fixing so change that stuff instead!

I agree they shouldn't change anything. But the point the league is making, is that it's a boring play, with 99% accuracy. So if it's so boring, it can be eliminated, instead of making it difficult and effecting the outcome of games.