Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

NFL: NFL moves extra point to 15-yard line for 2015 season


Larry

Recommended Posts

Link

 

NFL owners approved the Competition Committee's proposal on extra points for the 2015 season. 

 

The NFL announced the extra point will now be kicked from the 15-yard line with two-point conversions remaining at the 2-yard line. The new rule also gives the defense the ability to score two points on returns. 

 

According to the rule change, if the defense returns a blocked extra point or failed two-point try for a touchdown (i.e. on an interception), they will be awarded two points. Under the previous rule the ball was dead on a failed try. 

 

NFL Vice President of Officiating Dean Blandino said teams could change their attempt decision if a penalty occurs. For instance, if a team chooses to go for two points and is called for an offensive penalty, they could then decide to kick a 1-point try.

 

 

 

Part of me wonders if this might have unintended consequences. 

 

If maybe it will move a touchdown from being worth 7 points, to being worth six, and maybe 7.  (Not that 33 yard field goals are all that dramatic.  I'm probably exaggerating a bit.) 

 

If this might alter the decision whether to go for it, on 4th down, when you're in FG range.  Might make the FG more attractive, if two FGs equal a TD.  

 

Still, I suppose that's why they experiment. 

 

(And I'm not really sure that I like the notion of, if you commit a penalty during a two point try, then you basically get to decline your own penalty.  Maybe if the rule is "Commit a five-yard penalty, during a 2 point try, from the 2, then now you can change your mind, and kick for 1 point, but the penalty still applies, so it'll be from the 20".) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, me, I've felt for some time that the smart thing to do, when it comes to going for two, was to go for two early.

Because you can then alter your decision on what to do, later, based on whether you made it, early.

Hypothetical: say you're down by 14, late.

Now, the only way that going for two even matters, is if you assume I'm going to get two TDs, and the opponent won't score. So let's assume that those two TDs are given. (If they aren't, then your decision doesn't matter).

I assert you should go for two, after the FIRST TD.

If you make it, then on the second TD, you have an automatic PAT, for the win.

If you don't make it, then you go for two on the second TD, too. (For the tie).

Only way you lose, is if you go for two twice, and fail both times. (Roughly one chance in four).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the run back aspect, but don't like the change for a number of reasons (most of which I put in the Twitter thread)

 

A) extra points are supposed to be easy, aren't they? Should the NBA free throw line be moved to the three point line or half court?

B) Why should some field goals be easier than an extra point?

C) The point someone made about penalties is huge. If you hold on an extra point does that move you back to the 25 for a kick or 12 for a two point try?

D) I like the surprise element to 2 point tries. That's almost completely eliminated with this. It's like forcing a team to always pre-announce every onside kick no matter when it is attempted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, me, I've felt for some time that the smart thing to do, when it comes to going for two, was to go for two early.

Because you can then alter your decision on what to do, later, based on whether you made it, early.

Hypothetical: say you're down by 14, late.

Now, the only way that going for two even matters, is if you assume I'm going to get two TDs, and the opponent won't score. So let's assume that those two TDs are given. (If they aren't, then your decision doesn't matter).

I assert you should go for two, after the FIRST TD.

If you make it, then on the second TD, you have an automatic PAT, for the win.

If you don't make it, then you go for two on the second TD, too. (For the tie).

Only way you lose, is if you go for two twice, and fail both times. (Roughly one chance in four).

That's an interesting theory but I don't think you want to put yourself the position to have to go for 2 just to tie it, if you don't have to.

Play the percentages and in this case, the XP is essentially automatic where there is much greater risk involved in the 2pt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have done it a completely different way:

 

Make all field goals, whether they be standard tries or PATs, worth the same....just base it off the distance. Anything inside 40 yards is only 1 point, 40-49 yards is 2 points, 50-59 is 3 points, and 60+ worth 4.

 

This way, if a team stalls on the 10, they're more likely to go for it on 4th down and don't get rewarded 3 points by kicking a field goal that's shorter than a PAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I have to say is: What in the world took so long to make the ball be live after a block or a turnover on a PAT/2-pt attempt?  I feel it's bigger news than PAT's being moved back to being a 32/33 yarder.  That alone automatically makes the play after a touchdown more exciting. 

 

So, what is the over/under on how many weeks until the first 2 point defensive score?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting theory but I don't think you want to put yourself the position to have to go for 2 just to tie it, if you don't have to.

Play the percentages and in this case, the XP is essentially automatic where there is much greater risk involved in the 2pt.

 

 

I think teams out to go for two when the touchdown itself ties the game, like when it's 6-6, 13-13, times like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting theory but I don't think you want to put yourself the position to have to go for 2 just to tie it, if you don't have to.

Play the percentages and in this case, the XP is essentially automatic where there is much greater risk involved in the 2pt.

 

"Play the percentages"? 

 

Just to make the math easy, I'll assume that the PAT is automatic, and the 2PC is 50%.  (Actually, they're both slightly less than that.  but only slightly.) 

 

If you kick 2 PATs: 

 

100% Tie

 

If you kick 1 PAT, then go for 2 on on the second TD

 

50% Win

50% Lose. 

 

With "the Larry Method": 

 

50% Win

25% Tie

25% Lose

 

Your odds of winning are twice as high as your odds of losing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving it back a little barely changes anything, it's still almost an automatic extra point. If they want change then they should just bite the bullet and get rid of it altogether, and a touchdown is 7 points. If they want to mix things up a bit, give the scoring team the option to take 8 points but then the other team get possession on, say, the 35 yard line (which would also eliminate some kick-offs, something else they're moving the rules towards without actually doing it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the notion of getting rid of the PAT, would that get rid of three minutes of TV commercials? 

 

(Granted, TV might like it if the games ended reliably in 3 hours.  But I don't think they want to get rid of several commercials, per TD, to do it.) 

 

Me, I've always thought that it took too long, after a TD, before the game actually starts up, again.  Between the TD, (then commercials?), then the PAT, (and more commercials?), then the kickoff, (then more commercials?).  Seems like it's 7-10 minutes before they get back to playing football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Play the percentages"?

Just to make the math easy, I'll assume that the PAT is automatic, and the 2PC is 50%. (Actually, they're both slightly less than that. but only slightly.)

If you kick 2 PATs:

100% Tie

If you kick 1 PAT, then go for 2 on on the second TD:

50% Win

50% Lose.

With "the Larry Method":

50% Win

25% Tie

25% Lose

Your odds of winning are twice as high as your odds of losing.

I hate math so I won't question those numbers but why risk it when you can 100% tie and go into OT? It just doesn't seem worth it for a 50% chance at a win

About the notion of getting rid of the PAT, would that get rid of three minutes of TV commercials?

(Granted, TV might like it if the games ended reliably in 3 hours. But I don't think they want to get rid of several commercials, per TD, to do it.)

Me, I've always thought that it took too long, after a TD, before the game actually starts up, again. Between the TD, (then commercials?), then the PAT, (and more commercials?), then the kickoff, (then more commercials?). Seems like it's 7-10 minutes before they get back to playing football.

Now here we agree completely. After a TD its just a dead period with one kickoff mixed in between what seems like 5-10 minutes of nothing and that includes the XP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate math so I won't question those numbers but why risk it when you can 100% tie and go into OT? It just doesn't seem worth it for a 50% chance at a win

1) By that reasoning, no one should ever go for two. (Well, OK, maybe if two points ties, or if it means being down by 3 instead of 4 or 5. But never when a PAT will tie it.)

2) And note, OT is simply a 50-50 chance of winning or losing. Go to overtime, and you've got a 50-50 chance of either win or lose. Use The Larry Method, and it's a 50% chance of a win, but only a 25% chance of a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...