I'm liking the new extra point

[JWL]

I can argue that the PAT was a gimmick a long time ago..

The PAT was never a "gimmick." It has always been a part of the game. In fact, in the early days of the game wasn't the PAT worth almost much as a touchdown?

Also, back in the 1933 the NFL was so desperate for teams to make the PAT they moved the goal posts up to the goal line. And then as kickers gotten better over the years they've been doing everything to make it the opposite. First moving the goal posts back to the end line (1974), the two-point conversion (1994) and now the 15-yard line nonsense.

Just because it was part of the game since way back when does not mean it was not a gimmick.

[JWL]

by JWL » Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:07 pm
..........Reaser wrote:
..........I think it's a gimmick aimed at people with a mental deficiency...
"I agree with your overall point but not so much the above paragraph. Maybe the non-football fan watching an NFL game may get up to grab more food or go to the bathroom immediately after a touchdown but before commercials. Maybe. I doubt this is why the rule was changed..."

Little do you realize that it is the bathroom break that will determine the life of this rule.
If the sponsors and concessionaires determine that less beer is being sold because people do not have time
for frequent "duty calls," then the rule will go the way of the face-mask tackle.
The advertisers will rise up and instruct the Goodfella that the rule must go - they are losing money. POOF! It will be gone.
You must keep in mind, JW, if he had a bathroom break, King Kong might never have reached the top
of the Empire State Building.

I highly doubt the rule change would hurt beer sales.

[oldecapecod11]

by JWL » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:00 pm
"I highly doubt the rule change would hurt beer sales."

It depends?

[luckyshow]

Originally, a touch counted for nothing except the right to then kick for a goal. There were no points as yet, the goal after the touch was not worth as much as a goal from the field. The touch didn't count in the scoring, only the kicks. It was foot ball, after all...

When points were first awarded for the various scoring plays, a touchdown was worth two points, the kick after was worth 4, a goal from the field (a field goal) was worth 5. That was 1883 (a safety was worth 1). From 1884 to 1896 the TD was worth 4 and the points after, two, A FG was worth 5. (A safety went to 2 pts in 1884 and ever since)

1897 to 1903, both a TD and a FG were worth 5, the PAT was reduced to 1 point. 1904 to 1908 saw the FG reduced to 4 pts., 1909 to 1911 the FG became 3 points. Finally in 1912, the TD went up to 6 points. This became the perfect scoring system for football.

Eliminating the extra point would screw up the scoring, as would just making a TD worth 7 without the kick. Making the PAT harder is good, though the 1919 rule change centering the XP was an attempt to make it virtually automatic, which it wasn't under the old rules. I don't think they really made the extra point much harder by moving it back as they have now.

[Mark L. Ford]

The PAT was never a "gimmick." It has always been a part of the game. In fact, in the early days of the game wasn't the PAT worth almost much as a touchdown?

Also, back in the 1933 the NFL was so desperate for teams to make the PAT they moved the goal posts up to the goal line. And then as kickers gotten better over the years they've been doing everything to make it the opposite. First moving the goal posts back to the end line (1974), the two-point conversion (1994) and now the 15-yard line nonsense.

(Edited after discovering that luckyshow already said this) It's hard to believe that Camp's first scoring proposals to the colleges in 1883 actually did provide that a touchdown was worth 2 points and a "goal after a touchdown" was worth 4 points. Strange but true; the internet has way too many different inaccurate versions of the history of scoring, but the crazy 2-point TD, 4-point conversion can be found in books, more recently in The Anatomy of a Game: Football, the Rules, and the Men who made the Game , by David M. Nelson, published by the University of Delaware Press in 1994

I guess that the philosophy was that teams would earn the right to a short kick if they could get into the end zone (if you kicked a more difficult field goal, it was worth 5 points). This was the year after Camp created the system of scrimmages and downs. Before that, my understanding is that it simply turned upon which team reached the end zone the most times; and if there was a tie, the team that had kicked the most goals would be declared the winner.

I agree with mwald below that we do tend to prefer the game the way that it was when we first followed the NFL, though I'm fine with the later developments of overtime, not turning a missed field goal into a touchback, the two-point conversion, spiking the ball, etc.-- and now the moving of the point after kick.

I do think that the "return a missed extra point 100 yards, win valuable prizes" rule is a silly gimmick, but I think it will happen so seldom that we'll forget that something that bizarre is on the books. The occasional attempt to run back the missed point will excite announcers for the same reason that one would enjoy watching a loose dog running around the gridiron, the difference being that the returner would be stopped more quickly than the dog would.

[mwald]

Some of the reaction to this has the air of walking 10 miles to school way back when, uphill both ways.

Every generation thinks it corners the market on the "way things should be," myself included. Anything new just can't be good, when in fact, everything was new once and what we prefer today was probably disliked by the generation(s) before us when it was first introduced. For the most part the game has weathered rule changes pretty well, remaining great over the years.

I'm more concerned with the oversaturation of the game than tinkering with some of the rules. Keep 'em wanting more, as the saying goes.

[JWL]

I agree with your overall point but not so much the above paragraph. Maybe the non-football fan watching an NFL game may get up to grab more food or go to the bathroom immediately after a touchdown but before commercials. Maybe. I doubt this is why the rule was changed.

Well since the NFL (Goodell, Competition Committee, etc) has said in interviews and stood at the podium and said it was being considered for change and ultimately changed to add "excitement" and make it more "exciting", I assume it was changed to make it more 'exciting'. More 'exciting' for who? I'm not sure - naturally Goodell said "the fans want excitement on every play" but I would/did assume that it's for people that need manufactured 'excitement' - since the average person didn't hang their head and whine about being bored during a 20 yard kick and isn't going to be on the edge of their seat screaming with excitement for a 33 yard kick.

Your earlier post made it seem like you found the rule change aimed at the non-diehard NFL fan. You noted how NASCAR tried to pull in the casual fan with rule changes. I understand your point on that. With this NFL rule change, though, I don't see it aimed at the casual fan because it is not a major rule change. I think other changes have been aimed at the casual fan. For instance, all the rule changes that do not allow defensive backs to impede receivers much anymore. Those changes opened up the game even more and made scoring easier and big comebacks more possible.

[JuggernautJ]

The coolest two proposals I heard both harken back to rugby. Either the PAT has to be kicked from where the players cross the goal line (would encourage up the gut versus wide plays at the goal line - another happy accident) or the player who scores has to kick, or both.

But I like rugby.

Either or both of these solutions (although I think the latter would've sufficed) would be preferable to what has actually happened.

[JWL]

We are two weeks in and I still like it. I especially liked it when the Steelers made 2-pt conversions after their first two touchdowns vs the 49ers and then their kicker missed an extra point try after the third touchdown.

[Rupert Patrick]

I like it also, I think the success rate of about 95 percent is just about perfect for extra points, which make it not quite automatic.