# NFL reportedly considering proposal to eliminate extra points



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

From Fox News:



> The NFL is reportedly considering abolishing the extra point after touchdowns as part of its scoring system.
> NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told the NFL Network on Monday that the league's Competition Committee is looking at proposals that would end extra point kicks after touchdowns in favor of a revised scoring system.
> "The extra point is almost automatic," Goodell told the network. "I believe we had five missed extra points this year out of 1,200 some odd (attempts). So it's a very small fraction of the play, and you want to add excitement with every play."
> "There's one proposal in particular that I've heard about," Goodell added. "It's automatic that you get seven points when you score a touchdown, but you could potentially go for an eighth point, either by running or passing the ball, so if you fail, you go back to six."


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

As someone who does not consider himself to a fan or has even watched a complete football games in years, I wouldn't mind seeing them tweak the extra point. I've always thought of it as being kind of a waste. However, I would not object if they wanted to keep the extra point but move the snap back to the 20 yard line.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

2 things I have thought about is to narrow the goal post openings to make it harder to get the ball thru.

The second thing is to move the kickoff position back. Most of these guys are kicking the ball over the whole end zone and eliminates the possible run back.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

jimmie57 said:


> 2 things I have thought about is to narrow the goal post openings to make it harder to get the ball thru.
> 
> The second thing is to move the kickoff position back. Most of these guys are kicking the ball over the whole end zone and eliminates the possible run back.


I like your idea for modifying the kick off but I would take it a step further

Move the kick off back 10 yards.
If the ball is downed inside the end zone, ball comes out to the 10. This will encourage the receiving team to run the ball a little more.
If the ball is kicked over the of the end zone with no possibility of a run back, ball comes out the 30.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

fluffybear said:


> I like your idea for modifying the kick off but I would take it a step further
> 
> Move the kick off back 10 yards.
> If the ball is downed inside the end zone, ball comes out to the 10. This will encourage the receiving tram to run the ball a little more.
> If the ball is kicked over the of the end zone with no possibility of a run back, ball comes out the 30.


I like that.


----------



## chevyguy559 (Sep 19, 2008)

I like the idea about the extra point and think the scenario given as an example would work perfect....

As for the kick off, I believe they only recently made the changes by moving the kick off up 5 yards to DISCOURAGE kick off returns due to injuries from the kicking team running full speed and taking out players....but fluffybears idea is a good one IMO!


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

chevyguy559 said:


> As for the kick off, I believe they only recently made the changes by moving the kick off up 5 yards to DISCOURAGE kick off returns due to injuries from the kicking team running full speed and taking out players....


I'm surprised the NFL didn't do away with the kick off all together & just place the ball on the 20 yard line.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

They have talked about wanting to get rid of the kickoff... so I doubt they are considering changes to the kickoff that would enable more run-backs. I like kick-off returns, but they don't ask me 

As for extra points... I would like a couple of things... I would like to see the extra point try from farther back... and I would also like to see an adoption of the college rule where an interception/fumble/kick-block on an extra point/2-pt conversion can be ran back by the defense for 2 points. This adds an extra incentive for the defense to try harder to block it.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Ditching the PAT is a good idea, and kick-offs have lost their excitement as most balls sail into the end zone and there's no attempt. I FF as soon as the TD is scored, to past the kickoff to the first series of downs. Saves about five minutes. If the first series starts way up field or there's been a score, I'll RW and watch that.....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I did like one idea that was floated...

7 points for a touchdown... BUT you have the choice of trying for an extra point via run/pass... IF you get it, then you have 8 points... but IF you miss, you go back to just 6 points.

So... it isn't just the "do I want 1 or 2" point decision... it becomes a "do I want another point vs risking losing a point"... It adds a little to the decision.

Although... all thoughts on this matter being equal... this is one of the parts of the game I am the least worried about.

I think the review process needs to be improved. I would like to see what college does, in terms of reviewing all plays in the booth and only buzzing down to the field when they see something screwy... no more challenges or "non-reviewable" plays.

I was rooting for Seattle this weekend, but I really hated SanFran getting robbed on that fumble/takeaway where the player not only made a great play but was severely injured in the process and yet still hangs onto the ball for his team. He could potentially have a career ending injury and his team didn't even get the benefit of the great play he made. I was happy for the cartoon fumble by Seattle on the very next play.

But I'm way off topic here now... I just think extra points can be improved, but I would improve some other areas first.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Think they should fix OT first, their last attempt to modify it was pretty lame. There should never ever, ever, ever be any possible way that a game ends in a tie. Fix that first.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I did like one idea that was floated...
> 
> 7 points for a touchdown... BUT you have the choice of trying for an extra point via run/pass... IF you get it, then you have 8 points... but IF you miss, you go back to just 6 points.
> 
> So... it isn't just the "do I want 1 or 2" point decision... it becomes a "do I want another point vs risking losing a point"... It adds a little to the decision.


Keep it at 6 for the TD and make the 2 point conversion the standard PAT


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I enjoy the fake PATs at the NCAA and lower levels.

Narrowing the gap between the posts sounds interesting but I think I could get more behind something where you have to put the ball through a rectangular opening as in soccer, hockey and water polo. They could have a bar or pipe that is raised up (perhaps in conjunction with the safety net) to provide an upper boundary for the PAT and dropped down to (or even into) the bar for regular play (so as not to block fan views and field goals).


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

tsmacro said:


> Think they should fix OT first, their last attempt to modify it was pretty lame. There should never ever, ever, ever be any possible way that a game ends in a tie. Fix that first.


Changes the subject sort of, but the same is true for me and boxing. Somebody deserves somehow to win.
They could use the most yards gained, passes completed, etc. to choose a winner if it was already a tie.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jimmie57 said:


> Changes the subject sort of, but the same is true for me and boxing. Somebody deserves somehow to win.
> They could use the most yards gained, passes completed, etc. to choose a winner if it was already a tie.


If you don't really win, why should someone hand you a win?

I'd rather reward efficiency than doing the most of something. Reward the team with the lesser time of possession or fewer penalties (assuming they can find better officials than they seem to have now). The goal needs to be to foster the kind of play that the fans want to watch while maintaining safety for all.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> I enjoy the fake PATs at the NCAA and lower levels.
> 
> Narrowing the gap between the posts sounds interesting but I think I could get more behind something where you have to put the ball through a rectangular opening as in soccer, hockey and water polo. They could have a bar or pipe that is raised up (perhaps in conjunction with the safety net) to provide an upper boundary for the PAT and dropped down to (or even into) the bar for regular play (so as not to block fan views and field goals).


And have a scantily clad cheerleader poised over a tank of water....


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> And have a scantily clad cheerleader poised over a tank of water....


That might actually get me back to watching football again!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Another thought... not just limited to extra points, but extend to field goals too.

How about borrow a play from basketball and give different points depending on where on the field you kick?

So for a field goal... anything from inside the 20 gives only 1 point... anything from 30-20 gives 2 points, 40-30 gives 3 points, 50-40 gives 4 points... Those are not set in stone, but the idea is, the longer you kick the more points you get if you make it.

A similar approach could be taken for extra points... You determine where you want to place the ball for the try and you gets points accordingly... so if you have a good kicker, you can go for more points.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Another thought... not just limited to extra points, but extend to field goals too.
> 
> How about borrow a play from basketball and give different points depending on where on the field you kick?
> 
> ...


I love this concept. Although I'd say no field goal at all if you under the 10 yard line.

And college has the best over time setup by far.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I don't think enough NFL or college coaches could figure out the odds and payoffs without delaying the game....


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Another change I would not mind seeing is the elimination of running out the clock. Once the 2 minute warning, the play clock continues but the actual clock does not begin until the ball is snapped and stops at the end of the play. This would eliminate this going down on one knee and running out the clock & might possibly even add a little drama to the end of a game.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Accept that it kills off the urgency of trying to score real fast if your behind.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Personally I would like to see the college rule about clock stopping while they move the chains on a first down. There is a lot of time wasted while the officials slowpoke the spotting of the ball on long plays... and they only have a sense of urgency in the final few minutes of a game but have already wasted lots of precious seconds the rest of the game.

I'm fine with a play clock to force the action... but it isn't fair for the game clock to be ticking down when the official isn't spotting the ball as ready for play.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Personally I would like to see the college rule about clock stopping while they move the chains on a first down. There is a lot of time wasted while the officials slowpoke the spotting of the ball on long plays... and they only have a sense of urgency in the final few minutes of a game but have already wasted lots of precious seconds the rest of the game.
> 
> I'm fine with a play clock to force the action... but it isn't fair for the game clock to be ticking down when the official isn't spotting the ball as ready for play.


I can agree with that. I also like college it much better.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I like that idea. Players and teams should not suffer because the officials need time.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> Accept that it kills off the urgency of trying to score real fast if your behind.


that's a small price to pay for keeping the action moving for the ENTIRE game...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You want to stop the clock more so how would that keep the game flowing more? Itd lengthen the entire game by an hour.


----------



## coconut13 (Apr 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> I love this concept. Although I'd say no field goal at all if you under the 10 yard line.
> 
> And college has the best over time setup by far.


If you like the college football OT rules, then the whole game should be played like that. Why not give each team nine possesions from the 25 yd and you could play the game like innings in baseball, with no time clock. I hate the college OT rules for the fact is it is a whole different game. Play OT the same way as the game itself is played. Kickoff and the team that plays the best on off. or def. will win. Changing the way the game is played is really stupid IMO.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

So what just keep playing quarter after quarter like basketball till someone is ahead?

It doesn't change the game. It says you have no clock anymore. And it's one possession for each and whoever is ahead at the end after each have had a possession wins. It just cuts down on possessions big time.


----------



## coconut13 (Apr 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> So what just keep playing quarter after quarter like basketball till someone is ahead?
> 
> It doesn't change the game. It says you have no clock anymore. And it's one possession for each and whoever is ahead at the end after each have had a possession wins. It just cuts down on possessions big time.


Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence and your whole idea. So what just keep playing possesion after possesion till someone is ahead. That's not football. No punting, you are already in fg range, no urgency by the offense(except the playclock). Totally different than the way a normal game is played. Another really hokey rule is after so many possesions where the game is still tied you have to go for 2 pts after a touchdown. To me that is a retarded way to have OT. Kick it off and play a normal game situation until one team wins. Maybe they should go to a free throw shoot out for basketball, in an OT situation. They play the game the same way in OT.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Hockey certainly doesn't. European football has no tie breaker. Baseball just goes on in the same mode until a full inning ends with someone ahead. Quite a variety!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

coconut13 said:


> Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence and your whole idea. So what just keep playing possesion after possesion till someone is ahead. That's not football. No punting, you are already in fg range, no urgency by the offense(except the playclock). Totally different than the way a normal game is played. Another really hokey rule is after so many possesions where the game is still tied you have to go for 2 pts after a touchdown. To me that is a retarded way to have OT. Kick it off and play a normal game situation until one team wins. Maybe they should go to a free throw shoot out for basketball, in an OT situation. They play the game the same way in OT.


No it really doesn't. Something like basketball or hockey are so different in the way they are played. Simply playing another five minutes makes a huge difference. Not the same in football. Football is more about possessions. You get one passion starting from a position close enough you should be able to score no matter what.

Maybe they should go to field goals at the end of 15 min, kind of like a shoot out. Each team gets 2 chances at a certain distance starting at the 30 yard line. After each team gets two shots at it, they have to move back another five yards till one makes it and one misses it.

Or each team gets four plays to score from the 20 yard line. No first downs at all.

Ot in hockey is shorter than a regular period and its one man less. It works well. You don't need to use identical rules for ot. It means both teams have already determined they are in a tie playing it the normal way, so they need to have a tweak to the rules to see who can adjust best for football.


----------



## coconut13 (Apr 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> No it really doesn't. Something like basketball or hockey are so different in the way they are played. Simply playing another five minutes makes a huge difference. Not the same in football. Football is more about possessions. You get one passion starting from a position close enough you should be able to score no matter what.
> 
> Maybe they should go to field goals at the end of 15 min, kind of like a shoot out. Each team gets 2 chances at a certain distance starting at the 30 yard line. After each team gets two shots at it, they have to move back another five yards till one makes it and one misses it.
> 
> ...


OT in hockey is handled the way it is because of the time factor invovled in the regular season. In the Stanley Cup Playoffs(when it really matters the most) they play regular hockey until they have a winner. I respect your opinions on OT and its just my opinion that the way the NFL plays OT is more correct than the college way. I'm sure the NCAA has their reasons for conducting OT the way they do and that's perfectly fine for me. Different strokes for different folks. That makes things more fun. In fact the NHL is a classic example of what I'm trying to say. The NHL doesn't necessarily like their regular season OT set-up, but what choice do they have. You can't have teams playing gruelling OT's with an undetermined amount of minutes in the regular season. But when it really matters they play the game the same way in OT until they have a winner. Some of those playoff games can really be long, but that's the way it should be.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Oh I agree about having playoffs the exact same as regular games just like hockey. But also like hockey, I think they need a shorter way to come up with a winner that won't take many hours possibly.

I hate ties with a passion. They get paid to win, not freaking tie.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> You want to stop the clock more so how would that keep the game flowing more? Itd lengthen the entire game by an hour.


I doubt it would add anything close to that. After all, I'm only suggesting this be done for the last 2 minutes of the game. What would you rather have? a bunch of guys stand around and have one drop to his knee for the last 2 minutes or possibly add some excitement into those final 2 minutes?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The thing about overtime and football. In regulation you get 4 quarters, and alternate directions each quarter. IF two teams play to equal standing after those 4 quarters, each has had their side of the field for half the game.

Playing 1 quarter of overtime means one team gets an advantage that the other team does not... in terms of field condition and weather... so playing normal rules for 1 quarter is not as equal as you might think.

Basketball is indoors... while they do trade sides at halftime, the baskets and court really should be maintained to be the same and unlike football the court doesn't get trashed and muddied during the game!

Baseball doesn't just play half an inning extra... each team gets a full at bat and turn at the outfield.

To be fully fair... for football... you would have to play a quarter or a half for overtime AND switch directions halfway through that OT period... so that each team gets to play in each direction.

Many a game has been played where teams with the wind scored and did not against the wind... but by the end of the game each team had a fair shot going in each direction against and with the elements. Playing an odd number of overtimes in the same direction skews that in favor of one team.

Unlike penalty kicks or similar in soccer and hockey... the college OT really only eliminates the kickoff and kickoff return. You get the ball barely in FG range and have choices to make and play regular football after that. It's the most fair way I can come up with for football so far.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I bet less than 5% of games are played where the direction makes a substantial difference. 

Another solution would be to change ends after every possession in OT. Not difficult- most Refs could handle that, and it needn't take more time.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> I doubt it would add anything close to that. After all, I'm only suggesting this be done for the last 2 minutes of the game. What would you rather have? a bunch of guys stand around and have one drop to his knee for the last 2 minutes or possibly add some excitement into those final 2 minutes?


Sorry missed the only last two
Minutes part. I can get on board with that but it does reduce urgency. Unless you mean only at first downs.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

The part of overtime I don't like in the NFL is that, if the initial OT drive results in a TD, that's it. If it's a FG, then the other side gets a possession to get a FG or TD (and maybe continue playing after that if it's FG for FG). There should ALWAYS be a 2nd possession - even after a TD and if the team doesn't match the TD, game over.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

djlong said:


> The part of overtime I don't like in the NFL is that, if the initial OT drive results in a TD, that's it. If it's a FG, then the other side gets a possession to get a FG or TD (and maybe continue playing after that if it's FG for FG). There should ALWAYS be a 2nd possession - even after a TD and if the team doesn't match the TD, game over.


+ 1


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

djlong said:


> The part of overtime I don't like in the NFL is that, if the initial OT drive results in a TD, that's it. If it's a FG, then the other side gets a possession to get a FG or TD (and maybe continue playing after that if it's FG for FG). There should ALWAYS be a 2nd possession - even after a TD and if the team doesn't match the TD, game over.


Exactly! it is such an unfair advantage for the team which wins the OT coin toss..


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> Sorry missed the only last two
> Minutes part. I can get on board with that but it does reduce urgency. Unless you mean only at first downs.


Yes, it reduces the hurry up offense but it also means the team in the lead will actually have to do something more than just drop to a knee and wait for the clock to run out.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It really would give the advantage to the team that is behind only.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> It really would give the advantage to the team that is behind only.


The team which is leading has been getting the advantage for years, it might be time to change sides and give that advantage to the team which is behind..


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't know what to suggest to improve it... but I agree that I don't like the last 2 minutes being nothing-ball when a team is ahead, has the ball, and the other team is out of time-outs. This is true in other sports I watch... like basketball... but the difference there is that this doesn't happen until the last 30 seconds or so of the game and even then the other team can commit fouls that result in change of possession after the penalty... whereas in football penalties don't result in change of possession.

So while I do find those last 2 minutes tedious when the winning team doesn't have to do anything... I can't really argue that it is "unfair" to the other team that had the previous 58 minutes to compete.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> So while I do find those last 2 minutes tedious when the winning team doesn't have to do anything... I can't really argue that it is "unfair" to the other team that had the previous 58 minutes to compete.


if a game is 60 minutes than it should be played for 60 minutes and dropping to the knee for the last 2 minute is not playing!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

fluffybear said:


> if a game is 60 minutes than it should be played for 60 minutes and dropping to the knee for the last 2 minute is not playing!


Of that 60 minutes, though, less than ten minutes is actual action.... (this is not to disagree with your premise).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

fluffybear said:


> if a game is 60 minutes than it should be played for 60 minutes and dropping to the knee for the last 2 minute is not playing!


But it is played those last 2 minutes.

Teams do the same thing in the last 2 minutes of the first half too... decide not to try and score and let the clock run out rather than give the ball back to the other team.

Teams also don't run plays at the end of a quarter if they would be kicking against the wind so they can wait for the quarter to end and then kick the other direction.

Like I said... I don't like it as it isn't entertaining... but tempo is a part of the game all game long. Some teams try and run lots of plays, other teams try to use the entire play clock. That's true the entire 60 minutes.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

fluffybear said:


> Another change I would not mind seeing is the elimination of running out the clock. Once the 2 minute warning, the play clock continues but the actual clock does not begin until the ball is snapped and stops at the end of the play. This would eliminate this going down on one knee and running out the clock & might possibly even add a little drama to the end of a game.


What about the clock stops if the offensive team has the lead and fails to advance the ball past the line of scrimmage.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

JoeTheDragon said:


> What about the clock stops if the offensive team has the lead and fails to advance the ball past the line of scrimmage.


I'd go with that!


----------

