slats Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I like it. I like that it takes mundane plays that everyone takes for granted, and creates consequence in removing the 'automatic' aspect. This is one change tvat makes the game more interesting. Not change for the sake of change. No logic against it, other than traditionalism, which I get but don't really care about in this case. I tend to agree. It encourages going for two, and the concept of the defense being able to score two points on the play makes sense. Why should it be a play where the offense can score, but the defense can't? I think I'd like to be a traditionalist curmudgeon, hating all things Goodell, but I just can't justify that POV. For strictly purist reasons. It was designed to be automatic from the very beginning when the objective of the game flipped from kicking field goals to scoring touchdowns. Kickers have plenty of influence on the game already. I just don't see the need to increase it even more. No, it wasn't. It was designed to be easy (and it still is), but the current league-wide success rate of over 99% makes the play useless. It was not always that way. All of a sudden, there's a little intrigue when teams line up for the extra point. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Island Leprechaun Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I like it. I like that it takes mundane plays that everyone takes for granted, and creates consequence in removing the 'automatic' aspect. This is one change tvat makes the game more interesting. Not change for the sake of change. No logic against it, other than traditionalism, which I get but don't really care about in this case. /\ THIS The only argument for maintaining the old rule is an unholy attraction to empty tradition. The game just got slightly more interesting and some stooges here are worried that it will increase injuries and officiating. Anything of any merit in football has the potential for injury. The traditional PAT was completely empty and a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FidelioJet Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 It will not encourage anyone to go for two. It'll still be made 90% plus. There is no team that'll say, I'll go for two because I may miss the 1. Get rid of the kick entirely or leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Teams worked hard to make it an extremely safe play reducing injury by a wide margin. Mr. Player Safety Commissioner just increased the odds. I don't really care about the rule change, just find that ironic. I remember once watching an interview, forgot the player now, but his quote stood out, I'll paraphrase it... "The only time you increase your chances of getting hurt is when you aren't giving 100% on the play. Guys tend to get hurt more often when they half-ass things." Extra point plays don't reduce the statistical chance of injuries. Injuries happen, no matter the play. This argument is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 The rule is awful. The NFL sucks. Adding more importance to the dumbest position on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adb280z Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I'm not a big fan of this rule change for a few reasons. 1) A PAT should be almost "automatic." That's the way it was designed. Unfortunately, the kicker just became an even bigger factor in the game of football. More complexity, more officiating, and more important kickers. It's not the end of the world, but why fix something that's not broken? Actually it wasn't designed that way. In 1932 kickers made 67% of extra points. Last year it was over 99%. That's something that is broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Mostro Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 So a guy runs 80 something yards returning a blocked PAT and gets only 2 points? There is something fundamentally Un-American about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j4jets Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Sorry just writing a paper on rules the Patriots will attempt to exploit or pervert in 2015 and need to finish my research So you took the month off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I remember once watching an interview, forgot the player now, but his quote stood out, I'll paraphrase it... "The only time you increase your chances of getting hurt is when you aren't giving 100% on the play. Guys tend to get hurt more often when they half-ass things." Extra point plays don't reduce the statistical chance of injuries. Injuries happen, no matter the play. This argument is invalid. I was repeating Tom Coughlin but I guess you win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny16 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Another unnecessary and stupid change to the game from the commissioner who seems hellbent on destroying this game. Goodell seeks to tamper with all of the wrong things. Instead of screwing with the game itself, which was perfectly fine until he started poking his nose into it, why doesn't he work on reforming his front office and work on improving his performance as the commissioner? He's outright stunk at doing the absolute basics of his job since he took over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adb280z Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 He's outright stunk at doing the absolute basics of his job since he took over. What are the basics of his job other than to grow the game and make his owners massive amounts of money. He's done just fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny16 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 He's grown the game, but he's done it with an arrogance and disregard for basic decency that has made the fans lose confidence in the league. The fans losing confidence that the product on the field is 100% legitimate is the first thing that happens that kicks the ball rolling downhill. Mark Cuban's comments several years ago about what Goodell was doing to the league loom very prophetically right now. Add to that the fact that he's basically been in the Patriots* back pocket for his entire tenure and it's safe to say that he's done an abysmal job as commissioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I'm not a big fan of this rule change for a few reasons. 1) A PAT should be almost "automatic." That's the way it was designed. Unfortunately, the kicker just became an even bigger factor in the game of football. 2) An extra layer/step of officiating has just been introduced. Now, after a team scores a TD, the referee must confer with the scoring team and ask where the ball should be spotted. Who does the referee ask? The head coach? What if the head coach decides to change his mind before the play has been executed? 3) The element of surprise in going for two points (audible, botched snap, fake FG) has been eliminated. More complexity, more officiating, and more important kickers. It's not the end of the world, but why fix something that's not broken? 1) Even if it was designed to be that way (which I don't know is the case), it's boring nowadays. It's converted over 99% of the time (if I remember correctly). At those levels, what's the point of the PAT? 2) You're seriously worried about that? I'm sure it'll be the HC and he'll have to make a decision else call a timeout. Something like that 3) On a botched snap you're still going to get that play. However, possibly the D will get the 2 points in those cases (it's a "live play') or else it'll be a great highlight when the kicking team pulls off the XP (or 2 if they count that as a 2 point play) despite the botched play. In short, I really like this updated rule. Credit to Belichick (who I believe came up w/ it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Kickers getting drafted in the second round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Kickers getting drafted in the second round.pretty much. I mean. Jets Jokes aside. Grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Pumped up to watch 20 different games get lost by teams trying to make up for a missed extra point in the second quarter. "The chart says you go for 2 here!" Love when announcers mindlessly parrot that line no matter how stupidly early in the game it is. Like we should ignore how much time there is left, where they're assuming no one else scores for the balance of the game. Also proudly repeating as though they're the only ones who can add a 2 to a number, that then leaves a difference of 0, 3, 7, or 10 between the 2 scores. No one else can do that. This is why we watch. This is why we listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I was repeating Tom Coughlin but I guess you win. He's an old fool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 "The chart says you go for 2 here!" Love when announcers mindlessly parrot that line no matter how stupidly early in the game it is. Like we should ignore how much time there is left, where they're assuming no one else scores for the balance of the game. Also proudly repeating as though they're the only ones who can add a 2 to a number, that then leaves a difference of 0, 3, 7, or 10 between the 2 scores. No one else can do that. This is why we watch. This is why we listen. Not that any of the mindless commentators you speak of would know this, but I did read comments from one analytics guy saying it's probably better to go for 2 earlier than coaches typically do because then you know where you stand. If you're, say, down 15 with 6:00 left and go for 1 after a TD just to "extend the game", like many coaches do, all you're doing is just delaying the inevitable. Go for 2 on the first TD, and if you fail, then you know you'll need to gameplan for an onside kick at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crayc Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 What if you have a kicker and a dude at the 15 yard line while the rest of the team is in the 2 yard line. could they chose to snap it back to the kicker for the fg attempt with an option of keeping it for the 2.. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Not that any of the mindless commentators you speak of would know this, but I did read comments from one analytics guy saying it's probably better to go for 2 earlier than coaches typically do because then you know where you stand. If you're, say, down 15 with 6:00 left and go for 1 after a TD just to "extend the game", like many coaches do, all you're doing is just delaying the inevitable. Go for 2 on the first TD, and if you fail, then you know you'll need to gameplan for an onside kick at some point. I'm more referring to those suggesting a team go for 2 in the 3rd Q to hopefully make it a 3 point game. As though the other team couldn't kick a FG in the remaining 20-40 min of game play (or even on the following drive). Point is most of the time they only calculate what should be done based on the team going for it will be the only one to score for the balance of the game. Which is why when there's so much time left, "the chart" is only smart if you convert the 2. You're down by 5. Kick the XP and you're down by 4. Now the other team kicks a FG. You're down 7 and a TD still ties it. Miss that unnecessary 2 pointer and now you need a TD PLUS a 2 or you're still losing. Since you can't predict pitching a shutout the rest of the way, you take every sure point you can get. I've seen it plenty of times and going for the 2 too early either lost the game or could have without a conversion. Your example is different, since you're outlining a scenario where it's a given a 2 must be attempted and converted no matter what, whether now or on the next TD. The reason one might hold off on the 2 for the following TD could be more about maintaining a shift in momentum than any actual mathematical gain. Miss the 2 after a big TD and all the air comes right out of your sails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Not that any of the mindless commentators you speak of would know this, but I did read comments from one analytics guy saying it's probably better to go for 2 earlier than coaches typically do because then you know where you stand. If you're, say, down 15 with 6:00 left and go for 1 after a TD just to "extend the game", like many coaches do, all you're doing is just delaying the inevitable. Go for 2 on the first TD, and if you fail, then you know you'll need to gameplan for an onside kick at some point. But then you allow your opponent to game plan against you the rest of the game as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Not that any of the mindless commentators you speak of would know this, but I did read comments from one analytics guy saying it's probably better to go for 2 earlier than coaches typically do because then you know where you stand. If you're, say, down 15 with 6:00 left and go for 1 after a TD just to "extend the game", like many coaches do, all you're doing is just delaying the inevitable. Go for 2 on the first TD, and if you fail, then you know you'll need to gameplan for an onside kick at some point. But then you allow your opponent to game plan against you the rest of the game as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sourceworx Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Why can't they just leave the f*cking game alone? Changing rules to prevent injuries is one thing, but the league has been wildly successful with the current rules. Went mess with what's working? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Why can't they just leave the f*cking game alone? Changing rules to prevent injuries is one thing, but the league has been wildly successful with the current rules. Went mess with what's working? Generally I agree w you but I think this is a fantastic rule change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesr Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Should make Geno a bit more valuable, as he has as much chance at running in a 2pt conversion as he has passing for one (or maybe even more). Whereas with the likes of Brady / Manning, you're not going to see them running it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 In short, I really like this updated rule. Credit to Belichick (who I believe came up w/ it). No credit to Belichick. This rule was a league proposal. The Pats* had an alternative proposal that would've removed the possibility for the defense to score on the play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Just bring in all XFL rules. F-ck it. Instead of coin toss two players run for a ball and the team that wins the Super Bowl gets a mil and rename it million dollar game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastineau Lives Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Just bring in all XFL rules. F-ck it. Instead of coin toss two players run for a ball and the team that wins the Super Bowl gets a mil and rename it million dollar game. So, you enjoy watching extra points being kicked from the two. How about they move kickoffs to midfield? Double the fun! You're just afraid of change. You should get over it. They took something that was absurd and made it better. Whoever invented kicking extra points from the two yard line all those years ago got it wrong. Just because it's old doesn't make it correct. It's the same game, don't worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I'm more referring to those suggesting a team go for 2 in the 3rd Q to hopefully make it a 3 point game. As though the other team couldn't kick a FG in the remaining 20-40 min of game play (or even on the following drive). Point is most of the time they only calculate what should be done based on the team going for it will be the only one to score for the balance of the game. Which is why when there's so much time left, "the chart" is only smart if you convert the 2. You're down by 5. Kick the XP and you're down by 4. Now the other team kicks a FG. You're down 7 and a TD still ties it. Miss that unnecessary 2 pointer and now you need a TD PLUS a 2 or you're still losing. Since you can't predict pitching a shutout the rest of the way, you take every sure point you can get. I've seen it plenty of times and going for the 2 too early either lost the game or could have without a conversion. Your example is different, since you're outlining a scenario where it's a given a 2 must be attempted and converted no matter what, whether now or on the next TD. The reason one might hold off on the 2 for the following TD could be more about maintaining a shift in momentum than any actual mathematical gain. Miss the 2 after a big TD and all the air comes right out of your sails. Gotcha, makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 But then you allow your opponent to game plan against you the rest of the game as well. Of course, and few teams come back from 15 late in the 4th anyways, so the deck is stacked heavily against you. But putting off going for 2 just to give yourself the feeling that you still have a shot is stupid. If you fail the 2 early, you still have a shot. If you fail the 2 late, you pretty much have no shot. It reduces your chances to win by waiting to go for 2. Plus, by going for 2 early, it still gives you a shot at an "element of surprise" situation, where maybe you fake a kick, whereas later on the opponent KNOWS you have to go for 2 and can gameplan for that accordingly. Of course, with the new PAT rules, this particular part of my argument now becomes moot, which is one aspect people are complaining about in this thread. It's so rare that a team fakes a kick on a PAT though so....meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obrien2Toon Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 When did the snap become 8 yards? Why is everyone calling it 33 yds? Isn't it a 32 yarder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 So, you enjoy watching extra points being kicked from the two. How about they move kickoffs to midfield? Double the fun! You're just afraid of change. You should get over it. They took something that was absurd and made it better. Whoever invented kicking extra points from the two yard line all those years ago got it wrong. Just because it's old doesn't make it correct. It's the same game, don't worry. Can I bump this post when we lose 2-3 games next year due to missed extra points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastineau Lives Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Can I bump this post when we lose 2-3 games next year due to missed extra points? Sure, can I bump when we win two to three? It's now a football play. If we lose because of it, we should lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keysersoze Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 So it's a 32 yarder? Great. New ways for the Jets to **** up and lose are always fun. Wahhhh why don't you whine more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupz27 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 All the smart organizations are now employing analytical departments, they just got one more thing on their plate to dissect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.