XP

[oldecapecod11]

ARCHIVE

XP
Started by luckyshow, Jan 07 2014 09:04 PM

7 replies to this topic

#1 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors
360 posts
Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:04 PM
Not sure why they always start perseverating about point after TDs every few years.
I do have ideas but none would ever be implemented.
1) Widen the hashmarks, at least for the extra point attempt, and set the ball opposite where the TD was made, either from where the runner went in or from where the pass reception was made. This would make for more acute angles for the kick. Especially if no hash marks at all were used to delimit how far towards the sideline the ball may be placed. This is similar in some ways to how it was done pre-1920. There was also a punt-out if a team wanted to better center the ball. A free kick but the other team could recover it. Rutgers botched this around 1917 in an important game. That loss led to the rule change. Oddly Walter Camp wrote a column in the NY Times hating the rule change as making the PAT automatic but in his syndicated column he praised the rule change saying it made things fairer.. I doubt this rule would be adopted. They will never widen the hash marks even for just the extra point.
2) Some I have heard call for the EP kick to be from a greater distance. But this would still be pretty automatic. A better idea might be to return it to the old distance when the goal posts were on the goal line. Just set the scrimmage line inside the end zone, just two yards from the end line where the goal posts are now. The only problem would be for runs or passes. The goal post would be in the way. As well, passing would be hard to do past the end zone. There would be a need for another ten yards for such passes.
3) Way back before 1920, the point after TD goal had to be by placekick. This was because the drop kicking of the fatter ball was easier from these short distances and many times acute angles. Now, drop kicking would be the harder pursuit. By far. Even allowing the drop-kicker to run or pass it in for two, the drop kick would be harder, even as experts started coming about who actually could get good at it. They would never do this because there aren't drop kickers any more and due to the modern slim ball, it would become a low percentage successful kick, the opposite of now. Although this is exactly why the extra point was made one point, so with the TD, it would need three FGs to be better....they would never do this now. I think gambling influences football rules and such far too often. So this would never happen, either.
4) Before unlimited substitution, all 11 players who were in the scrimmage when the touchdown occurred. were in the lineup for the point after. Unless a substitution was used to bring in a kicker. Under original substitution rules, his removal after the kickoff was also counted as one of the then limited substitutions. So this old way of doing it could be reinstated just for point afters (or even FGs as well). Two reasons might prevent this from consideration. The players union, as the specialist kicker would be less important, but more so would be that a regular (or more) would need to learn how to kick. Injuries might also prove worrisome if a tackle or running back was kicking.

I don't like the idea of eliminating the kick, or even the point. There should be a reason the word "foot" is in football. No one quick-kicks any more. Might as well make the kick harder and still existent. I doubt even putting the ball at the 20 would make it much less automatic. And the run or pass would be harder from that distance.

The point distribution for various scores is just about perfect in football, even with the 2-point conversion. Don't fool with it.

Personally I can give a crap what Belichek thinks about it. Did his kicker miss one lately?

#2 74_75_78_79_
Veteran
Forum Visitors
702 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:27 PM
I think this topic was sort of mentioned about a year ago or so (I may have actually started it) and someone posted something inspiring me to think the same, and that's leave the extra-point as is. Allow it to be 'automatic'; not every aspect of the game has to be non-automatic. That way in the event of a missed extra-point, it would make for a more remarkable/unique event. I personally wouldn't want to see a game, especially an important one, decided on a kicker missing more extra-points than the other (ex. 20-19 final score as opposed to a classic 21-21 going into overtime). Just leave it be.

#3 JohnH19
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors
1,356 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Winnipeg
Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:48 PM
Disagree. Something has to be done about the placekicking game.

The XP should be abolished and an "action point" should be instituted. An actual play when successful would be worth 1 point from the 2 yard line and 2 points from the 5 yard line.

The uprights should be narrowed by a couple of feet to make FGs more interesting.

#4 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:54 PM

JohnH19, on 08 Jan 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:
Disagree. Something has to be done about the placekicking game.
The XP should be abolished and an "action point" should be instituted. An actual play when successful would be worth 1 point from the 2 yard line and 2 points from the 5 yard line.

I really hate gimmicks like that. It smacks of something the XFL might have come up with. Why stop there? Why not award extra points for a touchdown play that covers more than 50 yards? Maybe 8 points for a play of 51-60 yards, 9 points for 61-70 yards, and so on? How about awarding an extra point if the player who scores a touchdown can hit the farthest pylon with a throw after he crosses the goal-line? (P.S. I've never liked the 2-point conversion, either.)

#5 Jeffrey Miller
Veteran
PFRA Member
756 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Western New York
Interests:Buffalo Pro Football History
1920s NFL
1960s AFL
Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:19 PM
Leave everything the way it is. For goodness sakes, can't we hold onto some tradition in the game? The only change I would make would be to allow the defending team the chance to return a blocked XP attempt for one point. It would provide some incentive for the defenders, who so often just stand there while the kick is being made. It could also be the difference in a close game. If that XP would have provided the one point difference in a tie game, the defending team now would have the chance to steal it back by blocking and returning the kick for the point.

I don't like any play in which only one team has a chance to score.

#6 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,144 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:06 PM
In the earlier thread, it was pointed out that the extra-point accuracy was 99.5% in 2012, and that some teams, like the 49ers, hadn't missed the point after since 2003. I don't know what it was in 2013, but it's almost as automatic as you can get in any sport. People have become accustomed to thinking of a touchdown as being worth seven points, and to having cheese on their hamburgers. As someone else said, it's another chance for the hometown fans to cheer their team, even if it is a boring tradition.

#7 JohnH19
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors
1,356 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Winnipeg
Posted 08 January 2014 - 03:38 PM

rhickok1109, on 08 Jan 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:
I really hate gimmicks like that. It smacks of something the XFL might have come up with. Why stop there? Why not award extra points for a touchdown play that covers more than 50 yards? Maybe 8 points for a play of 51-60 yards, 9 points for 61-70 yards, and so on? How about awarding an extra point if the player who scores a touchdown can hit the farthest pylon with a throw after he crosses the goal-line? (P.S. I've never liked the 2-point conversion, either.)

Ralph, nobody hates gimmicks and unnecessary change more than I do but the kicking game is far too automatic. These days it's more surprising when a kicker misses a 50 yard FG than when he makes one.

I don't consider my suggestions gimmicks at all. We're still running football plays. It's not like penalty shots in hockey to determine winners after the five minute overtime period. Now, THAT'S a gimmick.

I don't expect that we'll be seeing "action points" anytime soon but narrowing the goal posts would also be beneficial in adding some excitement to XPs and FGs. I think that could happen in the not too distant future.

#8 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:39 PM

JohnH19, on 08 Jan 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:
Disagree. Something has to be done about the placekicking game.

The XP should be abolished and an "action point" should be instituted. An actual play when successful would be worth 1 point from the 2 yard line and 2 points from the 5 yard line.

The uprights should be narrowed by a couple of feet to make FGs more interesting.
Yes, change the line of scrimmage and/or narrow the posts. Kicks are much too easy now. In college football kicks are more difficult because of the wider hashmarks and because the kickers are not as good. The Alabama-Auburn game was made better than it otherwise would have been because of poor placekicking.