Rule proposals show NFL is not done tinkering with extra points

Getty Images

The extra point is the surest of sure things in the NFL, with more than 99 percent of attempts successful. In fact, it’s such a sure thing that there are some concerns in the league that the play has become too boring, and even useless.

That’s why the league is continuing to tinker with the extra point, with two new proposals on the agenda for next week’s league meeting.

The first proposal is a bizarre one from the Colts that would allow teams to try a 50-yard bonus kick for an extra point after two-point conversions. That would mean a team could score nine points on one possession, with a touchdown, a two-point conversion and the bonus kick. For now, the plan is only to try that in the preseason, but even that may not pass, as the league probably isn’t ready for such a significant change in scoring.

The second proposal is more straightforward, and follows up on an experiment conducted last preseason: The Patriots are asking that the league change the rules so that extra point kicks are snapped from the 15-yard line, while two-point conversions remain at their current spot, the 2-yard line. The idea there is to make extra points a little more difficult, and therefore make teams a little more likely to go for two. That proposal seems like a long shot as well, although the fact that it was tried last preseason means the league at least has an idea of how it would work.

A change to extra points is possible, but it doesn’t seem to have a lot of momentum. We’re probably heading into yet another year when extra points are little more than a little extra time for fans to go to the bathroom between a touchdown and the ensuing kickoff.

75 responses to “Rule proposals show NFL is not done tinkering with extra points

  1. I like the 9 point play idea if the long kick could be returned should it be missed or blocked.

  2. If they’re eliminating useless things, why not start with the kneel down? If a team can’t stop the clock and its inside 2 minutes, end the game

  3. My proposal: touchdowns are worth 7. Score one and its your choice- go for one extra point by running a play from the 5 or keep the 7 and kick off from the 35. If you miss the extra point play you kick off from the 15 or 20. Make it more risk/reward but keep a TD at least one more point than 2 FGs

  4. The player who scores the touchdown should have to drop kick the extra point, or the team can try for two. No bonus points.

  5. The Kansas City Chiefs will be kicking several extra points in the next Super Bowl.
    After the Chiefs OWN the upcoming draft, the final pieces of the dynasty team, assembled by John Dorsey and Andy Reid, will be in place.
    The road to the next decade of Super Bowls will be going through Kansas City. Fans of AFC teams should be well prepared to watch their teams visit, and get anihalted at the loudest outdoor venue, ARROWHEAD Stadium.
    Chiefs nation has taken back the AFC West.
    Notice has been served.

  6. I like any idea that will encourage teams to go for it on extra points. The Colts idea is kinda dumb, but would work. The Pats idea would remove any intrigue from it.
    Personally, I like the idea of the player who scores kicking it or kicking from the spot the player crossed the goal line. That would encourage going for two.
    Also, in the case of a blocked kick, fumble, or interception; let the defense return the ball for a safety (2 pts)

  7. If they want to make the XP & 2pt conversion more exciting how about letting the defense return them & score if the block them or get a turnover?

  8. I mean a kick from the 50 is a 67 yard attempt. Not many of those kicks will be good.

    So let the defense return it for points the other way to make it interesting at the end of a game/half.

  9. Colts rule should be modified:

    Allow teams run one play from the 50-yard for a touchdown. You get six points for the TD with choice of extra point kick for one point or run/pass for 2 points. If successful, you get additional tries until you are stopped. Iif not successful, opposing team gets the ball at the 50.conversions.

  10. Colts rule should be modified:

    Allow teams run one play from the 50-yard for a touchdown. You get six points for the TD with choice of extra point kick for one point or run/pass for 2 points. If successful, you get additional tries until you are stopped. If not successful, opposing team gets the ball at the 50.

  11. 83 players in MLB had a fielding percentage of 99% or greater last season. An equally tiny percentage of NBA players go up for a dunk and don’t finish it off successfully. Sometimes things in sports are automatic, or close to it. Just leave it alone. Can they ever leave anything alone, or are they bent on manipulating every aspect of a game that does not need their help?

  12. I disagree with the “kneeldown” comment above. It’s not always automatic. At the end of the SB, NE wanted to take a knee but it would have been risky at the 1 yd line (before SEA jumped the gun it made it moot).

  13. mantastic54 says:

    If they’re eliminating useless things, why not start with the kneel down? If a team can’t stop the clock and its inside 2 minutes, end the game

    Or I would rather see the clock stop only if the ball gets back to the line of scrimmage or beyond. That way teams have to play it out

  14. “In fact, it’s such a sure thing that there are some concerns in the league that the play has become too boring, and even useless.”

    Same could be said for kickoffs

  15. They should just change a TD from 6 points to 7 points. Get rid of the PAT. Change the 2-pt conversion to 1-pt; however, if the team fails to convert they lose 1-pt.

    If you stop and think about it it really doesn’t change much from what happens right now other than remove the PAT all together. IMO, it’s the best change and less intrusive to the game.

  16. Move the 2 point conversion up to the 1 inch line.

    PS

    The rule I would like see changed :

    The opposite of the 1/2 the distance to the goal . So the Defense commits 4 penalties in a row and the Offense moves from the 1 to the 1/4 inch line. The O then has ONE penalty and they are moved back accordingly.

    Always seemed unfair.

  17. Eliminate the kick option for the extra point! Replace it with the pass/run option for 2 points. This will liven up the extra points play!

  18. The name of the game, as well as what fans want to see, is scoring. And the NFL understands that. It’s nice to see them responding to the ideas but the game has already been opened up enough. I’d much rather see a FG from 50+ worth 4 points instead of 3 before I see a bonus 3rd point for it after a TD + conversion.

  19. I say move the ball to the half yard line. It would cause more coaches to go for two. And then fakes etc are still in play. Going from the two is difficult. Making that choice from the half yard line is gut wrenching.

  20. Let’s go through this logically if we could…

    Is there anybody who wakes up on Sundays absolutely jacked up for football say to themselves “God I can’t wait to watch the games, I just wish I didn’t have to be tortured by all those made PATs all day!”

    Alternatively, does a casual or non-fan who happens to catch a glimpse of a game ever say “Oh man, if those PATs were in more doubt I might not be changing the channel right now/I might’ve thought about tuning in next week!”

    I’d be willing to bet that, if those people actually exist, they are among an exponentially smaller percentage than the percentage of…. you guessed it… PATs MISSED!!

    Time would be WAY better spent trying to make the rule book simpler and easier to remember… not just for refs, but for EVERYONE…. players, coaches, front offices, AND FANS!

  21. Touchdowns still worth 6 points.

    Move the ball to the 1 yard line for a 2 point try OR have the ball moved to the 35 yard line to kick a 52 yard FG for 2 points.

    PATs remain the same for 1 point.

    This way, Kickers will still have a job once the league eliminates kickoffs.

  22. Whatever is done will result in more commercials. That is the object that will influence it.

  23. Totally agree with an earlier post, get rid of the kneel down. Take the Arena Football rule, under two minutes, the clock only runs if you gain positive yardage. Waste of two good minutes of football the way it is now.

  24. Don’t listen to anything the Deflatriots propose. They already play fast and loose with the rules, imagine what they will do if it’s their own rule.

  25. I like it that when the snap is bad, or if a team desires to fake the PAT, the two-point conversion is just as in-play as ever.

    I don’t like us messing with distance for that reason.

    That leaves us with two other options, both of which are entirely reasonable to modify, in my opinion.

    1. Angle (as stated above) and/or
    2. Width of goal posts

    So, (1) the PAT simply would be attempted from the spot on the field from where the TD play was originally snapped.

    Then, (2) bearing in-mind that the goal posts already have went through some aesthetic changes through the years, someone has suggested a new era set of posts that are dual-pronged.

    The current 18-ft width would remain applicable for FGs, but then an inner set of new posts would extend at a 12-ft width, specifically for PATs.

    I’d like to see both, personally, but even just one of the two would be an improvement.

  26. Isn’t the whole point (pun unintended) of the extra point that it’s basically guaranteed? That’s the risk of going for two. You get more points, but you have to work for them, whereas the extra point is basically guaranteed.

    Not to mention the fact that it’s a play that takes all of about 5 seconds to set up and run. It’s really not that big of a deal, just leave it alone.

  27. The NFL Rules Committee is like congress. They don’t realize that sometimes, you just don’t need additional rules and regulations. The Rules Committee seems like they enjoy enacting new rules just to show they are doing something (like Congress).

    Leave the game alone.

  28. I like the proposal from last year, TD = 7 points. Unless a team elects to try for a 2 point conversion, then a TD = 6 points.

  29. The fact that 10% of the voters supported the Colts 3 point play just furthers my thinking that we as a species are doomed.

  30. How about no extra points at all. Tds worth 6 pts and fgs are 3 and that is all.

  31. 1 point conversion from the 25 yard line.

    2 point conversion from the 40 yard line.

    Either play worth 3 points if they run or pass the ball across the goal line.

  32. TDs are worth 7. Eliminate the extra point. The 2 point conversion becomes the “2 point swing” conversion. Make it for one extra point, miss it minus one point.

  33. Moving or eliminating the Xtra point removes the chance for a team to fake it and go for two, or for them to salvage a busted try and get two anyway. Leave it the same.

    The league should continue to extort advertisers but leave rule changes to people that actually follow the game.

  34. I like the old WFL rule from the 70’s.

    TD = 7 Points

    The PAT was called an “Action Point” where you run/pass it for one point from the two yard line for 1 point.

    I also would add in a defensive “Action Point” return for a TD = 1 point

  35. Just like a free throw on a technical foul, a penalty kick in soccer, intentional walk in baseball; there are certain things that are meant to be considered easy but not automatic like an extra point. I liked the narrower posts used in the Pro Bowl. Kicks will be less automatic and move the ball to the 3 (20 yard FG)

  36. Let’s not marginalize the kicker in a game called FOOTball any more than we already have, please.

    So many of these ideas make the 2 point conversion attempt more likely, and while I like that the NFL finally adopted it from the college game many years ago, I don’t want it to become so difficult to kick PATs that the 2 pt becomes the norm.

    There needs to be some counterbalance that makes both slightly more difficult than they currently are, and too… importantly… keeping the run and the pass both as nearly-equal viable options.

    Therefore, DISTANCE is *not* the variable to be messing with, imo. I prefer messing with variables that reward ACCURACY.

    Sooooo…. I like what spook1320 said earlier:

    (1) Spotting PATs to be on a line with where the TD play was snapped, and

    (2) Constricting the width of successful PATs with a new-era dual-prong goal post… we might argue whether 12 feet is the right width, but I like it in principle.

    And then, as the counterbalance that keeps the slightly-more-difficult PAT from making 2 point conversions far more common, I propose this:

    The yard line from which the extra point is to be attempted, whether 1 point or 2 point, is a function of WHICH DOWN the touchdown was scored…

    Scored on *first* down = Extra point attempt, whether a kick for 1 or running a play for 2, is snapped from the *one* yard line.

    Then… scored on *second* down = from the *two* yard line…

    *third* down = *three* yard line…

    And *fourth* = *four* yard line.

    What I like maybe best about this is that a defense with their backs against the goalline actually gets some potentially-consequential reward for each down they keep the offense out of the end zone.

    It also obviously adds to the drama since an offense wanting to go for 2 has incentive to score on a 1st down play from how ever far they are from the goalline… from the 1 yard line, conversion would be more than 50% likely. From the 2 yard line, it’s 50/50, and then once they have to go to a 3rd down, the odds clearly shift to the defensive team’s favor.

  37. Bill Bellichick’s idea from a year ago is a sound one.
    1)All touchdowns are seven points, not six.
    2)If a team wanted an extra point, they have one more play which would be one point, totaling 8.

    I would also argue an end the kickoff and put the ball on the twenty and start play again. The only kickoffs would be at the start of the game, after halftime and in overtime.

  38. <<>>

    Yes, toes, that’s what I meant to say originally, but just short-armed it. Glad you interpreted it correctly.

    So, in other words, if the scoring play was snapped from the farthest right hash mark at the 23 yard line, then the PAT is to be snapped from the farthest right hash mark at the 2.

    But having said that, I really like the idea of positioning the ball for the extra point attempt based on the down that the TD was scored on.

    I would only suggest, instead of the 1, 2, 3 and 4, I’d go with the NFL’s current two yard line for 1st down, then add a yard for each additional down after that, so that getting a TD on 4th down ends up with the conversion being placed at the 5.

  39. I think we currently have and historically have had just the right amount of influence on scoring in a game based on kicking.

    Kickers already are having a reduced impact on games based on new kickoff rules. I don’t want to see them marginalized any more than they already have been, and Belichick’s idea would further take them out of the game.

    If anything, I’d like to see their skills become slightly more important given that their kickoff abilities have become slightly less important.

  40. =================================

    “…(1) Spotting PATs to be on a line with where the TD play was snapped…”

    =================================

    Yes, toes, that’s what I meant to say originally, but just short-armed it. Glad you interpreted it correctly.

    So, in other words, if the scoring play was snapped from the farthest right hash mark at the 23 yard line, then the PAT is to be snapped from the farthest right hash mark at the 2.

    But having said that, I really like the idea of positioning the ball for the extra point attempt based on the down that the TD was scored on.

    I would only suggest, instead of the 1, 2, 3 and 4, I’d go with the NFL’s current two yard line for 1st down, then add a yard for each additional down after that, so that getting a TD on 4th down ends up with the conversion being placed at the 5.

  41. I still think the one who scored the touchdown should be the one kicking the extra point. If that’s still boring then have them punt it through.

  42. STOP THIS INSANITY!

    Leave the grand old game alone, or go watch Arena Football, European Football, Soccer, or whatever the hell you want. Obviously, you can’t appreciate the game as it is.

  43. kcchefs58 says:
    Mar 21, 2015 6:18 PM
    Leave the game alone, because we fans can’t handle change!
    ______________________

    It’s not about not being able to handle change… it’s not wanting to deal with change for no reason. Big difference. Are the extra points hurting someone? Are they hurting the game somehow? Are they in some way an unfair advantage to one team during a game? No? Than leave it alone.

  44. I’m made to ask myself, “Why do I look for some change to the extra point rules, but at the same time, I’m a traditionalist who prefers to keep the intentional walk in baseball as-is?”

    Here’s why.

    It’s because most of us, except for Belichick and his disciples, are not talking about eliminating the extra point, but rather, modifying it so that it is, at least, an interesting asset to the game… and similarly, I might be open to something that modifies the intentional walk process to make it more interesting, but don’t want to see it eliminated from the activity of the game.

    As long as we tinker with accuracy factors rather than distance factors, I think something positive would occur for the game of football.

  45. so long as it doesn’t take up any valuable commercial time!!… why crikey, there’s 5 minutes of commercial before the PAT, 5 minutes of commercial after, and another 5 minutes after the kickoff. I’d hate to see so many ads disappear like that

  46. spook1320: “I would only suggest, instead of the 1, 2, 3 and 4, I’d go with the NFL’s current two yard line for 1st down, then add a yard for each additional down after that, so that getting a TD on 4th down ends up with the conversion being placed at the 5.”

    Yeah, I suppose I could go for that.

  47. want excitement on PAT put a windmill in front of goalpost.

    If player scoring TD dunks the ball over goalpost right after score no PAT is needed and 2 points are scored, if dunk fails no points. no dunk attempted try regular PAT

    If after TD scored, team gets any penalty, lose chance for PAT

    2 point for PAT by straight on kicker and by drop kick

  48. The extra point is a waste of everyone time, my proposal,
    2 point awarded with a field goal from the 20 yard line (38 fg attempt)
    3 point conversión from the 3 yard line

  49. Another proposal,
    No more kneel downs, if the teams with the lead get stopped behind the line or with no gain within the final 2 minutos the clock should stop, The kneel down should be ban forever

  50. Change, just for the sake of change is ridiculous. Why would anyone think putting the outcome more in the hands of the kicker is a good thing. Give me a break. 52 football players battle for 3 hours, but the game comes down to a kicker? Are you serious? The last I checked, the NFL was more popular than ever. If a bunch of idiot fans want change, change the color of the penalty flags or something. Then maybe they’ll be happy. Geez!

  51. Want excitement, make the ball this oblong shape instead of round like pretty much every other ball in existence, then have a bunch of grown men chase each other and throw themselves at one another in an attempt to take it to one end or the other of a field.

    Reduction to the absurd isn’t an argument. It’s a joke. Literally.

  52. I’m a little intrigued to learn what would be the arguments against my earlier post saying that the best way to make PAT conversions less automatic with minimal ripple effects to the rest of the game is to compel the kicks to be taken at angles and to bring on a new-era dual-pronged goal post (?).

    (And don’t say you don’t like how a dual-pronged goal post looks… you’d get used to it… that’s not a compelling argument against.)

  53. spook1320 says:
    Mar 21, 2015 3:23 PM
    I like it that when the snap is bad, or if a team desires to fake the PAT, the two-point conversion is just as in-play as ever.

    I don’t like us messing with distance for that reason.

    That leaves us with two other options, both of which are entirely reasonable to modify, in my opinion.

    1. Angle (as stated above) and/or
    2. Width of goal posts

    So, (1) the PAT simply would be attempted from the spot on the field from where the TD play was originally snapped.

    Then, (2) bearing in-mind that the goal posts already have went through some aesthetic changes through the years, someone has suggested a new era set of posts that are dual-pronged.

    The current 18-ft width would remain applicable for FGs, but then an inner set of new posts would extend at a 12-ft width, specifically for PATs.

    I’d like to see both, personally, but even just one of the two would be an improvement.

    If you really wanted to make things more interesting, you could give teams an additional point on field goals if they make it through the narrower posts. Teams could then have the opportunity to overcome a 7 point lead by making 2 field goals as long as their kicker is extremely accurate. It would change how teams look at the two point conversion knowing that field goals could be worth 4 points instead of 3. Think about how much more exciting a field goal try at the end of the game would be if instead of just being for a tie it would also have the chance to win the game. Overall, it would add a whole new level of strategy to the game.

  54. Hmmmm… hadn’t thought of it that way. I’d be open to it if it gained enough traction, but given how difficult it is even to get people to embrace the angle solutions over distance options, or even to embrace the idea of any change whatsoever to the ho-hum status quo PAT, I imagine it probably wouldn’t (gain traction, that is).

  55. eneumann824, fwiw, I absolutely LOVE that idea for the very reasons you mentioned… the FOOT in football and the salience of kickers to the game would never ever be vulnerable again.

    What’s more, I would even say that that probably is, by itself, a sufficient counterbalance that would keep the PAT as the mainstay conversion try over the 2-point, making my distance-dependent-on-down-of-scoring-play idea unnecessary.

    Still, if the distance-dependent idea were to ever get an audience to be seriously considered, I do like the idea of rewarding the defense in some small-tho-potentially-significant way as they’re able to keep the offense out of the end zone. Given further thought, however, I would limit it to the goal-to-go downs, and thus, not for TDs scored when a first down remains possible.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.