Bears propose rule change for penalties on consecutive extra point tries

Getty Images

One of the strangest endings to an NFL game in recent memory came in 2019, when the Broncos benefited from an obscure rule that allowed them to try a two-point conversion from the 1-yard line thanks to a penalty committed by the Bears, even though the Broncos had also committed a penalty prior to their initial two-point conversion attempt.

Now the Bears want to change that rule.

In a proposal that NFL owners will vote on at the upcoming league meeting, the Bears are asking for a rule change that would ensure that all penalties are enforced if penalties are called on consecutive extra point or two-point conversion attempts.

Here’s what happened in that 2019 game: The Broncos scored a touchdown with 31 seconds left to make the score 13-12 Bears. The Broncos lined up for a two-point conversion, but they were flagged for delay of game. Not wanting to try the conversion from the 7-yard line, Denver opted to kick the extra point — which missed. Except that the Bears jumped offside, and when the Broncos accepted that penalty, they chose to go for two again. This time it was from the 1-yard line because of the Chicago penalty, and Denver converted to take a 14-13 lead.

Many fans were surprised to learn the Broncos got to take their two-point conversion attempt from the 1-yard line, which effectively treated Denver’s previous delay of game penalty as if it never happened. But that’s the way the rules are currently enforced. Under the Bears’ proposal, the Broncos’ previous penalty still would have counted, and Denver would not have been able to line up at the 1-yard line for the two-point conversion.

In that 2019 game, the Bears managed to get into field goal range and kick a game-winner as time expired, so the obscure rule didn’t actually cost Chicago the game. But the Bears still thought it was unfair, and they want to change it.

34 responses to “Bears propose rule change for penalties on consecutive extra point tries

  1. Odd it wasn’t half the distance to the goal. Did the refs just screw up the spotting of the ball?

  2. Wouldn’t it just be easier to have the penalty enforced at the 3 1/2 (ie half the distance like other goal line penalties)?

    Broncos could either go for 2 or kick for 1 at that spot.

  3. You’d think the Bears would be more worried about their inability to judge quarterback talent.

  4. What ever. We are fast coming to the point that there will be so many rule changes that there will be no rules.

  5. I don’t understand why it wasn’t half the distance OR how Trubisky strung together a game winning drive in 30 seconds with his arm.

  6. The Bears were offside. That is a 5 yard penalty. The ball should be put on the 2 yard line, not one yard line. The Bears were robbed. There is a big difference between the one yard line and 2 yard line in a goal line situation.

  7. A 5-yard penalty, from inside the 10, should be half the distance. Since the ball was on the 7 yard line, it should have been placed on the 3 1/2 yard line.

  8. Here a flag there a flag everywhere a flag flag- just another rule the Patriots can exploit

  9. this is what you get when you have 2 different spots for 2 different attempts. The real problem is spotting a 2 point conversion at a different yard line than an extra point. Just return all PATs at the 2 yard lines so I dont have to watch so many kickers miss so many XPs

  10. I would rather that the rule be changed to the decision to try for two or kick for extra point, be irrevocable. Thus, the try for two or extra point doesn’t change, regardless of where the ball gets placed after a penalty.

  11. I’m not sure whose rules changes have made games worse the NFL or MLB

  12. I would like to add to my suggestion: Penalties during the try can be administered on the subsequent play or on kickoff; team’s choice.

  13. Didn’t the Bears get into winning field goal position on a controversial (ie non-existent) roughing the QB or facemask penalty? The Broncos got hosed in that game.

  14. this is what you get when you have 2 different spots for 2 different attempts. The real problem is spotting a 2 point conversion at a different yard line than an extra point. Just return all PATs at the 2 yard lines so I dont have to watch so many kickers miss so many XPs

    —————-

    I agree with this too. Moving the extra point back didn’t make the extra point try more riveting. It just made the result somewhat more random.

  15. Not everything is”fair”. Consider the same scenario, but as a third and goal from the 2. Broncos delay of game moves it back to the 7. Then the Bears jump offside and it goes to the 3-1/2. To five yard penalties on consecutive plays but the ball moves back a yard and a half. And if the order of penalties was reversed it would even be worse with the ball moved back to the 6. Leave the rule as is.

  16. Don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with this. I think its the fair thing to do and is plain common sense. You shouldn’t be able to wipe out a penalty just because you decide to attempt something else. The ball goes back to the 2yd line and the Broncos (whom I am a fan of) are now facing the same situation as before and can choose to go for 2 again if they want. Why wouldn’t you want this to be fair?

  17. I don’t understand what’s unfair about what happened. Same thing applies if it were a field goal attempt. Kicking team gets flagged for delay, ball moves back 5. Defense gets flagged for offsides on subsequent snap, ball gets moved up 5. It’s not “as if the first penalty never existed”. It’s because the second penalty negated the first penalty. Just because an extra point attempt comes with an option of where to spot the ball for 1 or 2 points doesn’t mean the kicking team is forced into double jeopardy, to use a legal term. Both penalties were already enforced. They can’t be penalized twice for the delay of game.

  18. meadowlandssports says:
    I don’t understand what’s unfair about what happened. Same thing applies if it were a field goal attempt. Kicking team gets flagged for delay, ball moves back 5. Defense gets flagged for offsides on subsequent snap, ball gets moved up 5. It’s not “as if the first penalty never existed”.
    ————
    Thats not the way it happens at all. And that is not what happened here. If the offense is penalized for delay of game, its 5 yards. If the defense is penalized for offsides within the 10, its half the distance.

    So it should have been a 2point from the 3.5 yard line. Somehow it ended up being a 2point attempt from the 1 yard line, because the delay of game penalty disappeared.

    The refs either did it wrong, or the rule needs to be changed.

  19. I don’t disagree with a change in that rule, nor do I think it is the biggest rule change that needs to occur. Let’s start with fumbling out of the end zone, then move on to the general watering down of defenses. Besides, the Bears won that game (on a very questionable call). Ain’t gonna help that sorry franchise.

  20. “schmamps says:
    April 4, 2021 at 2:52 pm
    I don’t understand why it wasn’t half the distance OR how Trubisky strung together a game winning drive in 30 seconds with his arm.”

    His arm isn’t the problem, its what’s above his shoulders that’s his issue.

  21. It was insane how that happened.

    Should have been an easy fix and honestly given it was a glaring rules break it should have been amended after that game.

  22. Easy fix. Once a team decides to either go for two or kick the PAT they can not change their selection even if a penalty occurs. So if they chose a 2 point conversion and have a penalty then they wouldn’t have the option to change when they get backed up.

  23. Ignoring for the moment all the other “issues” with this scenario, how did the ball end up being snapped from the one?

    For the initial 2-point conversion attempt the ball would have been snapped from the two. The ensuing delay of game is a 5 yard penalty putting the ball at the 7.

    Then during the 1-point kick conversion from the 7, the Bears are penalized for jumping offsides, which is a 5 yard penalty that should have put the ball back at the two. So how was it that the ball was snapped from the one?

  24. At least is appears that the Bears cannot go 8 and 8 again this season even if this rule is not changed.

  25. yeah sort yourselves out Bears. Matt Nagy, i used to be indecisive but i’m not so sure now!

  26. If they didn’t tinker with the extra points to begin with and move them back, they wouldn’t have to worry about this. Unnecessary and not well thought out changes in response to each week’s perceived “unfairness” just lead to more unnecessary changes. I agree that the fumble out of the end zone is silly, but other than that; leave the game alone, you have enough to worry about off the field.

  27. The minute you start changing penalties bbased on what has happened on a previous play, you have created problems. Really oppose the proposed change. Each play should be officiated the same. I even oppose the inability to challenge in the last two minutes. All plays should be under the same rules.

  28. The Bears were able to win a game. Bears front office: “We should change the rules.”

  29. They should have made the Broncos stick with the two point conversion after their initial penalty, that is not given them the option to kick after receiving the penalty. If the rule says they can change their mind after receiving a penalty (which is stupid) then my advice to the Bears is don’t jump off sides!!

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.