It’s back to the 35 yard line now. The NFL moved it from the 35 to the 30 within the past 20 years, to discourage touchbacks (before the new concern over concussions), and then moved it back to the 35 two years ago.
They could do what other football codes like rugby league and rugby union do.
Instead of having the kick from directly in front of the goalposts, make the kicker kick from a point level with where the touchdown is scored.
So, if the touchdown is scored underneath the goalposts, you get to kick from in front, but if the TD is scored right out near the corner flag, you have to kick from right next to the sideline, which requires both greater distance and a more acute angle (and therefore less space to aim at).
That’s not really true. I’m pretty sure kickoffs existed long before commercial breaks were a thing. It’s just that the league it not going to get rid of commercials. Even if they got rid of some breaks, they’d just make the remaining ones longer. And I think it’s true some people have said there are only about 12 minutes of action, but that can be kind of misleading. Teams take time to call plays and adjust to the offense or defense.
The NFL’s idea is at least better than everything else in this thread.
Having a TD virtually guaranteed to be one point better than 2 field goals (as long as you don’t go for 2 by choice) is important. Making the PAT significantly harder just takes away from that.
I know most of the rest are jokes, but really, anything that makes the PAT more intrusive is almost certainly a bad idea (anything that changes how teams go for TDs, for example).
The only options I can see are leaving it the same, replacing it with something almost identical (also virtually guaranteed), or giving the point automatically.
How about instead of a football, they use a beach ball-sized whiffle ball, and instead of kicking it, the long snapper hikes it to the special teams coordinator who has to one-time it through the uprights with a six iron from the 25 yard line.
If he makes it, it’s one point, and they can do it again, up to eight times for a possible 14-point play. However, if he misses on the eighth attempt, the team loses all their points and goes back to zero.
In the final two minutes of each half, the special teams coordinator has to do it with the other team’s kicker on his back, and instead of a six iron, he has to use a putter.
Or, pick a random drunken fan out of the stands to do it.
This.
But who gets to pick? The kicking team or the defending team? I’m sorry but this idea just doesn’t make a lick of sense. It’s too complicated.
I like your stats. Crunching them more thoroughly couldn’t it be determined at what yard line a field goal was twice as successful as the the percentage of successful two point conversions. (Twice as successful because a kicked PAT is worth 1 point, a run/pass, 2). Do you have those stats? It would seem that would put a lot more strategy in the game. It would add even more to the selection of which side of the field you would want to defend in an open air stadium.
I really think the PAT needs to be modified. Right now it’s almost like a a hockey player getting to take a penalty shot on an empty net.
If you want to make it a more strategic choice to go for 1 or 2, make it easier to go for 2.
Making the PAT harder makes field goals more powerful relative to touchdowns, which I think is a completely awful idea. A PAT is easy, and it should be. 7 points almost guaranteed for a TD vs 6 for 2 field goals is an integral part of the point system.
Making a 2 point conversion easier, though, makes it a harder decision without ruining the point system.
Put an arc on the field, the straighter the kick, the further away from the posts. The kicker can then choose any point outside the arc to take his mark.
You know, I kind of like this idea-the trajectory would perforce have to be lower, meaning higher chance of a block and subsequent runback. For PATs it probably wouldn’t matter much, nor would it for long-range kicks, but it would for medium length ones, making them less of a cinch-now that I think about it, the kicker would probably have to learn to take a little off of it so it wouldn’t sail too high, which would reward ‘feel’ more than brute force.
Undoubtedly already implemented on Alternate Earth 67547892364789236478023634089.
Why not make it like the conversion in Rugby?
You kick it from the same place along the left-right axis you got into the end-zone but from the 20 yd line.
That’s what I said in post #21.
These are interesting suggestions – except Goodell’s. His is almost exactly the status quo with a new name. You score a TD get 6 points. If you say “I’ll kick”, you don’t even have to try, you get 1 more point. If you go for two, you get them or you don’t ending with 6 or 8. So the only end difference is under Goodell’s scheme the kick is never missed rather than missed 1% of the time.
But it also does two other things both bad, IMO. It eliminates a fake kick scoring two points. It makes the decision to go for 2 even less profitable as it eliminates all missed kicks.
Why not take a three foot putt out of professional golf?
While hilarious, this is actually less convoluted than most of the rules of football. It is without doubt the most complicated game in the world.
There was one fake extra point attempt during the whole 2012 NFL season and none last year, as far as I can tell.
That’s why it will be such a surprise.
I remember last year the Ravens (maybe?) and the Bears both had 2 point conversions from the field goal formation where the holder got up and ran into the endzone. The Packers also scored a 20 yard TD from the field goal formation that year.
This year, the Bucs tried a trick play from the field goal formation and ended up fumbling. I think there was another attempt by a different team, but I can’t recall offhand.
If you take away the PAT, that removes the fakes with the holder trying to run or pass, the shovel pass underneath to a TE, and the “fire” scramble on a muffed attempt. Those all add excitement to the game and and I’d hate to see that aspect removed completely.