# Has anyone ever tried to eliminate field goals from football? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 13, 2006, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250 "2006-11-13T16:00:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![happywaffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ee59a6/32.png) [@happywaffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happywaffle)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/1 "2006-11-13T16:00:35Z")
I watched a couple of games this weekend where a missed/blocked field goal or extra point lost it for the home team (both, in South Carolina’s case). It got me thinking; many football fans despise the kicking game, so has anyone ever thought of just eliminating it? I personally kind of like the tension in a game-winning field goal, which provides a scoring opportunity for a team that’s in Hail-Mary territory but might only be down by one point. But at the same time, it’s objectively kind of silly that a team’s effort in getting down the field and battling it out for four quarters can all be ruined if the kicker, who hasn’t stepped on the field all game, misapplies his foot to the ball. My thought would be to keep punts and kickoffs, but eliminate scoring opportunities via kicking. Not saying it’s a good or a bad idea, I’m just wondering if it’s ever been officially proposed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/2 "2006-11-13T16:13:26Z")
The old WFL didn’t have kicking extra points, but what it called “action” points (run it or pass it into the endzone for 1 point). ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/3 "2006-11-13T16:39:49Z")
There was some brief and tentative discussion about this in the early 1970’s, when the first wave of specialized, soccer-style kickers arrived and place-kicking began to seem divorced from the rest of the sport. Among the only concrete results were the relocation of the goal posts to the end line and the return of missed FG’s to the line of scrimmage, and the “action point” noted by **John** in the short-lived WFL. The problem is, it would transform the game too much to make every possession into an all-or-nothing “touchdown or bust”. I can’t imagine that it will ever happen. ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/4 "2006-11-13T18:05:06Z")
[QUOTE=happywaffle] But at the same time, it’s objectively kind of silly that a team’s effort in getting down the field and battling it out for four quarters can all be ruined if the kicker, who hasn’t stepped on the field all game, misapplies his foot to the ball. [/QUOTE] I really hate it when people blame the outcome of the game on the kicker. If the defense had stopped more of the points or the offense had put more points on the board, the kicker wouldn’t be in that position. I don’t think they’ll ever get rid of the field goal, it would take away the field position part of the game. ---
**Author:** ![Wee\_Bairn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/90db22/32.png) [@Wee\_Bairn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wee_Bairn)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/5 "2006-11-13T18:29:12Z")
I think they absolutely should get rid of it- no other sport has anything like this, where if you can’t get the main goal (the touchdown) you can settle for something less. Baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, it’s either all or nothing, you score a run, basket or goal, or you don’t. Also no other sport has a scenario where a player not involved in the game can come out at the end to determine its outcome, save maybe the relief pitcher. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/6 "2006-11-13T18:34:43Z")
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn] I think they absolutely should get rid of it- no other sport has anything like this, where if you can’t get the main goal (the touchdown) you can settle for something less. [/QUOTE] In that case they should eliminate the running conversion too–if the goal’s the goal, then why should they get a chance to add to it? I think the 3-point FG is part of the fun of the game. An important game can turn on one of those. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/7 "2006-11-13T18:36:23Z")
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn] I think they absolutely should get rid of it- no other sport has anything like this, where if you can’t get the main goal (the touchdown) you can settle for something less. [/QUOTE] Doesn’t rugby also have something like this? ---
**Author:** ![BubbaDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bubbadog/32/333_2.png) [@BubbaDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BubbaDog)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/8 "2006-11-13T18:48:14Z")
To quote my old college buddy (kicker for the team), "Hey, it’s called **foot - ball** for a reason! ---
**Author:** ![xizor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xizor/32/102_2.png) [@xizor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xizor)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/9 "2006-11-13T18:59:41Z")
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn] no other sport has anything like this, where if you can’t get the main goal (the touchdown) you can settle for something less. [/QUOTE] Close only counts in “horseshoes” and “hand grenades”, unless neither of those is considered a sport. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/10 "2006-11-13T19:01:05Z")
Put me down in the hate football place kicking category. If it was up to me, touchdowns would count for 7 points and the PAT would have to be a run or a pass to score. Field goal points would be pased on the line of first down line of scrimmage: a successful kick from inside the 20 yard line gets 3 points, outside the twenty yard line gets 2 points. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/11 "2006-11-13T19:28:19Z")
I’d allow field goals but only in the last two minutes of a half or for a team that’s at least six points behind the other team. The game’s main focus would be on scoring touchdowns. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/12 "2006-11-13T20:38:31Z")
[QUOTE=pulykamell] Doesn’t rugby also have something like this? [/QUOTE] Yes, in rugby, after a “try” worth 5 points, is scored, the scoring team has the opportunity to kick for 2 extra points. The kick must be taken on an imaginary line perpendicular to where the try was “touched down” (and hence, the etymology of a “touch down” in football). Therefore, with a successfull conversion, both scores in rugby and football net 7 points. A goal kick, worth 3 points, can also be attempted after a penalty commited by the opposing team while in range. Lastly, a drop goal can be scored, also worth 3 points, at any time during play by putting a drop kick (must leave the hands, hit the ground, and then be kicked) through the goals. One last anecdote, when rugby was being developed from soccer, it was called a “try” because it was not worth any points. It simply allowed the team to whom it was awarded a chance, or “try” to kick for points. This was the only time or way points could be scored. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/13 "2006-11-13T22:34:27Z")
According to professional research, the original football games gave no credit for a touchdown; the only goal was a kick, which could only come after a touchdown. Harvard insisted that touchdowns should count, as they excelled in getting there, but often failed the kick. Eventually, the college league they belonged to scored touchdowns, but assigned four times their worth to a kick. Eventually, it became American football, pretty much as we know it, with scrimmages and downs, rules on tackling and blocking, helmets and pads, etc., but the touchdown didn’t become equal to a kick until 1895, exceeding the FG in 1904. In 1906 the forward pass was legalized, in 1909 the FG dropped to three points, and in 1912 the TD was raised to 6 points. Many of these rules changes were overseen, BTW, by Walter Camp, one of the top three, if not THE pivotal figures in the history of football. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/14 "2006-11-13T23:27:01Z")
I seem to recall a coach (high school or college…not certain) who vowed to go through his entire season without ever kicking. So he went for it on 4th down, all year. Not much help, I know… ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/15 "2006-11-13T23:31:45Z")
I don’t mind field goals - but I despise point after kicks. It’s a little different in college where a guy might shank one every now and then, but in the pros, they kick PAT’s like 99.99% of the time. I say eliminate the point-after kick and make the pros go for 2 every single time. It’ll make things really interesting. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/16 "2006-11-13T23:47:27Z")
The exciting things about field goals is the decision required on 4th and 1 and the last minute realistic hopeful drive for decent field position to win or tie. If you don’t like field goals, what do you suggest the offence do when its 4th and 10 on the 35. Punt ? ---
**Author:** ![brianjedi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@brianjedi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianjedi)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/17 "2006-11-14T00:02:42Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] The exciting things about field goals is the decision required on 4th and 1 and the last minute realistic hopeful drive for decent field position to win or tie. If you don’t like field goals, what do you suggest the offence do when its 4th and 10 on the 35. Punt ? [/QUOTE] Go for it! Even if you don’t succeed, they’re taking over in their own half of the field. There’s actually a theory that’s been floated which says: > [@Tuesday Morning Quarterback](#): > > [Easterbrook: Stop punting! - ESPN Page 2](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/060926) > > First, inside the opponent’s 45, go for a first down on any fourth-and-7 or less, unless a field goal would decide the game. Second, inside the opponent’s 33, go for a first down on fourth-and-10 or less, unless a field goal decides. In Romer’s sample years there were 1,068 fourth downs in which the above formulas said go for the first down, yet NFL coaches kicked all but 109 times – meaning they went for it only about 10 percent as often as they should have. Finally, Romer’s numbers say that an NFL team should try for the first down on any fourth-and-4 or less, regardless of where the ball is on the field. Of course some fourth-down tries would go down in flames and even create easy scores for the other side. But over the course of a season of rarely punting, Romer maintains, the team that eschewed the punt would score more than it otherwise would, while its opponents would score less. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/18 "2006-11-14T02:11:38Z")
Agreed BJ. In general football coaches (esp. those under the watchful gaze of the press and public) tend to be more conservative than they should be on 4th down, mainly because they want to avoid the inevitable second-guessing if they went for it in a crucial situation, and failed (“Mind explaining coach why you went for it on 4th and 7, and the other team then drove the length of the field?”). If you don’t buy that then the old “Good strategies with low odds of payoff are done less than good strategies with high payoffs” thing applies. Classic case in football of that is the extra point vs. 2 point conversion; if we assume the payoff is the same either way (99% chance of a point vs. 49.5% chance of converting 2 points\*), most sane coaches will kick the point the vast majority of the time, unless the score dictates going for two. And that is one reason why I would like to keep kickers around-more strategic choices. [\*I believe the actual 2-point conversion rate is actually around 45%] ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/19 "2006-11-14T02:25:42Z")
I’d change 2 things: 1. make field goals worth 2 points, not 3. tehy still hav value, but they’d be a LOT less valuable than a touchdown. That ought to increase the go-for-it on 4th factor. 2. This is a hijack, but it’s my pet peeve of football. The game is not over until the clock runs out. Taking a knee to run the clock down is cowardly. I paid for 60 minutes worth & I want every second used aggressively. My solution: If the leading team takes a knee or an equivalent action to waste a down to run the clock, we exchange the scores. If it was 27-10, it’s now 10-27. Likewise, the QB throwing away the ball would be judged a sack-equivalent at the point of the throw unless somebody from either team as able to get a hand on it before it hit the ground or went out of bounds. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250/20 "2006-11-14T02:27:49Z")
> [@](#): > > If you don’t like field goals, what do you suggest the offence do when its 4th and 10 on the 35. Punt? In the early days of football, when the idea of four downs was first introduced, the rule was that the team had to move the ball forward ten yards _or back five yards_ in order to gat a first down. A team that had a bad series could just drop back five yards and take a kneeldown and start again with a slightly worse field position. It’s an interesting possibility although I think five yards is too short a distance - I’d go with ten or maybe twenty yards back for a first down. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-ever-tried-to-eliminate-field-goals-from-football/380250.md?page=2)