40 yd kick? Or ball placed at 40? Ball placed at 40 would be about a 56 yd attempt. Unless it’s their own 40. Even Dempsy and Elam would have had issues with that.
Challenges for penalties would be more likely than any other scoring changes in the foreseeable future.
I would like to see the extra point be contingent upon the player scoring putting the ball neatly on the ground: 4 points for getting in, 2 points for putting the ball on the ground, the spot for the extra point being 15 yards back from the spot where the ball was placed down in the endzone. For kicks or 2-point tries. That would make scoring plays more interesting, because the play would not be over simply when a player gets the ball over the line. And total scores would look very different.
The lines today are NE -3 and CAR -3. I’m surprised NE isn’t a bigger favorite. Everyone is so down on Manning. These teams did play in Denver back in late November and the Broncos won in OT. NE was -2.5. The Broncos won in OT with Osweiler at QB.
What’s the rationale for rewarding “putting the ball neatly on the ground?” Has that ever been an aspect of the game?
That’s the origin of the actual word, “touchdown,” but it hasn’t been a requirement since 1889.
I’d like to see them introduce higher scoring conversions. Keep the two point conversion at the two yard line. But also have a three point conversion at the five yard line and a four point conversion at the ten yard line. Sure, these would be desperation plays that would usually fail. But they’d be fun to watch and they’d open up possibilities for teams that are behind by only a few points in the final seconds.
Of course, by “neatly” I mean so that the player’s hand is on the ball on the ground – as opposed to spiking. Kind of like borrowing a clause from that other sport. The rationale would be to make the game more interesting, so that play would not cease the instant a player gets in the endzone. And to make extra points a little more meaningful.
Except the most exciting touchdowns are either the back of the endzone catch where the receiver struggles to get his feet down, or the diving for the endzone run.
That would eliminate some of the most exciting plays in football. Not sure your definition of interesting matches with the rest of the viewing audience.
Was just about to post this myself.
Can somebody explain why a receiver has to maintain possession after catching the ball in the end zone (say if he is falling or running out of bounds and bobbling it after catching and having two feet in the end zone), but a runner scores immediately upon “crossing the plane” even if he fumbles as going down? Seems like a double standard is being applied in favor of runners.
I think it is mainly about deciding if it was a completed pass or not. If you don’t maintain control of the ball then it is an incomplete pass if you are not in the end zone why would they change it to be completed if you are in the end zone.
Those catches and dives would still be scoring plays, they would just only be worth four points. Which is nothing to sneeze at.
They specifically moved it forward to discourage run backs. It’s one of the more dangerous plays, with players running full speed in opposite directions, and the league wanted to cut down on injuries. With more and more attention paid to concussion risk, they won’t be doing anything to encourage run backs.
To score a touchdown, you must have possession of the ball when in the endzone, or when the ball enters the endzone. To complete a pass you must have control of the ball after the catch is completed, which is defined as including the action of falling to the ground. It’s not so much that he has to maintain possession, it’s that he doesn’t have possession until the act is complete, which includes hitting the ground. A runner has possession as soon as he’s given the ball, and just has to maintain control until the ball enters the endzone.
It may not be logical, but it’s consistent.
What problem are you trying to solve? You want to add more boring running plays to get 2 extra points instead of spectacular tightrope grabs falling out of the endzone? Sounds like you’re proposing something that goes against pretty much all of the rule changes of the past 20 years.
With the Steelers gone, I am feeling very meh about the rest of the playoffs. The only thing I can think of to care about WRT any of the four teams is that I don’t want Brady to become the first QB with five rings. I guess I will root for Denver for the sake of Peyton Manning, legal pot, and South Park, but my heart isn’t really in it.
So fewer points for higher effort plays? I don’t understand the benefit.
I’m seeing lines of Pats -3 and Cats -3. Given the conventional wisdom on the Patriots at this point I’m surprised they aren’t more of a favorite. But anyone here take the Broncos at +3? The Pats under Brady don’t have a great record in Denver.
They are not higher effort plays. Getting into the endzone is difficult, no matter how you do it.