Why are punts measured from the line of scrimmage, while field goals are measured from the point of the kick?
This would seem to be a very easy thing to fix, and is one of the most inconsistent things in football. Measure the punt from the point where the foot connects with the football. Easy enough, and gives the exact average of length of kick.
Why, football gods, why?
Well, I can think of two reasons. One is that the point of contact for a punt is going to be hard to measure–the punter is moving while he kicks, while the ball is spotted at a fixed location for a field goal. The other is that the net distance of the punt is actually meaningful to the game in a way that the distance the kicked ball travels is not. The yardage the offense gained plus the yardage of the punt minus the return yardage tells you how far from the spot that team started its drive that the other team starts its next drive. Comparing those numbers makes it clear who won the field position battle. Adding in exactly how far the punter dropped back before making the kick doesn’t add any useful information to the statistic.
I’ll buy this. Thanks, I never thought of the second reason. I’ve given the first idea of yours some thought, but figuring where the punter kicked the ball from wouldn’t be too hard.
I might not be too hard, but it would be wildly inconsistent. I’ve seen punts from deep behind scrimmage, punts from not-so-deep and punts on the run by a punter who was about to get smashed (those are the most fun to watch!) Combine that with the “no meaningful reason” for the stat makes it a pretty useless thing to measure – sort of like whether the lines set up exactly at the encroachment zone, or six inches behind it.
Another point to think about would be in comparing records between kickers who kicked when they had the goalposts in the endzone to kickers who kicked after the move. Today you pretty much add 17 to the yardage, 10 for the endzone, 7 for the snap and placement. The only way to keep historic continuity in record books would be to measure actual distance.
Also, the punter sometimes stands in his own team’s end zone, where there are no yard lines. It would be difficult to measure precisely.
Despite the difference in the extremity responsible, a punt is measured just like a pass. You can have a negative-yard punt, and a negative-yard pass, but there is no negative field goal try.
True, but the NFL does measure return yardage (kickoffs and interceptions) from out of the endzone. The longest possible NFL play is 109 yards, and this has occurred.
This is the main reason I’d give for measuring from the spot for field goals. The meaningful statistic for fieldgoals is how far the kicker can make it from. And, of course, it’s trivial to see where the kicker is kicking from. But other than knowing the range of the kicker, there’s not really anything qualitively different from field goals of different lengths, just whether or not they are good or not.
And, as others said, with punting, not all punters are the same distance behind the line of scrimmage, don’t always have the same approach, especially in situations where they’re punting from their own endzone, they’re on the run when they punt, or it’s short yardage (that in between around around the 40 or so where it’s a really long field goal or a short punt). Besides, the meaningful statistic for a punt isn’t where it’s kicked from but the total yardage change in field position. It’s also a fundamentally different type of kick where a field goal just has to be good, but a punter could almost always do slightly better, whether it’s a yard or two longer (or shorter if it’s a touchback) or location or hang time or whatever.
But this makes sense because there is fundamentally a difference between a 109 yard return for a TD and a 99 yard return for a TD or a 99 yard return from deep in the endzone to within the 10 yardline.
For a punt, the only real measure for result is the yardage change and the only thing different from within one’s own endzone is that it’s possible that he’s closer to the line of scrimmage than he’d like to be and has a higher chance of a bad punt or a block.
That seems to be the common view. But here’s a play (Antonio Cromartie returns a missed field goal) that went a lot closer to 110 than to 109 yards. Indeed the replay shows that the ball (or at least part of it) was past the end line when he caught it.
Is there a rule that says these distances are always rounded down?
I was thinking of the Cromartie return when I made the comment. I still think his foot hit the end line. As a Vikings fan that hurt, but Peterson rushed for 296 yards in that game and the Vikings won, so that really diminished the pain.
All official measurements are by full yards, regardless of where the ball and down markers are placed. IIRC, they do round down, hence things like “3rd and inches” when there’s less than a yard to go. All stats are based off of the official measurements. So it’s impossible for a play to go for 110 yards, since that means the ball will have been out of the back of the end zone.
Really? I would have said the linked video makes it completely clear it didn’t. At 2:02 his foot comes down, but it’s not fully in the frame. At 2:03 his foot is moving slightly backward. At 2:04 it comes fully into view, and is entirely in bounds.
If all official measurements are by full yards, you can’t have one in inches. Are you saying that “3rd and inches” is officially considered zero yards?
The previous play is what was rounded down. Any play that goes at least 9 yards but less than 10 is a 9 yard play. Whether you have 1 yard or one inch to get the next yard is irrelevant. If you make less than a yard on your next play, but cross the first down marker, you are credited with a yard for that play, so you actually have the rare case where you round up.
Punts are plays from scrimmage measuring how far the ball went from the line of scrimmage and has meaningful context in terms of the measurement, just as a pass or run does.
Passes and runs are longer than the posted am’t. A 6 yard run credited to the RB might mean the RB went 8 yards or 7 yards from point of handoff, etc. A 20 yard pass might mean the QB threw it 25 yards from release point.
A field goal of 45 yards doesn’t change the math of the game.
Agreed.
So, perhaps the best thing to do for consistency for ALL statistics is to use the line of scrimmage, so a fg kicker’s boot would be from the LOS, NOT where the ball was placed.
Over the years, I’ve seen enough field goals to know that line of scrimmage +17 gives you the distance of the field goal. The ball is almost always spotted 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage. No matter where the ball is spotted. Any closer, and it makes it harder to kick the ball over the line; any further, and the fast guys on defense at the ends of the line can reach the kicker and/or ball.
There is only one reason this remains as it does. The record for field goal kicking is measured from the spot of the ball, not the line of scrimmage. So field goal measurement won’t change.
Bear in mind, too, that there are two punting situations, one where the punter is going for yardage, and one where he’s trying to put the ball as close to the goal line as possible without going over. The latter case has actually become more frequent in recent seasons as the league has taken steps to discourage long field goals. Downing the ball at the 2, 7, or even 18 is preferable to giving up a touchback. Furthermore, for those long punts, a key determining factor is whether or not it’s caught. If it isn’t, it can easily roll for an additional 20 yards or more. My point is, yardage simply isn’t that important to a punter; what matters is giving his defense the best possible chance to get the ball back. A field goal, on the other hand, is an either/or proposition, the distance is a clear indicator of just how difficult it is, and (most importantly), it’s easy to measure from the point of the kick.
Now, regarding 109 yards, if we’re talking official records (which this is), yes, only whole yards count. It gets tricky if some of those yards are in the end zone, which is why the Elias Sports Bureau takes a careful look before making an official ruling. (I remember one field goal return that was originally announced as 108 yards before the ESB ruled it to be 107.) This isn’t really that huge a deal, though, partly because long runs out of the end zone are rare, partly because everyone in the NFL acknowledges the difference between yards from scrimmage and return yards. It’s just one of those things, y’know, like a quarter lasting a lot longer than 15 minutes real time.
On long field goals (i.e., over 50 yards) in the NFL, it’s now pretty common for the holder to spot the ball more like 8 yards behind the line of scrimmage. That extra yard might seem counter-productive, but on a long field goal attempt, the kicker will attempt to make contact a little higher up on the ball – this causes the kick to take a lower trajectory, as he’s going for distance, not height. Thus, the extra yard gives him a little more distance to get the kick up and over the defensive rushers, who are attempting to block the kick.
No matter where the ball is spotted. Any closer, and it makes it harder to kick the ball over the line; any further, and the fast guys on defense at the ends of the line can reach the kicker and/or ball.
I strongly suspect that’s the case. For whatever reason, field goals have always been measured that way, and such a change would make all older stats incompatible.