# What is the theory, if any, behind conversion kicks in rugby and American/Canadian football? **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [October 8, 2015, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906 "2015-10-08T05:45:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![russian\_heel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f05b48/32.png) [@russian\_heel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/russian_heel)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906/1 "2015-10-08T05:45:01Z")
I was thinking about this while watching the Rugby World Cup----a player scores a try, then a completely different player attempts a tee shot to turn 5 points into 6. You can argue that the American football version has added a little intrigue with the 2 point play after a TD. But why is the scoring team in either sport entitled to a add 1-2 points to their initial scoring success in the first place? Who came up with this rule and why? I don’t see, for example, a basketball player getting a free throw after scoring a 3 pointer, for instance. Hey, a golfer scores a birdie? Let him make a 5 foot putt and if he makes it, he can go down a stroke. A baseball player hits a grand slam? Let him take a a shot off a tee-ball tower, and if he hits it into the stands, he gets a bonus run. It just seems like an illogical imprint into both sports. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906/2 "2015-10-08T08:26:05Z")
Initially in rugby, a goal was made from a kick. In order to\*\* _try_ **making such a such a kick, the ball first had to be _touched down_ across the goal line. The only value of the** _touchdown_\*\* was that it then permitted the kicker to _ **try** _ to kick a goal. For example, have a look at the 1845 rules, at rule 5 (in the original cursive in [the pic most of the way down the screen](http://avaxnews.net/fact/The_Home_of_Rugby.html), and in a much more recent typed [copy](http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/resources/Laws/Full/Rugby%20School%20Laws%201845.pdf) of that page.) Over time, points were awarded for touching the ball down across the goal line and for succeeding with the subsequent kick. These days, the touching down of the ball behind the goal line in rugby is formally called “grounding the ball”, but is commonly is called a _ **try** _, and the successful kick is called a conversion. In the National Football League the running in of the ball behind the goal line is called a touchdown, and the successful kick is formally called a _ **try** _, but is informally called a conversion. Bottom line? The kick is the appendix of the rugby and North American football worlds. It is of dubious value, but is preserved simply because it was there first, so the next time some skinny guy named Lou asks you “Who’s on first?” you should **try** to kick him in the appendix. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906/3 "2015-10-08T08:36:17Z")
Wiki has noted that the NFL may be [dumping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-point_conversion) kicked conversions all together. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906/4 "2015-10-08T08:43:32Z")
> [@russian\_heel](#): > > I was thinking about this while watching the Rugby World Cup----a player scores a try, then a completely different player attempts a tee shot to turn 5 points into 6. slight nitpick, in the RWC the try is worth 5 points, conversion worth 2, penalties and drop goals 3. But, yeah…what the others said. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906/5 "2015-10-08T09:45:41Z")
> [@russian\_heel](#): > > But why is the scoring team in either sport entitled to a add 1-2 points to their initial scoring success in the first place? Who came up with this rule and why? In addition to the historic origins mentioned, note that it is a lot easier to convert a try that takes place under the posts, than one that takes place at a corner. So in some ways, the increased odds of conversion can be viewed as a sort of reward for scoring a harder, or more difficult, try. It’s payback for being better at the actual _point_ of rugby (getting the ball over the opponent’s tryline) which is nowadays somewhat overshadowed by the penalty kicking. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906/6 "2015-10-08T13:40:17Z")
There is not necessarily logic in scoring rules for sports. Why does tennis scoring go love-15-30-40-game? Why is a FB touchdown 6 points? Why not 1 or 5? Why are there multiple boxing scoring systems? And I won’t go into olympic sports… Usually, it’s just tradition. Someone thought it was a good idea at the time and sports, being deeply conservative, are very resistant to change. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906/7 "2015-10-08T14:18:47Z")
> [@russian\_heel](#): > > But why is the scoring team in either sport entitled to a add 1-2 points to their initial scoring success in the first place? Who came up with this rule and why? Nobody came up with it; it evolved as each sport evolved from more primitive versions in which kicking was more important and running and passing less important. **Muffin** has already outlined the process for rugby. A parallel process took place in American football. The first point system was codified in 1883, at which time touchdowns were worth 2 points, conversions 4, and field goals 5. Over time people realized that the running (and later, passing) part of the game was more exciting than the kicking, and gradually modified the points to 6, 1, and 3. Then they got the idea, if running and passing are more exciting, why not allow them for the conversion as well, worth 2 points instead of 1. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906/8 "2015-10-09T00:15:51Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > Nobody came up with it; it evolved as each sport evolved from more primitive versions in which kicking was more important and running and passing less important. > > **Muffin** has already outlined the process for rugby. A parallel process took place in American football. The first point system was codified in 1883, at which time touchdowns were worth 2 points, conversions 4, and field goals 5. Over time people realized that the running (and later, passing) part of the game was more exciting than the kicking, and gradually modified the points to 6, 1, and 3. Actually it wasn’t so much the excitement level (although that no doubt played a part) but the difficulty. As kickers got better and better, it was realized that making a touchdown was much harder to accomplish than kicking the conversion. So the scores were adjusted accordingly. > [@](#): > > Then they got the idea, if running and passing are more exciting, why not allow them for the conversion as well, worth 2 points instead of 1. The 2-point conversion has been in college football as long as I’ve been a fan. Not sure when they added it. The pros only added it fairly recently. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-theory-if-any-behind-conversion-kicks-in-rugby-and-american-canadian-football/733906/9 "2015-10-09T03:09:14Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > The 2-point conversion has been in college football as long as I’ve been a fan. Not sure when they added it. The pros only added it fairly recently. College added it in 1958. The “pros” added it in 1960 when the AFL adopted it for their first season. After the NFL-AFL merger it was dropped but added again by the NFL in 1994. The CFL started two point conversions in 1975. The Arena Football league used it beginning in 1987. So it’s not too recent however you measure it. It’s old enough to drink even in the NFL.