Post 19 - The NFL announces BIG changes to the extra point
Hello! And welcome to my corner!
All 32 of the leagues owners convened in San Francisco this past week for their annual spring meeting. Robert Kraft made a statement regarding the Patriots actions towards the Ted Wells report, he finally announced that the Patriots would not appeal their punishments, thus allowing the owners to focus on rule changes for this upcoming season.
At the top of the itinerary was changes to the extra point. For a few years, now, the NFL has been thinking up ways to change/get rid of the extra point. Finally, they have. The owners voted 30-2 in favour of the rule change. But is it a good thing?
The extra point has always been from the 2-yard line making a 1-point conversion a 17-yard kick, which was converted 99.5% of the time. It's the point at which viewers stop watching to refill their drinks, get another bag of crisps or check their fantasy matchup. The new rule makes the 1-point attempt a 32-yard field goal, which has a league conversion rate of around 90%, but keeps the 2-point attempt at the 2-yard line in an effort to make the extra point better viewing. Another part of the rule is that a blocked kick, interception or fumble recovery can be returned by the defense, like in the college game, rather than the play being called dead.
I don't think this rule change, in its entirety, is necessary. There is nothing wrong with the extra point being kicked from the 2 yard line, as Justin Tucker claims, the hardest kick he ever made wasn't the 61-yard game winner, or any of the other game winners he's nailed, but the PAT following Jacoby Jones' touchdown catch against the Broncos with 31 seconds left. If he missed that kick, no overtime, and no Super Bowl for the Ravens.
I do understand that the NFL wants to make every play as exciting as possible, and this rule does do this to an extent. It can also be argued that any rule to make a good kicker more valuable is good for a kicker. But if the NFL wanted to make a conversion more exciting, then ditch the kick (for the record, I don't think that should ever be done, leave the game as it is please Mr. Goodell!) and force teams to go for 2.
However, there are several parts of this rule that I like. Making it so the defense can score on conversions is a very good idea I think. It adds extra risk and excitement to the play. I also like the prospect of a team trying a fake field goal. As it has been moved back, defensive units will surely assume that the ball will be kicked if they line up at the 15? And as Mike Florio said in his article, "The question now becomes whether someone will actually do it. At some point during the upcoming 256 regular-season games and 11 postseason games, it’s hard to think no one will."
To answer my initial question, yes, I think this change is a good thing. Though I don't think a kicker's job should be made harder, it's a lot harder than a lot of people realise, this rule change has more advantages to disadvantages, and does make the PAT at least a little more exciting.
All 32 of the leagues owners convened in San Francisco this past week for their annual spring meeting. Robert Kraft made a statement regarding the Patriots actions towards the Ted Wells report, he finally announced that the Patriots would not appeal their punishments, thus allowing the owners to focus on rule changes for this upcoming season.
At the top of the itinerary was changes to the extra point. For a few years, now, the NFL has been thinking up ways to change/get rid of the extra point. Finally, they have. The owners voted 30-2 in favour of the rule change. But is it a good thing?
The extra point has always been from the 2-yard line making a 1-point conversion a 17-yard kick, which was converted 99.5% of the time. It's the point at which viewers stop watching to refill their drinks, get another bag of crisps or check their fantasy matchup. The new rule makes the 1-point attempt a 32-yard field goal, which has a league conversion rate of around 90%, but keeps the 2-point attempt at the 2-yard line in an effort to make the extra point better viewing. Another part of the rule is that a blocked kick, interception or fumble recovery can be returned by the defense, like in the college game, rather than the play being called dead.
I don't think this rule change, in its entirety, is necessary. There is nothing wrong with the extra point being kicked from the 2 yard line, as Justin Tucker claims, the hardest kick he ever made wasn't the 61-yard game winner, or any of the other game winners he's nailed, but the PAT following Jacoby Jones' touchdown catch against the Broncos with 31 seconds left. If he missed that kick, no overtime, and no Super Bowl for the Ravens.
I do understand that the NFL wants to make every play as exciting as possible, and this rule does do this to an extent. It can also be argued that any rule to make a good kicker more valuable is good for a kicker. But if the NFL wanted to make a conversion more exciting, then ditch the kick (for the record, I don't think that should ever be done, leave the game as it is please Mr. Goodell!) and force teams to go for 2.However, there are several parts of this rule that I like. Making it so the defense can score on conversions is a very good idea I think. It adds extra risk and excitement to the play. I also like the prospect of a team trying a fake field goal. As it has been moved back, defensive units will surely assume that the ball will be kicked if they line up at the 15? And as Mike Florio said in his article, "The question now becomes whether someone will actually do it. At some point during the upcoming 256 regular-season games and 11 postseason games, it’s hard to think no one will."
To answer my initial question, yes, I think this change is a good thing. Though I don't think a kicker's job should be made harder, it's a lot harder than a lot of people realise, this rule change has more advantages to disadvantages, and does make the PAT at least a little more exciting.
Comments
Post a Comment