NFL thinking of moving PAT to 25 yrd line

[DoobieKeebler]

Moving it back is the compromise. They have talked about getting rid of it entirely.

A lot of people are saying it's ridiculous to move the kick attempt back. Can anyone make a case for why keeping it at the 2 yard line is worthwhile?

It seems too convoluted to have extra points be at the 25, but a 2 point conversion is lined up at the 2.

In recent years the NFL has molded the rulebook in order to increase scoring or improve player safety/reduce the risk of potential injuries, and moving the spot of the ball would accomplish neither. It doesn't seem to fit their MO. Some have argued that eliminating extra points would remove 4-5 opportunities of a freak accident of happening, which I understand, but moving the extra point to the 25 doesn't increase safety or reduce risk of injury, so that argument doesn't work unless the goal is to make all teams simply go for 2 points every time, but if that's the idea then why not just eliminate extra points entirely without the need to complicate things further.

Also, what makes the 25 yard line so special? Why not the 20? 15? 10? Heck, move it to the 30 and give teams 3 points instead of 2. That would make more sense to me than spotting the ball at the 25.

 

[MHSL82]

It seems too convoluted to have extra points be at the 25, but a 2 point conversion is lined up at the 2.

In recent years the NFL has molded the rulebook in order to increase scoring or improve player safety/reduce the risk of potential injuries, and moving the spot of the ball would accomplish neither. It doesn't seem to fit their MO. Some have argued that eliminating extra points would remove 4-5 opportunities of a freak accident of happening, which I understand, but moving the extra point to the 25 doesn't increase safety or reduce risk of injury, so that argument doesn't work unless the goal is to make all teams simply go for 2 points every time, but if that's the idea then why not just eliminate extra points entirely without the need to complicate things further.

Also, what makes the 25 yard line so special? Why not the 20? 15? 10? Heck, move it to the 30 and give teams 3 points instead of 2. That would make more sense to me than spotting the ball at the 25.

Maybe 20, 15, 10 is the next compromise? It seemed like elimination was proposed to make this solution look better. Maybe 25 is to make 20 or 15 look better. Don't agree? I feel people would have opposed 20 or 15 just like 25 is and they can't go from 15 to 10.

 

[imac_21]

It seems too convoluted to have extra points be at the 25, but a 2 point conversion is lined up at the 2.

In recent years the NFL has molded the rulebook in order to increase scoring or improve player safety/reduce the risk of potential injuries, and moving the spot of the ball would accomplish neither. It doesn't seem to fit their MO. Some have argued that eliminating extra points would remove 4-5 opportunities of a freak accident of happening, which I understand, but moving the extra point to the 25 doesn't increase safety or reduce risk of injury, so that argument doesn't work unless the goal is to make all teams simply go for 2 points every time, but if that's the idea then why not just eliminate extra points entirely without the need to complicate things further.

Also, what makes the 25 yard line so special? Why not the 20? 15? 10? Heck, move it to the 30 and give teams 3 points instead of 2. That would make more sense to me than spotting the ball at the 25.

I'm not sure why they chose the 25. I assume there was a fair amount of research into it as I've seen a few articles that state the EPA is roughly the same going for 2 as a PAT from the 25.

The logic behind it is to make having an extra point play kick meaningful. There has been discussion for a few years about removing the kick entirely and simply awarding teams 7 points for a TD. If they choose to go for 2 they get either 6 or 8. This seems more convoluted than a kick from one spot and a play from another.

I don't see how it's convoluted to kick from the 25 and go for 2 from the 2. It may cause some havoc on a blown snap, but how many PATs have been affected by bad snaps?

I guess the question is would you rather see a kick from 43 yards out, or no kick at all?

 

[tallglassofwater007]

It seems too convoluted to have extra points be at the 25, but a 2 point conversion is lined up at the 2.

In recent years the NFL has molded the rulebook in order to increase scoring or improve player safety/reduce the risk of potential injuries, and moving the spot of the ball would accomplish neither. It doesn't seem to fit their MO. Some have argued that eliminating extra points would remove 4-5 opportunities of a freak accident of happening, which I understand, but moving the extra point to the 25 doesn't increase safety or reduce risk of injury, so that argument doesn't work unless the goal is to make all teams simply go for 2 points every time, but if that's the idea then why not just eliminate extra points entirely without the need to complicate things further.

Also, what makes the 25 yard line so special? Why not the 20? 15? 10? Heck, move it to the 30 and give teams 3 points instead of 2. That would make more sense to me than spotting the ball at the 25.

If the goal is player safety, then moving the ball back is completely contradictory to that thought process. By moving it back, if more teams are going for 2, that increases the risk of injury. You rarely see injuries on extra points, but you see plenty on regular plays. If they do decide to kick from the 25, then there is also increased risk because the teams will actually try and block the kick, or at least have a stronger rush presence to alter the kick. As it stands now, the defense usually doesn't even attempt to block the extra point. You see most guys make contact and then just go to the sideline.

 

[imac_21]

If the goal is player safety, then moving the ball back is completely contradictory to that thought process. By moving it back, if more teams are going for 2, that increases the risk of injury. You rarely see injuries on extra points, but you see plenty on regular plays. If they do decide to kick from the 25, then there is also increased risk because the teams will actually try and block the kick, or at least have a stronger rush presence to alter the kick. As it stands now, the defense usually doesn't even attempt to block the extra point. You see most guys make contact and then just go to the sideline.

I haven't seen anything from the NFL saying this about player safety. I've seen a few kickers mention that it is contrary to the NFL's mandate of making the game safer.

Everything I have seen/heard/read from the NFL is this move is about getting a pointless play out of the game. The reason you rarely see injuries on extra points is because teams rarely bother trying on them, as you said above. That you say in your post above that moving it back will increase injury risk because "teams will actually try and block the kick" is the reason behind the proposal.

The league's argument against the current PAT is "why have a play that no one tries on? What's the point"

So for those arguing against changing it (either to the 25, or removing it all together or any other proposed change), what does the league gain by keeping a play that no one tries on?

 

[tallglassofwater007]

I haven't seen anything from the NFL saying this about player safety. I've seen a few kickers mention that it is contrary to the NFL's mandate of making the game safer.

Everything I have seen/heard/read from the NFL is this move is about getting a pointless play out of the game. The reason you rarely see injuries on extra points is because teams rarely bother trying on them, as you said above. That you say in your post above that moving it back will increase injury risk because "teams will actually try and block the kick" is the reason behind the proposal.

The league's argument against the current PAT is "why have a play that no one tries on? What's the point"

So for those arguing against changing it (either to the 25, or removing it all together or any other proposed change), what does the league gain by keeping a play that no one tries on?

I was just talking about how in the post I replied to the safety issue was brought up. Not saying that is the reason, but if that has any reason, moving the ball back is not fitting of a safer game.