New PAT rules Confirmed

[fenderbender123]

After reading this thread...it's become very apparent to me how little of our members regularly watch college football. Those turnover and runbacks for 2 points happen every season.

 

[dradee]

Its stupid with this new rule change as now the teams have lost the element of surprise when they do go for the 2 pts. They should have left the ball spot the same but make them kick the extra point from either the right or left hash marks depending on the side the TD was scored and also allow the defense to score 2pts on a block or turnover.

 

[idahawks]

This is a terrible idea, They just killed the fake extra point and there will be fewer overtime games because its less likely the score will be tied.

 

[jawilljr]

Its stupid with this new rule change as now the teams have lost the element of surprise when they do go for the 2 pts. They should have left the ball spot the same but make them kick the extra point from either the right or left hash marks depending on the side the TD was scored and also allow the defense to score 2pts on a block or turnover.

A drop kick is still worth 3 points.

Doug Flutie:

[youtube]JA7Yp6UrAWI[/youtube]

 

[jdemps]

I wonder if the infographic above is accounting for ints, fumbles, and blocked kicks. The possibility of a defensive TD (2 point conversion) should reduce the expected points of the 2 pt try to closer to the level of a PAT (if not lower).

I hope the preseason goes 2 point crazy to add a little spice. We can practice handing it the BM on the 2.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Though I dislike this change from a football purist perspective since it more frequently allows PATs to decide games, the convenient truth is that this change probably helps the Seahawks. Steven Hauschka is one of the best short distance kickers in the league. This could prove to be a competitive advantage for our team.

The only kicker in the league who missed more than 2 FG's from 30-39 last year was Billy Cundiff.

33 yards is automatic for pretty much every kicker.

 

[drcool]

Dan Carpenter of the Bills brought up a great point here: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12920 ... bills-says

He basically talks about how this will add more violent collisions to the game. For PATs the linemen basically just stand up but now they will actually have to hit each other.

"For a sport that was trying to cut back on collisions, I think that you're probably just going to add a few more on those situations."

Yeah, it is only 3 or 4 more collisions per game but that still adds up. Not the best move for player safety.

 

[RiverDog]

Here's a graphic from ESPN Stats on which is statistically better over the long run.

NOOOO!!! They can't do that... I think in multiples of 7 for football with 8 or 6 being anomalies.

But then safeties and frequent field-goals screw that up anyways.

That graphic is meaningless. The long term odds of scoring more total points over the course of a season will not factor into the short term decisions coaches have to make during a game. You might only score one or two TD's per game, so the no brainer decision is to go for the 90+% chance of getting one point vs. the better than 50% chance that you're going to come away with just 6 points. It's not like basketball and 3 point attempts where you get scores of opportunities so it might make sense to take the high risk/high reward option.

Chip Kelly uses that kind of logic, ie the more plays we run, the more points we'll score, but I seriously doubt that the rule change will alter too many decisions.

 

[hawknation2015]

I actually don't mind this rule. It makes the extra point kicks slightly more exciting and may encourage a few more two-point conversion attempts, especially for teams with a place kicker who is injured or struggling. I only wish they would have moved the kick back to the 20 instead of the 15. I also like the fact that the defense has a chance to score if they can return a turnover to their own end zone.

BTW, the Seahawks were one of the teams that agreed to this change.

 

[RiverDog]

I actually don't mind this rule. It makes the extra point kicks slightly more exciting and may encourage a few more two-point conversion attempts, especially for teams with a place kicker who is injured or struggling. I only wish they would have moved the kick back to the 20 instead of the 15. I also like the fact that the defense has a chance to score if they can return a turnover to their own end zone.

BTW, the Seahawks were one of the teams that agreed to this change.

If that were their objective, ie to make the 1 point try more exciting, they should have moved it back to the 30 or 35, then coaches would really have something to think about prior to attempting a PAT.

But with failed attempts only just a tiny bit more likely, I'm still going to take the opportunity to either pay a visit to the head, the fridge, fast forward if I recorded the game, or if I'm at the game, a trip to the beer stand. Perhaps even more so as there is no longer going to be even the possibility of a fake kicking attempt.

 

[Scottemojo]

Chip Kelly signed Tebow just for this.

If there is one coach who will make the 2 pointer catch on among the slow to change NFL, it is Chip.

 

[Popeyejones]

There was some nice analysis on 538 showing that this is going to matter even less than people think it will (which isn't much to begin with):

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dear ... e-stopped/

That said, I kinda hate this, and probably a little irrationally given how little it will really matter. Still though, I hate it.

My issue is that I think ANYTHING that ultimately decreases the importance of touchdowns (and everyone but the kicker) and increases the importance of extra points* is ultimately really stupid. Driving down the field and scoring a touchdown is really hard, whereas kicking a 34 yard field goal is statistically really easy and ultimately just comes down to chance. In my opinion by moving the extra point back the NFL has ultimately ever so slightly decreased the relationship between skill/performance and victory while increasing the relationship between chance and victory. I think that's dumb.

I also think this rule change over-corrects for what the ACTUAL problem was, and in an inferior way to a MUCH simpler solution to that problem.

The problem was that extra points are a waste of a play. The solution is simple: a touchdown is worth six points, and you can either go for two to get eight points or simply defer the option to go for two for one point. That's it.

Instead of that we get 1) 94-97% of extra points STILL being stupid and wasted plays rather than 99% of them, and the other 3-5% potentially affecting the ultimate outcomes of games in deference to luck over skill. Ughhh. rather than fully fixing the problem in a wildly easy way it just fixes the problem 3-5% of the time and introduces a new problem in the process.



*You cannot increase the importance of extra points without decreasing the importance of touchdowns and field goals, and by introducing a higher failure rate into extra points you are by definition increasing their importance,

 

[RiverDog]

Nice post, Popeye!

I never thought of the fact that increasing the importance of a PAT decreases the importance of a TD/FG, but you're exactly right. You can't do one without the other.

 

[hawkeyerob]

I like the rule change, especially now that the defense can score rather than just killing the play. I would think most good kickers would be excited about this rule change, if the NFL makes your job harder, but you can perform it just as well, that arguably increases your value.

I do see the point on player safety, as I think there will be an increase in pressure on PAT attempts. Previously, there was virtually no incentive (except in close games during the 4th quarter) for a team to block a PAT. From the 2 a kicker is putting a near vertical angle on the ball making jump blocks mostly pointless, and at best you stop the offense from scoring a point. From the 30, some kickers will angle the ball a bit lower, and now you're looking at a 3 point swing if you block and return the kick. Let's see more of the Flying Kam. Still not the incentive of blocking a field goal, but there will be games determined by that happening, and I think you'll see special teams focusing on that . It'll be interesting to see what the success percentages are at the end of the season.

For 2 point attempts, I would have been a hell of a lot more nervous on that hailmary like throw Wilson made during the Green Bay game if there had been the possibility of Green Bay intercepting it and retaking the lead, so those situations will make the game more exciting.

 

[kearly]

Though I dislike this change from a football purist perspective since it more frequently allows PATs to decide games, the convenient truth is that this change probably helps the Seahawks. Steven Hauschka is one of the best short distance kickers in the league. This could prove to be a competitive advantage for our team.

The only kicker in the league who missed more than 2 FG's from 30-39 last year was Billy Cundiff.

33 yards is automatic for pretty much every kicker.

Express it in rates, not raw numbers, and you'll see the difference. Though I agree, it is a very, very small advantage.

 

[kearly]

BTW, the Seahawks were one of the teams that agreed to this change.

Makes sense. This rule change does give Seattle a very slight edge over most NFL teams. Few coaches preach special teams like Pete does.

 

[kearly]

There was some nice analysis on 538 showing that this is going to matter even less than people think it will (which isn't much to begin with):

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dear ... e-stopped/

That said, I kinda hate this, and probably a little irrationally given how little it will really matter. Still though, I hate it.

My issue is that I think ANYTHING that ultimately decreases the importance of touchdowns (and everyone but the kicker) and increases the importance of extra points* is ultimately really stupid. Driving down the field and scoring a touchdown is really hard, whereas kicking a 34 yard field goal is statistically really easy and ultimately just comes down to chance. In my opinion by moving the extra point back the NFL has ultimately ever so slightly decreased the relationship between skill/performance and victory while increasing the relationship between chance and victory. I think that's dumb.

I also think this rule change over-corrects for what the ACTUAL problem was, and in an inferior way to a MUCH simpler solution to that problem.

The problem was that extra points are a waste of a play. The solution is simple: a touchdown is worth six points, and you can either go for two to get eight points or simply defer the option to go for two for one point. That's it.

Instead of that we get 1) 94-97% of extra points STILL being stupid and wasted plays rather than 99% of them, and the other 3-5% potentially affecting the ultimate outcomes of games in deference to luck over skill. Ughhh. rather than fully fixing the problem in a wildly easy way it just fixes the problem 3-5% of the time and introduces a new problem in the process.



*You cannot increase the importance of extra points without decreasing the importance of touchdowns and field goals, and by introducing a higher failure rate into extra points you are by definition increasing their importance,

Great post.

 

[Hawks46]

Dumb rule. I like it better when you could fake the extra point, and get the two pints. Not sure what that's got to do with football but it sure sounds good. Who's on board? :thirishdrinkers:

I've seen this comment a lot, all through the internet. Here's the question:

How many times did teams actually fake a PAT and go for it ? I'd theorize that the vast majority of 2 point conversion attempts are from a standard offensive spread and I'd be surprised if we saw fake PAT's as many as 3 times total last year.

In other words, it doesn't affect anything other than 9% additional missed PAT's.

 

[253hawk]

Faking the XP was extremely less likely to work, because you have your ST personnel out there (pretty much all blockers) relying on deception at a single position instead of your starting offense and pure skill with literally dozens of plays to choose from. Which one would you expect to be more likely to be able to gain 2 yards?

Keep in mind your starting punter is the holder and has to have the speed to edge run (unlikely, considering fast DB's guard the ends) or the arm to throw it across his body and accurately into the end zone while on the run. Yes, Ryan did it in the NFCCG but he had 30+ yards of field to work with where a lob pass is easier to execute.

 

[RiverDog]

I've seen this comment a lot, all through the internet. Here's the question:

How many times did teams actually fake a PAT and go for it ? I'd theorize that the vast majority of 2 point conversion attempts are from a standard offensive spread and I'd be surprised if we saw fake PAT's as many as 3 times total last year.

In other words, it doesn't affect anything other than 9% additional missed PAT's.

9%? How did you arrive at that percentage? Even using the 10 years old numbers, the difference is 7.7% (99.3-91.6). Now check out the link in Popeye's post:

Kickers now convert extra points more than 99 percent of the time. That will almost certainly drop, but not by very much. It has been bandied about that kickers have made “only” 91.6 percent of attempts from this distance in the last 10 years. But 10 years is an eternity for kickers – they’re a whole lot better now than they were in 2005. As noted by Kevin Seifert, kickers have made 94.4 percent of field goals from this new distance over the last three years, and 96.7 percent last year. And that doesn’t account for the point-after kicks being slightly easier than their field goal counterparts: They’re never rushed for time, and they’re always taken from the center of the field (technically from wherever the kicker prefers). According to Pro Football Focus, kickers have made 97.6 percent of attempts taken from 30-35 yards from the dead-center of the field over the past three years.

That's less than a 2% difference from FG attempts from 30-35 yard from the same spot over the past 3 years, and that doesn't even take into account how teams quite frequently take the XP play off vs. a FG attempt, making XP's easier as it's almost like practice. So for all this hubbub, we're going from 1/100 missed XP kicks to 2/100. It's not worth the confusion that it will cause all the novices trying to understand a very complicated game. It makes you wonder why they chose the 15 and not the 25 or 30 if their objective was to make kicked XP's more difficult. They obviously didn't do their homework.

But you do have a point about the fake XP's. You don't see them anymore, not that we saw it a lot in years past. But that's not the point. With this rule change, you have effectively wiped that possibility out of the playbook, so Chip Kelly won't be able to come out in an overloaded formation and force the defense to account for it before kicking it.