NFL Moves PAT Kicking Attempts Back to the 15

[RiverDog]

It's silly, IMO. First off, you're only decreasing the likelihood of a successful attempt by a few percentage points, from 99% to something like 95%, so it's not as if I'm going to be glued to the tube up to the commercial. I'm still either fast forwarding through the PAT if I've recorded it, using the opportunity to use the restroom or go to the fridge if I'm watching it live, or if I'm at the game, make a beeline to the bathroom/concession stand. If their objective was changing it from a boring play to an exciting one, then they fell far, far short of their goal. If they wanted to make it exciting, they should have moved it back to the 35.

Secondly, they're forcing a team to declare in advance which option they're choosing, either going for 1 or 2, and forever takes away the fake 1 point attempt.

I wish the league would quit tinkering with what is a superior product and leave well enough alone. All they are doing is confusing things for the novice or others that seek to learn about this uniquely American sport (uh, excuse me, my Canadian friends).

[c_hawkbob]

I like both changes and can't imagine why anyone else wouldn't. It's always been such a lame play anyway, why not add some drama to it.

As for the second part, it's never made sense that an INT or fumble couldn't be returned in the first place; it's a football play, let football rules apply.

These changes are a whole lot less confusing than 90% of the changes they make every year. These two couldn't possibly be any more straightforward.

[mykc14]

I like the change that the D can score, really a no-brainer IMO. On the other hand I don't like moving the PAT back to the 15 yard line. I really don't want to see a game decided by a missed PAT. IMO if they really wanted to make a change they should have made it much more intriguing to go for 2. Maybe move a 2-pt try to the 1 or 1 1/2 and moving the ball back.

[HumanCockroach]

Interesting to me that they clamor about safety, only when convenient. Here they have created more injuries, for the sake of what exactly. There was no issues with the way it was currently handled, and was not needing anything done, yet they changed it. If they wanted excitement, the should have left the kickoff alone, and left the extra point as is.

[c_hawkbob]

Interesting to me that they clamor about safety, only when convenient. Here they have created more injuries, for the sake of what exactly. There was no issues with the way it was currently handled, and was not needing anything done, yet they changed it. If they wanted excitement, the should have left the kickoff alone, and left the extra point as is.

How has this created more injuries?

[NorthHawk]

It becomes a more competitive play so players won't be just going through the motions.

[c_hawkbob]

I'd be willing to bet the injury rate pre and post rule change show no significant change.

[Hawktown]

Will this not leave wide open holes to the end zone to go for a fake PAT? Allowing for a kicker/holder to have a shot to throw/run/handoff for the score since the special teams DEF is going for a blocked PAT?

[RiverDog]

Will this not leave wide open holes to the end zone to go for a fake PAT? Allowing for a kicker/holder to have a shot to throw/run/handoff for the score since the special teams DEF is going for a blocked PAT?

No, it won't. I know the exact odds, but I'm willing to bet that it is much, much worse odds of trying to break the plane from the 15 than it is from the 2. They've virtually eliminated the fake kick play as PAT option.

I do like the part of giving the defense a chance to score on the PAT. But moving kicking attempts back to the 15 is pointless. What are the odds of converting on a 33 yard FG attempt? 95+? I couldn't find the overall odds for 2014, but 14 of the 32 teams made 100% of their FG's from 30-39 yards. A missed kicked XP is still going to happen just once in a blue moon. This rule change will not encourage any team to go for two that wouldn't have done so under the old rule.

[HumanCockroach]

You think the line will simply standup with the kick moved back and defense now allowed to score on the play Bob? Really? I would guess they will be treating it like a FG, bringing pressure, attempting to block it and score, more hits equates to more injuries, whether short term immediate injuries, or long term damage, players getting hit more, equals the opposite of the NFL'sfocus on safety. ( which is really, use this when you want to add scoring or entertainment excuse)

[c_hawkbob]

I don't think they do that now.

[HumanCockroach]

Watch a regular season game from last year, the only time they go all out is when that point is crucial in th fourth quarter, and has been that way for decades.

[c_hawkbob]

Do you really suppose I don't watch games? If there's a game on I'm watching it, pre regular and post.

I'm not "missing" anything you're seeing, I'm just disagreeing with your impression of what you're seeing.

[NorthHawk]

I read somewhere that Hauschka hasn't missed a FG from this range since 2011.
I would imagine there won't be very many misses from this range by any team except maybe in very bad weather.

[RiverDog]

I read somewhere that Hauschka hasn't missed a FG from this range since 2011.
I would imagine there won't be very many misses from this range by any team except maybe in very bad weather.

That or if a FG kicker sustains an injury during the game like Hauschka did in the playoffs vs. Washington.

If they really wanted to mix things up, they should have moved it back to the 30 or 35 and made it a 48-53 yd kick, then it would give coaches something to think about on the PAT, but this doesn't change the strategy of going for 2 vs. kicking it for 1 whatsoever, nor does it increase the entertainment value of the PAT if successful 1 point conversions occur only a couple of percentage points less frequent than before. This is nothing more than changing something for the sake of change.

[HumanCockroach]

Do you really suppose I don't watch games? If there's a game on I'm watching it, pre regular and post.

I'm not "missing" anything you're seeing, I'm just disagreeing with your impression of what you're seeing.

Fine disagree with what I have seen for thirty years, I don't agree with your impression of what you say you are seeing either, so agree to disagree. Didn't have any issue with you liking the change, personally, I would prefer seeing kickoff returns than short field goal attempts, to each his own.

[c_hawkbob]

No need to take it personally. I honestly don't believe linemen take the play off. They definitely don't hold their block as long as a normal play, but that's a different thing than "just standing up". I don't see a significant enough difference between how long they hold their blocks at the 15 and at the 2 for it to cause a sudden rash of injuries on the play.

When you say "I don't agree with your impression of what you say you are seeing" it implies that I'm lying about my impression of what I'm seeing. Totally unnecessary. If you "agree to disagree" try to do so as a gentleman.

[RiverDog]

I just came across this little factoid:

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.

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

It also does not take into account that there is still going to be a lot of times when the defense will take a play off during a kicked PAT attempt vs. always playing through on FG attempts, making PAT's from the 33 easier to convert than converting on a FG from the same spot. Even though they changed the rule allowing for returning a blocked PAT attempt, there is still not a very high chance of scoring off a blocked PAT kick vs. the potential reward that comes with blocking a FG attempt. I don't expect defenses to work their arses off trying to block a PAT kick anymore than they did prior to the rule change. The only difference in expended effort will come after the occurrence of a rare anomaly when a PAT is blocked and not a tenth of a second earlier.

So please, tell me again how going from a 99% probability to what is at best a 97.6% probability is going to change anything, either in creating a more exciting play or in game management decision making. 1 kick in 100 missed vs. 2 kicks in 100 missed. BFD. All they are doing is needlessly confusing matters for the novice.

[c_hawkbob]

Doesn't confuse anything for the novice. The novice just accepts it for what it is without worrying about what it used to be. All it does is pizz off the "purists" who want to keep things the same no matter what. Nobody called it a big difference, but making a thing a little bit better is better than making it a little bit worse.

I'm just stunned that it matters so much to so many, this is the most minor rule change I can remember to garner this much backlash.

[RiverDog]

Doesn't confuse anything for the novice. The novice just accepts it for what it is without worrying about what it used to be. All it does is pizz off the "purists" who want to keep things the same no matter what. Nobody called it a big difference, but making a thing a little bit better is better than making it a little bit worse.

I'm just stunned that it matters so much to so many, this is the most minor rule change I can remember to garner this much backlash.

The point isn't so much the affect this one particular rule change will have on the game. The point is this constant urge the current owners feel that they must keep tinkering with what is already a very good product is absurd. I don't know why they bother having a meeting at all if this is the type of problems or improvements they are addressing. It's a total waste of time. They might as well adapt a rule requiring that all offensive players scratch their buttocks once on the left cheek immediately upon breaking the huddle.

The majority of my work group at my place of employment is foreign born and many are eager to learn the ins and outs of American football. This rule change is going to be just one more question that I'm going to have to take time and explain when they compare it with what they saw last year or what they see in college and high school games. Most other differences from what they saw previously or at other levels I can explain. This one I can't. Any question left unanswered is going to lessen their ability to understand and adapt the game. A lot of people get frustrated with the complexity of American football when they compare it to the simplicity of a game like soccer and give up trying to understand it.

[HumanCockroach]

When you say "I don't agree with your impression of what you say you are seeing" it implies that I'm lying about my impression of what I'm seeing. Totally unnecessary. If you "agree to disagree" try to do so as a gentleman

The only difference between your original statement and mine is I used the words, you merely implied them.

As for doing so like a gentleman, why in the world would I start now?

[NorthHawk]

Doesn't confuse anything for the novice. The novice just accepts it for what it is without worrying about what it used to be. All it does is pizz off the "purists" who want to keep things the same no matter what. Nobody called it a big difference, but making a thing a little bit better is better than making it a little bit worse.

I'm just stunned that it matters so much to so many, this is the most minor rule change I can remember to garner this much backlash.

It might make a little bit of a difference, but in a sense, I agree with RD in that this looks to me like a solution looking for a problem.
I'd rather they simplify the definition of a catch so the vast majority can be on board (there will always be homers on each side of a disputed call no matter the evidence) than tinker with a rule that I don't remember anyone in any media that I've seen discuss was an issue.

Have any others heard of this being a concern prior to the Competition Committee bringing it up?
Maybe they are going on "toilet stats" where the amount of flushing begins immediately after a TD and got pressure from advertisers. Just a guess on my part.

[RiverDog]

It might make a little bit of a difference, but in a sense, I agree with RD in that this looks to me like a solution looking for a problem.
I'd rather they simplify the definition of a catch so the vast majority can be on board (there will always be homers on each side of a disputed call no matter the evidence) than tinker with a rule that I don't remember anyone in any media that I've seen discuss was an issue.

Have any others heard of this being a concern prior to the Competition Committee bringing it up?
Maybe they are going on "toilet stats" where the amount of flushing begins immediately after a TD and got pressure from advertisers. Just a guess on my part.

To answer your question about the demand for this, I'm sure you realize that there was a lot of discussion about changing the PAT, but I never heard of this option. This looks to me like they didn't want to embark on any changes that would significantly alter the strategy of the game and that this rule change was the result of a severely watered down compromise.

Going from a 99% success rate to a 97.6% success rate isn't going to change anyone's viewing habits, so I don't think your toilet stats hold water...pardon the pun. But I will note that a long time ago, the City of New York's fire department was genuinely concerned because of a dramatic loss of water pressure during NFL commercial breaks.

[NorthHawk]

I never got what initiated this discussion/rule change other than it being brought up by the Comp Committee or owners group as being a problem.
It's not like there was a groundswell of support and I bet most fans didn't even consider it an issue and other than the league starting the discussion, it wasn't much of a concern for most of us.
It's such a small change that I wonder if it's even worthwhile.

[RiverDog]

I never got what initiated this discussion/rule change other than it being brought up by the Comp Committee or owners group as being a problem.
It's not like there was a groundswell of support and I bet most fans didn't even consider it an issue and other than the league starting the discussion, it wasn't much of a concern for most of us.
It's such a small change that I wonder if it's even worthwhile.

Back when changing the PAT first became a topic, I looked at a lot of polls and most if not all of them showed just modest support for a rule change. It is most definitely not a subject that came from the grass roots level, ie discontented fans. It's not like instant replay a few years back, culminating in Vinnie Testaverde's helmet touchdown, that they were compelled by us fans to do something.

Most of the belly aching from fans this season about proposed rule changes came from the single possession in overtime (Denver/Manning) and what defines a reception (Cowboys/Dez Bryant).

[c_hawkbob]

Meanwhile now there support for the rule change. According to Eisen's radio show on the way home from work yesterday 68% of fans favor the rule change.

You belly-achers after the fact are now the minority.

So there.

[RiverDog]

Meanwhile now there support for the rule change. According to Eisen's radio show on the way home from work yesterday 68% of fans favor the rule change.

You belly-achers after the fact are now the minority.

So there.

Not so fast! There were two changes in the PAT, one moving kicking attempts to the 15 and the other allowing the defense to score on a failed attempt, of which the latter seems to have drawn more support. Our discussion in this thread, as indicated by the title, has been solely about moving kicking attempts to the 15. Unless you can show some type of poll or survey that splits out those two components, any poll or survey regarding this subject is invalid for the purposes of our discussion about moving kicking attempts to the 15.

[NorthHawk]

My guess is most fans are ambivalent about moving the extra point back, but really do support the added points on a runback.
I doubt the 2 point play will happen very often if at all in any given year, but we'll see. It might be a great move, but if they really wanted some action, make it a touchdown for a successful runback.

[c_hawkbob]

Yeah Rich didn't specify how many liked what part of the change, just that the new changes were basically a hit.

[RiverDog]

My guess is most fans are ambivalent about moving the extra point back, but really do support the added points on a runback.
I doubt the 2 point play will happen very often if at all in any given year, but we'll see. It might be a great move, but if they really wanted some action, make it a touchdown for a successful runback.

Yep, I'm OK with the part that allows the defense to score, and from what I've gathered by browsing in other forums, my instinct tells me that a majority of fans like that part of the rule change. We'll probably only see a defensive score on a PAT once every 10 years or so anyway, so I don't see it as being a big deal one way or another. Like moving the kicks back to the 15, there was no demand for that part of the rule, either.

The funny thing is that the two rules that had the most support for changing and that were brought up by the fans, ie the rule that denied Peyton Manning from getting the ball in OT and the rule interpretation that denied Dez Bryant of a critical catch, weren't seriously considered, yet this PAT rule that wasn't on any fan's radar got changed.

[Zorn76]

Not big on the PAT being from the 15, but think the opportunity to score on those plays was overdue.

Among things I would like to see brought back is having the option of a 5 or 15 yd facemask penalty. Some of these fouls are clearly inadvertent, yet a team can get a 1st down from a players pinky finger being tangled up for a millisecond.