So, who likes the NFL's new XP rules?

[Cobra Mgr]

I love it. I heard there were 4 missed PAT's this week already, compared to 8 all last year. It really makes playing it clean & not getting a penalty on the kick extremely important. There's now some real suspense on the pt after.

[kq76]

I wondered what the difference in expected points between the two was now and apparently it's zero:

According to Burke: "Analytically speaking, coaches should now generally be indifferent to the extra-point and two-point conversion, at least during most of the game until time becomes a factor. Rationally, if a scoring team believes it has a better-than-typical chance at a successful conversion (better than 47 percent), it should go for two. And if they believe that kicking conditions are poor (less than 95 percent), they should also go for two."

In other words, analytics suggest going for two rather than attempting a 33-yard extra point if teams feel good about a matchup or if there are any factors -- weather or otherwise -- that could further inhibit the potential success of a 33-yard extra point.

Everything you want to know (and then some) about NFL's new PAT rule - NFL Nation - ESPN

So the way I read that, if there's bad weather or if you like your offense over their defense, go for the 2. And you'd have to think time left and game score should also influence what you go for. So we should have a lot more 2 point tries now, but my guess is a lot of coaches are still going to play it safe.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I love it. I heard there were 4 missed PAT's this week already, compared to 8 all last year. It really makes playing it clean & not getting a penalty on the kick extremely important. There's now some real suspense on the pt after.

I like it too. It's still an easy kick but not so damned automatic. Now all they have to do is move the kickoff back to the 30.

I also noticed that the ball does not have to be placed in the center on XPs? The team gets to place it anywhere between the hash marks?

Originally Posted by kq76

I wondered what the difference in expected points between the two was now and apparently it's zero:



Everything you want to know (and then some) about NFL's new PAT rule - NFL Nation - ESPN

So the way I read that, if there's bad weather or if you like your offense over their defense, go for the 2. And you'd have to think time left and game score should also influence what you go for. So we should have a lot more 2 point tries now, but my guess is a lot of coaches are still going to play it safe.

I think there was a game either last year or the year before between the Eagles and some other team where they went for all 2 point plays due to snow. I am thinking you can now add extreme windy conditions as well. But other than that, yeah, they'll play it safe.

[MorseMoose]

I dunno...kind of think the rule is...illogical

[kenyan_cheena]

Imagine if they did it like they do in rugby league and rugby union, where the ball is kicked from a point in line with where the player scored the try/touchdown, lol.

[psd]

I always thought they should place a crossbar on top also. Make it so you have to kick it through. Would solve a lot of issues. I always thought it was dumb to be considered "good" if it sailed over the top of the sideposts. That solves that problem. Makes extra points and field goals much more exciting. Cant just boom the XP as high as you can. More chances for blocks this way, too.

[monkeystyxx]

Originally Posted by psd

I always thought they should place a crossbar on top also. Make it so you have to kick it through. Would solve a lot of issues. I always thought it was dumb to be considered "good" if it sailed over the top of the sideposts. That solves that problem. Makes extra points and field goals much more exciting. Cant just boom the XP as high as you can. More chances for blocks this way, too.

Eh, booming it as high as you can is a terrible idea if the stadium hasn't got a roof, anyway... I don't see what the addition of a crossbar would really add.

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

Imagine if they did it like they do in rugby league and rugby union, where the ball is kicked from a point in line with where the player scored the try/touchdown, lol.

What, and have an element of skill involved? Surely not!

The more I learn about the NFL, the more I learn to appreciate the skill involved at each position... except kicker.

Seriously. You have to kick a ball in a straight line. That's your ENTIRE job. Wow. At least the punter is more like a flyhalf's kicking game in rugby, where positioning, height, wind etc are all important factors. The kicker literally just boots it straight down the middle (or, tries to) every single time. And that's without the fact that there's a separate guy for kicking and punting...

Put Leigh Halfpenny in the NFL, he'd be a revelation (and have far fewer injuries).

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

rugby

Is that the sport that the guy for the 49ers that just botched a punt played?

[monkeystyxx]

Yes, but to be fair that was rugby league and he is Australian after all.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Yes, but to be fair that was rugby league and he is Australian after all.

Rugby League is more like Football than Rugby Union is.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Put Leigh Halfpenny in the NFL, he'd be a revelation (and have far fewer injuries).

I'm holding out for Hugh Sixpence, myself.

[psd]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Eh, booming it as high as you can is a terrible idea if the stadium hasn't got a roof, anyway... I don't see what the addition of a crossbar would really add.

Watch all the XP kicks this week, see how many of them would be good if there was a crossbar across the top as well, and then you'll see what it would add.

[monkeystyxx]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

Rugby League is more like Football than Rugby Union is.

Yeah, but if a Welshman can't make fun of rugby league, what has he got left in life?

Originally Posted by psd

Watch all the XP kicks this week, see how many of them would be good if there was a crossbar across the top as well, and then you'll see what it would add.

I'm still not sure artificially taking away some XPs 'adds' anything, really.

The only reason the goalposts don't physically extend to the heavens is cost, physics and sheer ridiculousness of building something that high. In the rules, they do.


Especially as, like I said earlier, a high kick isn't really a tactical advantage. The higher it goes, the more it's affected by the weather (in an open stadium). There's no real advantage to doing it as far as I can see. It just seems like an odd thing to suggest, to me.

"It happens a lot" doesn't seem to be a valid reason for banning it when it's not breaking any rules or even providing much advantage.

[psd]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Yeah, but if a Welshman can't make fun of rugby league, what has he got left in life?



I'm still not sure artificially taking away some XPs 'adds' anything, really.

The only reason the goalposts don't physically extend to the heavens is cost, physics and sheer ridiculousness of building something that high. In the rules, they do.


Especially as, like I said earlier, a high kick isn't really a tactical advantage. The higher it goes, the more it's affected by the weather (in an open stadium). There's no real advantage to doing it as far as I can see. It just seems like an odd thing to suggest, to me.

"It happens a lot" doesn't seem to be a valid reason for banning it when it's not breaking any rules or even providing much advantage.

I think you totally misunderstand what i am suggesting. I am NOT suggesting MOVING the crossbar from the bottom of the goal to the top. I am talking about adding an ADDITIONAL crossbar on top, making a rectangle, or shortening the sideposts also, and making a square that the kicked ball must pass through, making an XP not quite so automatic, and adding a challenge for field goals. Otherwise, for the life of me i cannot figure out why you would think it is so "odd". If a kicked ball hits the sideposts and does not go through the uprights, it is "no good". Why is it a "good" kick if it happens a certain number of feet higher, above the sideposts? That would be like saying a kick that does hit the sideposts "good". It's a stupid rule, and this added crossbar would eliminate that. THAT rule is what i find "odd". It makes zero sense.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

The more I learn about the NFL, the more I learn to appreciate the skill involved at each position... except kicker.

Long snappers?

[monkeystyxx]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Long snappers?

Yeah, but they don't JUST do long-snapping. They're usually also backup centers. Like third down running backs are just running backs. Kickers and Punters, that's ALL they do. Which as a Brit growing up with soccer and rugby is very weird to me. There are literally people in the world who's entire job is to kick a football 40 yards in a straight line. And they get paid pretty damn well for doing it. It's just... weird.

Originally Posted by psd

I think you totally misunderstand what i am suggesting. I am NOT suggesting MOVING the crossbar from the bottom of the goal to the top. I am talking about adding an ADDITIONAL crossbar on top, making a rectangle, or shortening the sideposts also, and making a square that the kicked ball must pass through, making an XP not quite so automatic, and adding a challenge for field goals. Otherwise, for the life of me i cannot figure out why you would think it is so "odd". If a kicked ball hits the sideposts and does not go through the uprights, it is "no good". Why is it a "good" kick if it happens a certain number of feet higher, above the sideposts? That would be like saying a kick that does hit the sideposts "good". It's a stupid rule, and this added crossbar would eliminate that. THAT rule is what i find "odd". It makes zero sense.

No, I know what you mean regarding ADDING, not MOVING the bar.

I was misunderstanding the rule. Apparently, you're correct, a ball hit directly OVER an upright is good.

That's bollocks. Change that.

I'm not sure I agree with a crossbar exactly, but kicking a ball so that it goes over the top of an upright - where it would bounce off and be no good if the upright was extended - shouldn't be a successful field goal.

Stick a laser detector on top of each post; if the ball touches the laser, the referees get a signal that it's no good. The rest they can do by eye as they currently do. Problem solved.

[psd]

Except that there is also debris like wrappers & bags flying around, birds, etc. Not to mention how costly these lasers would be to develop & then install. Just add 10 feet or so to each sidepost & then a crossbar. Works just as effectively with zero chance of anything interfering. There are pros & cons of both ideas.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

Rugby League is more like Football than Rugby Union is.

Do you think so? I'm curious as to why you think that might be the case? I feel like the opposite is true. That's with the proviso that although I'm a pretty au fait in regard to Rugby Union, I've only ever seen a couple Rugby League matches, and am probably still a bit hazy on it.

That being said, it seems to me that Rugy Union has more specialist positions, or non-all rounders, just as the NFL does and that the scrum more closely approximates the lines in American football than anything in Rugby League.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Yeah, but they don't JUST do long-snapping. They're usually also backup centers.

They really aren't though. Not sure where you get that idea, but I don't think it's at all accurate.

Look at this list. Literally none of these guys are backup centers.

The giveaway is their weight. No NFL o-lineman would weight anything under 280ish at the absolute minimum. The heaviest of these guys is Tanner Purdum at 270.

I haven't bothered to look it up, but I would guess that literally none of these guys have ever played a snap at any position other than long-snapper, or another special teams spot, or possibly LB or TE in an emergency. Certainly not at center, or any other o-line position. If they have, it's only a tiny handful of snaps and it was in a dire emergency situation.

[monkeystyxx]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Do you think so? I'm curious as to why you think that might be the case? I feel like the opposite is true. That's with the proviso that although I'm a pretty au fait in regard to Rugby Union, I've only ever seen a couple Rugby League matches, and am probably still a bit hazy on it.

That being said, it seems to me that Rugy Union has more specialist positions, or non-all rounders, just as the NFL does and that the scrum more closely approximates the lines in American football than anything in Rugby League.

League has the 'six tackle' rule - the offense is only allowed to be tackled five times, on the sixth tackle the ball is turned over - which are sort-of-a-little-bit like downs in gridiron (except you can't get more of them by going a certain distance). That's... er... that's about it.

As you say, you don't have an "O-Line/D-Line" equivalent, they're not even allowed to compete for the ball at the scrum. Players are specialised to a certain extent in terms of skill, but in terms of physicality and size/build they tend to be much more similar, because the forwards have to do a lot more running due to the pace of the game. You don't get the big lumbering fatties in the scrum like you do in Union (especially older Union) and NFL.

I'd argue that, despite all coming from the same place, these days League is less like American Football than Union is, other than the six tackle rule being a bit like downs.

Originally Posted by lukasberger

They really aren't though. Not sure where you get that idea, but I don't think it's at all accurate.

Look at this list. Literally none of these guys are backup centers.

The giveaway is their weight. No NFL o-lineman would weight anything under 280ish at the absolute minimum. The heaviest of these guys is Tanner Purdum at 270.

I haven't bothered to look it up, but I would guess that literally none of these guys have ever played a snap at any position other than long-snapper, or another special teams spot, or possibly LB or TE in an emergency. Certainly not at center, or any other o-line position. If they have, it's only a tiny handful of snaps and it was in a dire emergency situation.

They... they aren't? I just kinda assumed they would be. There are guys out there whose only job is to throw a football between their legs to a guy 15 yards away, a handful of times a week?

... brb, re-evaluating life choices.

Edit: Back. I have a question. When they're in school, are they long-snappers then too? Were they just using it as an excuse to get on the football team? Or are they players who played a different position in college but weren't good enough for the NFL at that position, but realised they were quite good at long-snapping so tried out for that instead?

I'm genuinely shocked that with a limited roster size, teams waste one position on a guy who's only job is to snap special teams plays. I get why long snapping is important, don't get me wrong. I've seen Ace Ventura. ¬_¬ It just boggles my mind that the center can't do it himself to the point where you hire a whole different guy for whom it's his only job.

I guess it's sort of like a closer in baseball... you think he's got an easy job and you don't notice him until he screws it up, and then he's the worst guy in the world.