42 replies to this topic

[EaglesRocker97]

Can anyone explain to me why, when a team scores a touchdown as the 4th quarter ends and takes the lead, they are required to kick a meaningless extra point? I understand that extra points and two-point conversions are untimed downs, so no time is required, but what makes it even more confusing to me is that when a team scores a touchdown in overtime, there is no extra point attempt.

[EaglesCB37]

When you score a touchdown and PAT you're essentially scoring twice, one time for 6 another for 1. In overtime, the only way a team can score and still allow the opponents to have a shot is if they score a field goal on the first possession. So, if they score a touchdown, the PAT is meaningless. Although, during regulation PATs are always required after touchdowns. Say the Bucs had blocked the PAT and returned it, then they would have won 23-22. I actually said how the Eagles would have been smart to kneel the ball to prevent the very low chance the Bucs block the kick and return it.

[MightyJNC]

EaglesCB37, on 11 December 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

When you score a touchdown and PAT you're essentially scoring twice, one time for 6 another for 1. In overtime, the only way a team can score and still allow the opponents to have a shot is if they score a field goal on the first possession. So, if they score a touchdown, the PAT is meaningless. Although, during regulation PATs are always required after touchdowns. Say the Bucs had blocked the PAT and returned it, then they would have won 23-22. I actually said how the Eagles would have been smart to kneel the ball to prevent the very low chance the Bucs block the kick and return it.

Per the NFL Rulebook:

RESULTS OF A TRY
Article 2:

Results of a Try. During a Try, the following shall apply:

© If the defense gains possession, the ball is dead immediately. The defensive team cannot score during a Try.

[wrestlevessel]

What are you smoking Eagles CB? A team can't get points for blocking an extra point. The play is dead if it is blocked.

[EaglesRocker97]

wrestlevessel, on 11 December 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

What are you smoking Eagles CB? A team can't get points for blocking an extra point. The play is dead if it is blocked.

Yeah, this is another point I should have made. You can do this in college, but not in the NFL. I seriously wonder if it's to appease gamblers. There's really no rational explanation for it that I can conceive.

[Eagles3785]

Who cares???

IF a team is down 1 run and a guy hits a grand slam they don't make him stop at 2nd base after the winning run has scored

[BtotheH]

Eagles3785, on 11 December 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Who cares???

IF a team is down 1 run and a guy hits a grand slam they don't make him stop at 2nd base after the winning run has scored

This. So what.

Without the PAT we would have won 22-21, with the PAT we won 23-21, our score is higher in both scenarios so whats the deal?

[cmart102]

Gotta cover spreads

[MightyJNC]

EaglesRocker97, on 11 December 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Can anyone explain to me why, when a team scores a touchdown as the 4th quarter ends and takes the lead, they are required to kick a meaningless extra point? I understand that extra points and two-point conversions are untimed downs, so no time is required, but what makes it even more confusing to me is that when a team scores a touchdown in overtime, there is no extra point attempt.

Section 3 Try
GENERAL RULES
Article 1

General Rules. After a touchdown, the scoring team is awarded a Try in an attempt to score one or two
additional points during one scrimmage down.

Note 5: See 16-1-1 for exception when a touchdown is scored in an overtime period.


The reason you want to attempt the PAT (and why it's not "meaningless") is because "net points scored" and "net points allowed" are a part of the playoff tiebreaker rules:
7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
9. Best net points in common games.
10. Best net points in all games.

Although if never seen the tiebreaker come down to the "points" level.

[EaglesCB37]

MightyJNC, on 11 December 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Per the NFL Rulebook:

RESULTS OF A TRY
Article 2:

Results of a Try. During a Try, the following shall apply:

© If the defense gains possession, the ball is dead immediately. The defensive team cannot score during a Try.

My bad, must have gotten NFL and NCAA rules mixed up. I could have sworn defenses were able to score on a blocked PAT or 2PT conversion...

[FranklinFldEBUpper]

EaglesRocker97, on 11 December 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Yeah, this is another point I should have made. You can do this in college, but not in the NFL. I seriously wonder if it's to appease gamblers. There's really no rational explanation for it that I can conceive.

Points are still a factor in tiebreaking procedures for the playoffs. Admittedly it is VERY low in the order of what is used. But since it is theoretically an issue, it is a requirement.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

EaglesRocker97, on 11 December 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Can anyone explain to me why, when a team scores a touchdown as the 4th quarter ends and takes the lead, they are required to kick a meaningless extra point? I understand that extra points and two-point conversions are untimed downs, so no time is required, but what makes it even more confusing to me is that when a team scores a touchdown in overtime, there is no extra point attempt.

Suppose the final second TD results in a tied game without the PAT. The PAT, with 0:00 showing on the clock is the game winner. The only time you don't have to kick the PAT is in OT where a TD instantly wins the game.

So why kick it if the PAT doesn't matter? Because rules have to be applied evenly and equally. How can you enforce a rule in one instance and not in another? If the 6 points ties the game, with the PAT winning then you have to kick the PAT to end the game, or send it into overtime. Thus, since the rule is applied there, you have to apply it in all games.

[LacesOut]

New rule!!  NO MORE PATs!! Everyone goes for two!! PATs suck.

Or, in the first quarter, teams can go for two or the PAT, but the rest of the game, they have to go for two.  No??  It could add some excitement to the game.  It would definitely decrease the number of people who stop watching right after a TD to go take a whizz or get another beer or some food.

[EaglesRocker97]

BtotheH, on 11 December 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

This. So what.

Without the PAT we would have won 22-21, with the PAT we won 23-21, our score is higher in both scenarios so whats the deal?

I'm not complaining about it, I'm just wondering why. It doesn't make much sense to me.

VaBeach_Eagle, on 11 December 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Suppose the final second TD results in a tied game without the PAT. The PAT, with 0:00 showing on the clock is the game winner. The only time you don't have to kick the PAT is in OT where a TD instantly wins the game.

So why kick it if the PAT doesn't matter? Because rules have to be applied evenly and equally. How can you enforce a rule in one instance and not in another? If the 6 points ties the game, with the PAT winning then you have to kick the PAT to end the game, or send it into overtime. Thus, since the rule is applied there, you have to apply it in all games.

Scoring in overtime and scoring as time expires are, in essence, the same thing. They're both instant wins. The argument that a team should be entitled to kick the the point because overall points can be a tiebreaker is valid, but, again, shouldn't the team have earned the right to kick the extra point in OT in order to increase their overall points, as well? even though it will not change the game's outcome? What makes it seem odd to me is that is NOT applied consistently because in OT, there is no extra point attempt permitted, despite the fact that it's effectively the same as scoring as time expires. I'm pretty sure the reason that there isn't one in OT is because it won't change the outcome of the game and the only thing you'd be doing is exposing players to injury for another play. So, why wouldn't the same logic apply in what are essentially two identical situations?

[xzmattzx]

Eagles3785, on 11 December 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Who cares???

IF a team is down 1 run and a guy hits a grand slam they don't make him stop at 2nd base after the winning run has scored

That's because the hitter has to touch all of the bases and complete the hit in order for the runs to count.  Merkle's Boner (albeit a forceout at second on a single) is evidence of completing the touching of the bases for the hit.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

EaglesRocker97, on 12 December 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

Scoring in overtime and scoring as time expires are, in essence, the same thing. They're both instant wins. The argument that a team should be entitled to kick the the point because overall points can be a tiebreaker is valid, but, again, shouldn't the team have earned the right to kick the extra point in OT in order to increase their overall points, as well? even though it will not change the game's outcome? What makes it seem odd to me is that is NOT applied consistently because in OT, there is no extra point attempt permitted, despite the fact that it's effectively the same as scoring as time expires. I'm pretty sure the reason that there isn't one in OT is because it won't change the outcome of the game and the only thing you'd be doing is exposing players to injury for another play. So, why wouldn't the same logic apply in what are essentially two identical situations?

No, they aren't the same thing. In overtime, a touchdown makes it "sudden death", meaning that as soon as the TD is scored, the game is over.

In regulation, it's not "sudden death". As I said, a TD alone might only tie the game. So how would that be an "instant win"? WHat if the TD alone only gets them within 2 points and a 2 point conversion will tie the game? Should they be denied the opportunity to go for the conversion because time expired?

Why is Overtime treated differently from Regulation? Because that's how the rules were set up. Should they be able to go for it in OT like in Regulation? An argument could be made for it, but the rules, right now, say no. The rules say that you have to kick or go for 2 at the end of regulation.

A TD at the end of regulation doesn't always secure a victory in and of itself. A TD in Overtime will secure the victory 100% of the time and a PAT or conversion doesn't alter that in the least. So, the rules say that you kick or go for it. Should the scoring team have the option? Why not? But right now, the rules say do it, so do it. It's a rule, so it has to be enforced in all games.

[Off_Colored_Remark]

EaglesCB37, on 11 December 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

My bad, must have gotten NFL and NCAA rules mixed up. I could have sworn defenses were able to score on a blocked PAT or 2PT conversion...

Nice job of knowing the rules McNabb

[EaglesCB37]

Off_Colored_Remark, on 12 December 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

Nice job of knowing the rules McNabb

Hey, I didn't even know ties existed, I'd never been apart of a tie.

[Eagles3785]

xzmattzx, on 12 December 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

That's because the hitter has to touch all of the bases and complete the hit in order for the runs to count.  Merkle's Boner (albeit a forceout at second on a single) is evidence of completing the touching of the bases for the hit.

You are an IDIOT!!!  Fred Merkle did not run to first base... therefore when the Cubs got the ball they stepped on 1st for the force out and it negated any runs scored...also it was a simple single not a HR over the fence

When a guy hits a grand slam while down by a run all's he has to do is touch 1st...A guy on the Mets got tackled 10 or so years ago and never made it to 2nd and his team won

[Dawkins 20]

Eagles3785, on 12 December 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

You are an IDIOT!!!  Fred Merkle did not run to first base... therefore when the Cubs got the ball they stepped on 1st for the force out and it negated any runs scored...also it was a simple single not a HR over the fence

When a guy hits a grand slam while down by a run all's he has to do is touch 1st...A guy on the Mets got tackled 10 or so years ago and never made it to 2nd and his team won

Easy on the idiot comments when you don't even have the story right yourself. Merkle's play was at second, not first. He was already on first base with a baserunner on third when the guy at the plate hit a single to the OF. The runner at third went home but Merkle ran off the field without touching second, so they threw the ball to second to get the forceout. By rule, a runner doesn't score if a force play is made, even if he crosses home plate before the force is made.

[rambo]

So....Who's on first?

[Eagles3785]

Dawkins 20, on 12 December 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Easy on the idiot comments when you don't even have the story right yourself. Merkle's play was at second, not first. He was already on first base with a baserunner on third when the guy at the plate hit a single to the OF. The runner at third went home but Merkle ran off the field without touching second, so they threw the ball to second to get the forceout. By rule, a runner doesn't score if a force play is made, even if he crosses home plate before the force is made.

ok, you're right

But my point is that if a Home Team down by 1 run in the 9th and has the bases loaded and the guy hits a walkoff grand slam his team can still win the game if the batter doesn't reach 2nd base

This applies to the original thread title in that the runner IS NOT forced to continue home unlike the NFL where they have to kick the extra point.

Merkle thought the game was over and assumed he didn't have to touch 2nd base when in fact he did

[Marinomanx013]

So, wait... Nate Menkin was on 3rd?

[VaBeach_Eagle]

Who's on first?

[Wallyhorse]

MightyJNC, on 11 December 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Per the NFL Rulebook:

RESULTS OF A TRY
Article 2:

Results of a Try. During a Try, the following shall apply:

© If the defense gains possession, the ball is dead immediately. The defensive team cannot score during a Try.

That is a rule I would change to where it's the same as in college: If the defense gets possession via a blocked kick, interception or touchdown on a conversion try, they can attempt to get to the end zone where it would be two points for the defense.  This occurs in college football even in overtime (I actually saw this happen in overtime several years ago in a bowl game where the defense cut a lead from six to four following a successful return of a failed conversion attempt).  If that had been in play at the end of regulation in the Eagles game on Sunday, the Eagles would have simply fallen on the ball to prevent any attempt at a return for two points.

[EaglesRocker97]

VaBeach_Eagle, on 12 December 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

No, they aren't the same thing. In overtime, a touchdown makes it "sudden death", meaning that as soon as the TD is scored, the game is over.

In regulation, it's not "sudden death". As I said, a TD alone might only tie the game. So how would that be an "instant win"? WHat if the TD alone only gets them within 2 points and a 2 point conversion will tie the game? Should they be denied the opportunity to go for the conversion because time expired?

I'm talking about a very specific instance that does not include this. I'm saying that when the game clock expires during a play in which the game is tied or the team possessing the ball can take the lead via a touchdown, it IS, in essence, sudden death. I'm only talking about when the 6 points gives the team the lead with no time left. In this case, the extra point does nothing to affect the outcome.

Beyond that, I'm not saying that a team that needs an extra point to tie or win should not be allowed to kick it. They should. It is an untimed down in any instance, therefore time is not require for the play to be run. What I don't understand is why they are REQUIRED to make a PAT or 2-pt. attempt after the game is over and they have already won, yet are denied the opportunity in overtime. Perhaps the thread title should have been "Why are Teams Required to Kick an Extra Point after Time has Expired?"

Quote

Why is Overtime treated differently from Regulation? Because that's how the rules were set up. Should they be able to go for it in OT like in Regulation? An argument could be made for it, but the rules, right now, say no. The rules say that you have to kick or go for 2 at the end of regulation.

I know that those are the rules. I was asking for a logical explanation for why. What is the rationale?

Quote

A TD at the end of regulation doesn't always secure a victory in and of itself. A TD in Overtime will secure the victory 100% of the time and a PAT or conversion doesn't alter that in the least. So, the rules say that you kick or go for it. Should the scoring team have the option? Why not? But right now, the rules say do it, so do it. It's a rule, so it has to be enforced in all games.

Again, I'm only talking about the scenario where the 4th quarter has ended and a team takes the lead on a touchdown. In this case, a PAT also does not alter that in the least.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

EaglesRocker97, on 12 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

I'm talking about a very specific instance that does not include this. I'm saying that when the game clock expires during a play in which the game is tied or the team possessing the ball can take the lead via a touchdown, it IS, in essence, sudden death. I'm only talking about when the 6 points gives the team the lead with no time left. In this case, the extra point does nothing to affect the outcome.

I understand what you're saying and that's a fine thought, I'd have no issue with it if they adopted that as a rule. It's not currently the rule thouh. The current rule says that the kick (or try) has to be attempted if the TD was made at the end of regulation. So since that's the rule, they have to enforce it regardless.

I know you're not talking about a case where the 6 points results in a tie or 2 points behind for the scoring team, but as the rules sit right now, they enforce the PAT or 2 point try because it would cover all of those situations.

Suppose they don't enforce it and Team A beats Team B. Fine, no harm done because they'd have won with or without it. A few weeks later the same teams play again. Team A throws a TD at the end of regulation but it leaves them one point shy of tying the game. They need the PAT to tie it up and go into overtime.

Currently, the same rule regulates that play. Since they didn't enforce that rule a few weeks ago, Team B would be within their rights to demand that they be consistent and not enforce it now. Team B wins by 1 point. Well, we know that's not how it should or would be done. Team A gets their PAT to tie or 2 pointer to win.

Since the same rule covers both situations and the rule states that you have to make the attmempt, then you have to. Should that be changed to include what you're talking about? I don't have any problem with it, other than the "points are part of tie breakers" argument. But it's a rule now, so they have to enforce it properly regardless of whether or not the PAT/2 Pointer will have any affect on the outcome.

[HaroldTheSecond]

But they don't always kick the extra point: In a game in 1998, the Patriots, down 21-17, scored on the game's final play against Buffalo at home - and New England went for two, and made it.

And guess what?  The consensus opening line on the game favored the Pats by 3 1/2!

[bumpy93]

wrestlevessel, on 11 December 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

What are you smoking Eagles CB? A team can't get points for blocking an extra point. The play is dead if it is blocked.

He might be watching to much CFL

[VaBeach_Eagle]

HaroldTheSecond, on 15 December 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

But they don't always kick the extra point: In a game in 1998...

I was about to call you out on the date, I was thinking "No way the 2 point conversion has been in play since 1998!" I looked it up and see it was adopted in 1994! Man time flies. Seems like they just started that.