Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

EaglesRocker97

Why kick Extra Point after the Game is Over?

43 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:nonono:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:nonono:

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.

:lol:

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice job of knowing the rules McNabb

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:nonono:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites