Move the extra point farther back?

mmmtodd said:
General Blackshirt said:
mmmtodd said:
i think you'd find kickers might actually be in favor of that.
Click to expand...
uh, why?
Click to expand...

well, because ive had the same kind of talk with my best friend before, who kicked at baylor and then texas tech for a spell. kicks that close are tough. changes the angle of the kick, the space the defense has to defend, and therefore the angle the defense comes at the ball through and around the line. everything is compressed. i just remember him saying its easier from a bit further back. loosens it up.
Click to expand...
What he said about the angle of the kick must be referring to kicks that aren't centered. As long as the kick is centered, the closer you are, the better.

As for what he said about the defense, who knows. I don't know enough about football to know if that's true or not. However, I just don't see how it would be easier from a farther distance.

 
he was talking about extra points. always max angle...they happen so much, its so close, that todays special teams know exactly where the ball has to go, where its going to be, and if its off, its getting blocked. i dunno, i think his jist was like a true golf chip shot...those ones that are right next to the green have to be the most precise, or at least feels that way. he was more comfortable kicking from further back.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty sure he was talking about the angle of trajectory..

I was messing around in Jr, High and trying to see how close I could make it..I think my closest was right on the goal line or maybe a foot deep into the endzone...Had to kick it almost straight up..(Think pitching wedge in golf).

From a greater distance, you can kick it closer to the "sweet spot" and get more distance..

XPs, I think you have to put your toe below the bottom stripe of the ball and try to get more lift.

I'd rather they get rid of the Horse Collar rule or bring back Offensive holding penalties.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Captain K said:
Probably been where it is too long to change now. Most don't like to change traditional things in a sport unless it is ruining the game, which extra points from the three are not doing.
Click to expand...
This.

The extra point is given to a team following a touchdown, and it's supposed to be an easy point. It is very similar to how basketball works. If you get fouled, you are allowed to shoot the ball for free from dead on in front of the basket at a distance that gives you a high percentage shot. The same principle applies to the football extra point.

It wouldn't make much sense for them to change the extra point placement given those principles.

 
You shouldn't have to aim at a higher trajectory for extra points. The crossbar is 10 feet high and you are roughly 50 feet away. There is no need to mess with the trajectory angle. If they were spotting the ball five yards deep in the endzone I can see the problem, but it's back around the seven yard line. Have you ever seen a kicker miss an extra point under the crossbar? The defense is no different than that on a 50 yard field goal. They are still seven yards away regardless of where the kick is.

 
JTrain said:
You shouldn't have to aim at a higher trajectory for extra points. The crossbar is 10 feet high and you are roughly 50 feet away. There is no need to mess with the trajectory angle. If they were spotting the ball five yards deep in the endzone I can see the problem, but it's back around the seven yard line. Have you ever seen a kicker miss an extra point under the crossbar? The defense is no different than that on a 50 yard field goal. They are still seven yards away regardless of where the kick is.
Click to expand...

Didn't see it..But I do remember the ball hitting me in the back of my neck while I was blocking for my kicker.

(I think that was when I tried to explain geometry to him and may have mentioned something about getting his toe below the bottom stripe of the football) :steam

He did get better..started hitting the crossbar after that.

 
JTrain said:
You shouldn't have to aim at a higher trajectory for extra points. The crossbar is 10 feet high and you are roughly 50 feet away. There is no need to mess with the trajectory angle. If they were spotting the ball five yards deep in the endzone I can see the problem, but it's back around the seven yard line. Have you ever seen a kicker miss an extra point under the crossbar? The defense is no different than that on a 50 yard field goal. They are still seven yards away regardless of where the kick is.
Click to expand...
Yes but on a 50 yard field goal the ball has more time to raise to the desired hight. If your closer the ball must be kicked at a more exteme angle in order to ghet to the deisred hight by the time the ball reaches the goal post.

 
The only reason you would want to change it is so that the defense could have a better chance of blocking it. The further back the kick is, the easier it is to block it. I don't know why you would want to do this though. It could bite our team in the butt just as much as it could another team.

 
Touchdown Tommie said:
What is your reasoning? I am not sure it really matters...the NBA has not moved the free throw line back...the three point line yes, but I can see why the moved that back.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the NBA needs to raise the baskets to about 15 feet, so they can't dunk so easily...maybe even reduce the circumference of the rim by 1/2" in the NBA, just so that all the baskets aren't so damn automatic. I have lost all interest in the NBA because everything is so automatic.

As far as the extra points - I am all for making them kick from the 30 yard line, so it isn't so automatic, but then still well within most kickers distances. And the 2 point conversion should have to come from where it is, because if you back it up any more, all you do is give the offense more room to pass into.

 
Touchdown Tommie said:
What is your reasoning? I am not sure it really matters...the NBA has not moved the free throw line back...the three point line yes, but I can see why the moved that back.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the NBA needs to raise the baskets to about 15 feet, so they can't dunk so easily...maybe even reduce the circumference of the rim by 1/2" in the NBA, just so that all the baskets aren't so damn automatic. I have lost all interest in the NBA because everything is so automatic.

As far as the extra points - I am all for making them kick from the 30 yard line, so it isn't so automatic, but then still well within most kickers distances. And the 2 point conversion should have to come from where it is, because if you back it up any more, all you do is give the offense more room to pass into.

 
HuskerTrucker said:
Touchdown Tommie said:
What is your reasoning? I am not sure it really matters...the NBA has not moved the free throw line back...the three point line yes, but I can see why the moved that back.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the NBA needs to raise the baskets to about 15 feet, so they can't dunk so easily...maybe even reduce the circumference of the rim by 1/2" in the NBA, just so that all the baskets aren't so damn automatic. I have lost all interest in the NBA because everything is so automatic.

As far as the extra points - I am all for making them kick from the 30 yard line, so it isn't so automatic, but then still well within most kickers distances. And the 2 point conversion should have to come from where it is, because if you back it up any more, all you do is give the offense more room to pass into.
Click to expand...
Paul Pierce was recently quoted saying that he wishes the NBA would move the basket to 12 feet so it is more of a jump shooters game. Like you said, dunking is so easy for these guys now everyone attacks the rim. His point is that a jump shooters game is much more skilled than a dunkers game.

 
I still have no idea why you say kicking would be easier from farther back.

In a perfect world, the kicker would want to kick it as high as possible (to avoid a block) but also long enough that it will make it over the crossbar. If we were comparing the difference in kicking a 30 yard FG and a FG from the middle of the endzone, you'd have a point. But as for an extra point, it shouldn't make any difference.

Nothing says you have to treat an extra point like a pitching wedge shot, with more loft and less distance. I don't remember Henery ever getting a kick blocked, so if he wanted to treat it like a FG he could.

Vice versa, Alex Henery could treat a 40 yard FG like an extra point and it would still probably go in. I just don't see any vertical advantage to moving a kick farther back. There is a tremendous horizontal disadvantage though, so even if a vertical advantage did exist, the two would more-or-less offset each other.

 
I think they should just eliminate the extra point and make all TDs seven points.

Think about how strange that is. No other sport allows you to score, then try a completely unrelated skill to that score to tack on more points.

The basketball equivalent would be getting a free throw after every hoop.

In baseball you'd get to do a homerun derby like swing. Bring out your batting coach and have him toss you a BP ball.

The hockey equivalent would be a one-shot shootout after every goal.

Soccer would give you a penalty kick after your goal.

In golf they'd let you try another putt from, say, 20 feet to shave a stroke off the hole.

It's a weird thing, this "extra" point.

 
It would totally take away from the game if they had a different distance for a 2pt. conversion and a PAT kick. It's some coaches strategy to make the other team believe they are going to kick a PAT when in fact they are actually going to fake it. This would be gone especially if they had to go an extra 10 to 20 yards to get 2 points if they lined up to kick a PAT.

 
Back
Top