The 4-point Field Goal

[EarlJam]

If the NFL borrowed a little from the NBA/College Hoops and awarded and extra point for those long-distance field goals, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Like, perhaps, 50+ yard field goals could be worth 4 points.

I guess you could argue that this punishes the defense.

Thoughts?

-EarlJam

[Jfrosh]

Could prove interesting and really change the game. I would not be for it however. I think it would put too much emphasis on the field goal which personally I feel is the most boring part of the game (except that last second field goal). It also rewards bad offense instead of good offense. If the team moves the ball down the field but can't put it in the end zone they can pick up 3 points. If they have trouble moving the ball should they be able to get 4. Would a team about to take a 40 yarder make intentional penalties to get pushed back to 50 for that extra point.

[billybreen]

If the NFL borrowed a little from the NBA/College Hoops and awarded and extra point for those long-distance field goals, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Like, perhaps, 50+ yard field goals could be worth 4 points.

I guess you could argue that this punishes the defense.

Thoughts?

-EarlJam

I don't think it would fly for one simple reason -- no one wants a scenario where a team is down by 4 late and instead of going for a TD runs backwards to be within 4 point field goal territory. That would make a mockery of the game.

[EarlJam]

I don't think it would fly for one simple reason -- no one wants a scenario where a team is down by 4 late and instead of going for a TD runs backwards to be within 4 point field goal territory. That would make a mockery of the game.

I don't know why, but this post made me laugh out loud at my desk. Not a complimentary, "LOL," rather, a good honest laugh.

Thanks!

What an image - puts a whole new meaning to "running back."

-EarlJam

[colchar]

I don't think it would fly for one simple reason -- no one wants a scenario where a team is down by 4 late and instead of going for a TD runs backwards to be within 4 point field goal territory. That would make a mockery of the game.

True - it would be as bad as Gary Butthead's (don't even get me started on that idiot) idea that shootouts are a good way to end a tied hockey game.

[hurleyfor3]

Bad thing. The nfl wants more touchdowns and fewer field goals. That's why it moved the change of possession on missed field goals back to the spot of the kick lo those many years ago.

The scoring system in football is ideal as it is. Two field goals are worth almost, but not quite, as much as a touchdown with a gimme extra point. Why should this change? You wanna see lots of kicking, go watch soccer.

[JG Nothing]

I don't think it would fly for one simple reason -- no one wants a scenario where a team is down by 4 late and instead of going for a TD runs backwards to be within 4 point field goal territory. That would make a mockery of the game.

Why is that different from having a basketball team down by 3 late and, instead of taking an easy putback off an offensive rebound, passing the ball back out beyond the arc for a three point shot? ;) Regardless, the idea of a four point field just seems wrong. Now giving teams extra points for long touchdown passes.... :p

[billybreen]

Why is that different from having a basketball team down by 3 late and, instead of taking an easy putback off an offensive rebound, passing the ball back out beyond the arc for a three point shot? ;)

I think there's a fundamental difference due to the way the games are structured. In football, you would be taking an entire play to move backwards. With game clocks and huddles, that would mean you were spending at least a minute of television time moving the ball back up the field. A pass out behind the 3 point arc in basketball takes a second or two. They aren't really comparable, IMHO.

[throatybeard]

The scoring system in football is ideal as it is. Two field goals are worth almost, but not quite, as much as a touchdown with a gimme extra point.

Preeee-cisely. This is the great beauty of football. Doing something right once is better than doing it half-a$sed twice.

[hc5duke]

Actually, I believe they already tried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Europe#Experimental_rules) this with NFL Europe. The idea was to bring in the soccer crowd:

With soccer being the traditionally popular sport in Europe and American football being a relative newcomer, the rules were changed slightly to encourage a greater element of kicking which was intended to make the game more enjoyable for soccer and rugby fans. The league did this by awarding 4 points to field goals of more than 50 yards, as opposed to 3 points in the NFL. This had the interesting side-effect that a touchdown & PAT lead (7 points) could be equaled by one regular field goal (3 points) as well as a long field goal (4 points).

No, I don't watch NFL Europe, or even the NFL. I happened to look up Canadian football a while back, and went through a series of tangent links (http://xkcd.com/214/) and somehow ended up at experimental rules in NFL Europe...

[cato]

Interesting. One thing I like about the idea is that it could actually reward the defense, by leading to better field position on missed field goals. And it would cut down on the most boring aspect of the game: punts. You'd have to figure out where the right place to draw the line would be. 50 yards may be too close . . .

[captmojo]

Sports Illustrated actually ran a story that prompted Major League Baseball to examine a point scoring system for the game, with points awarded for singles/doubles/triples/homers et al. Of course, this did not fly.

I'd like to have seen South Carolina hit a four pointer against Tennessee at the end today, and maybe knock them off a no.1 seed for the tournament.

[hc5duke]

Sports Illustrated actually ran a story that prompted Major League Baseball to examine a point scoring system for the game, with points awarded for singles/doubles/triples/homers et al. Of course, this did not fly.

I'd like to have seen South Carolina hit a four pointer against Tennessee at the end today, and maybe knock them off a no.1 seed for the tournament.

Anyone else remember that MTV show in the 90s where they had like 3 baskets stacked on top of one another? I think if you hit a 3 pointer into the tallest one (I guess 30' tall?) it counted for some ridiculous amount of points, like 50. I have no clue what this show was called, Jock Jam or something? something Jock?

[EarlJam]

Point noted on the "don't want to reward the offense for failure to move forward" front. Okay, so why not make any field goal within 35 yards worth 4 points, and award only 3 to those beyond 35 yards.

If you wanted to make the field goal attempt more difficult (since it's worth more), you could say, require the kicker to kick blindfolded, or with bowling shoes or Stelletos on. Or have his wife, girlfriend or significant other come out to kick the field goal.

That way, you reward the offense for getting the ball further down the field while making the attempt harder, thus earning the points.

-EarlJam, who really, really, really, really, really wants a 4-point field goal.

[hc5duke]

Point noted on the "don't want to reward the offense for failure to move forward" front. Okay, so why not make any field goal within 35 yards worth 4 points, and award only 3 to those beyond 35 yards.

If you wanted to make the field goal attempt more difficult (since it's worth more), you could say, require the kicker to kick blindfolded, or with bowling shoes or Stelletos on. Or have his wife, girlfriend or significant other come out to kick the field goal.

That way, you reward the offense for getting the ball further down the field while making the attempt harder, thus earning the points.

-EarlJam, who really, really, really, really, really wants a 4-point field goal.

How about this -- have the offense lined up and kick the field goal normally, and you get 3 points. Then have the offense get on the OTHER side of the point where he kicked from, and kick another field goal, into the OTHER goal post. So at best, you have to kick two 50-yard field goals to get 4 points. If you just kicked a 30-yard FG, you now have a 70-yard FG. You just kicked a 10-yard FG, well you're just screwed...

[EarlJam]

How about this -- have the offense lined up and kick the field goal normally, and you get 3 points. Then have the offense get on the OTHER side of the point where he kicked from, and kick another field goal, into the OTHER goal post. So at best, you have to kick two 50-yard field goals to get 4 points. If you just kicked a 30-yard FG, you now have a 70-yard FG. You just kicked a 10-yard FG, well you're just screwed...

Snap.

Did you just think of that? That's GENIUS!

[alteran]

Snap.

Did you just think of that? That's GENIUS!

How bout a point for every ten yards?

You could also apply this to the PAT, so you would probably see a lot of teams lining up for the PAT at 30 yards, and that way, someone other than Duke fans could get a thrill during the PAT. Also, if you're down by eleven and score a touchdown in the final minute, you can tie with a 50 yard PAT.

Also, make everyone an eligible receiver. Why? Just 'cause. Probably have to add 4 extra guys on defense, though.

I've forgotten if this is college or pro, but one thing I'd seriously like to see is that for clock purposes, treat every game stoppage in the last one to two minutes like a dropped pass. The clock just stops. It's just incredibly lame to have guys just standing around for the bulk of the last two minutes of game time.

[juise]

Anyone else remember that MTV show in the 90s where they had like 3 baskets stacked on top of one another? I think if you hit a 3 pointer into the tallest one (I guess 30' tall?) it counted for some ridiculous amount of points, like 50. I have no clue what this show was called, Jock Jam or something? something Jock?

Rock 'N Jock... there was basketball and softball, if I recall.

[billybreen]

How about this -- have the offense lined up and kick the field goal normally, and you get 3 points. Then have the offense get on the OTHER side of the point where he kicked from, and kick another field goal, into the OTHER goal post. So at best, you have to kick two 50-yard field goals to get 4 points. If you just kicked a 30-yard FG, you now have a 70-yard FG. You just kicked a 10-yard FG, well you're just screwed...

It doesn't work quite like that -- it would be even harder than you state. You add ~19 yards to the distance to the end zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_goal_(football)#Soccer_style), so two field goals from the 50 are really 69-yarders. A field goal from the 40 is a 59-yarder, but from your own 40 would be a 79-yarder.

I'm not sure if there's a kicker in the league who can kick back to back 69 yarders.

[hc5duke]

It doesn't work quite like that -- it would be even harder than you state. You add ~19 yards to the distance to the end zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_goal_(football)#Soccer_style), so two field goals from the 50 are really 69-yarders. A field goal from the 40 is a 59-yarder, but from your own 40 would be a 79-yarder.

I'm not sure if there's a kicker in the league who can kick back to back 69 yarders.

No no, I don't mean flip with respect to the line of scrimmage; the point where the kicker kicks the ball from would be the point of inflection. So if the line of scrimmage is 31 yard line, you kick from the 50 towards one goal. Turn around, set up offense/defense again, kick towards the other.

Maybe there should be a penalty for attempting this, so that this doesnt happen with every field goal. You declare this before kicking the first FG, and you're awarded 2 points for the first FG, then ONLY if you make the first one, the 2nd one is worth another 2 points.

-- added later --

I think I just got what you were saying. Yeah, two 69-yd field goals it is. You can't do it? Don't go for 4 :-p

[tecumseh]

Not the 4 point field goal the NFL rule change I would like to see is no field goals in overtime. You need a touchdown to win. There could be some amazing goal line stands. It would be way more exciting and it would negate somewhat the advantage of winning the coin toss.

[Jarhead]

Not the 4 point field goal the NFL rule change I would like to see is no field goals in overtime. You need a touchdown to win. There could be some amazing goal line stands. It would be way more exciting and it would negate somewhat the advantage of winning the coin toss.

What brought that up?

[tecumseh]

Some one was suggesting a 4 point field goal. I thought the rule change I would like to see is OT changed to touchdowns. Here is less radical solutio (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-03-22-rules-proposals_N.htm)n

[Jarhead]

Sorry. You must have had a difficult night.

[tecumseh]

Actually moving the kickoff spot up so that it will often be a touchback does seem like a decent ideal. Getting the ball on the twenty yard line well you better make a few first downs cause if not the other team might get the ball in pretty decent field position.

[Jarhead]

Baseball -- in the event of a tie at end of regulation, both sides get an equal opportunity to score.

Soccer -- in the event of a tie at end of regulation, both sides get an opportunity to score.

Basketball -- in the event of a tie at end of regulation, both sides get an equal opportunity to score.

Hockey -- in the event of a tie at end of regulation, both sides get equal an opportunity to score.

College
Football -- in the event of a tie at end of regulation, both sides get equal an opportunity to score.

NFL
Football -- in the event of a tie at end of regulation, one side gets an opportunity to score. If they do, they win. What is wrong with this concept?

[hc5duke]

NFL
Football -- in the event of a tie at end of regulation, one side gets an opportunity to score. If they do, they win. What is wrong with this concept?

Statistically, each team is given a 50% chance of winning the coin toss, which tells me they are indeed given an equal opportunity to score. The difference of course is that if you mess up on defense first, you're not given an opportunity to amend this with your offense, like all other leagues.

[Jarhead]

Statistically, each team is given a 50% chance of winning the coin toss, which tells me they are indeed given an equal opportunity to score. The difference of course is that if you mess up on defense first, you're not given an opportunity to amend this with your offense, like all other leagues.
Only one side gets the opportunity to call the coin toss. The other side has no say, and if it loses the toss, it may not get a scoring opportunity.

[hc5duke]

Only one side gets the opportunity to call the coin toss. The other side has no say, and if it loses the toss, it may not get a scoring opportunity.

But calling the side is irrelevant to who wins said toss, and you still have a 50% chance. I think another thing to look at perhaps is to see if the team that wins the coin toss actually does have an advantage. I seem to remember reading that the coin-toss winner only wins ~50% of the time (I could be remembering this wrong) -- in the end wouldn't that still be a fair system?

[Jarhead]

I think it is 60% of the time, but even if it is 50% of the time, then half of the time, one side does not get the chance to compete on the field as they do in all those other sports, and in college football. The NFL, more that likely, has made some sort of accommodation with the TV people to get a better handle on end game timing. The college system could wreak havoc with TV schedules.

[allenmurray]

Only one side gets the opportunity to call the coin toss. The other side has no say, and if it loses the toss, it may not get a scoring opportunity.

They are allowed to play defense.

[Jarhead]

They are allowed to play defense.
Well, so does a baseball team at the end of a tied game, but after playing defense, they get to go to the plate for their opportunity to score, and making the other team play defense. In the NFL, it simply is not balanced.

[hc5duke]

Well, so does a baseball team at the end of a tied game, but after playing defense, they get to go to the plate for their opportunity to score, and making the other team play defense. In the NFL, it simply is not balanced.

Well, the difference is that in baseball, the visiting team always bats first. If baseball extra innings started with a coin toss, and sudden death for each team, I think it would still be fair.

I think we're looking at it from different viewpoints -- I'm viewing it from pre-coin toss chance of winning. You're given 50% chance of winning the coin toss, which tells me each team is given a chance to win. If two identical teams play 1000 overtime games, each team should come away with roughly 500 wins each. That tells me it's a fair system.

I guess you're looking at it from post-coin toss, where the team that won the coin toss seemingly has an advantage, because as soon as they score, it's over. I understand why from this perspective it is unfair, but I still disagree due to the above reasoning. Perhaps a consolation would be to start a sudden death AFTER each team has had at least one possession? In baseball analogy, once you enter the 11th inning, it's sudden death - even if you're in the top of the inning. The difference would be of course, before the 10th inning, you have a coin toss to see who goes first.

[tecumseh]

I agree with Jarhead in that say you lose the coin toss they get a decent run back and few first first downs and kick a long field goal somehow it just does not seem right or fair.

[Bluedog]

Statistically, each team is given a 50% chance of winning the coin toss, which tells me they are indeed given an equal opportunity to score. The difference of course is that if you mess up on defense first, you're not given an opportunity to amend this with your offense, like all other leagues.

I think we all agree each team is given a 50% chance of winning. It's the fact that a portion of this 50% is determined by chance - a coin toss - instead of the game itself. People don't like games being determined by chance - even if it's an equal chance for each team. They want to see it determined by skill. From 1974-2003, there is 52%-44% advantage to the coin toss winner, and that is all due to the last 10 years when the kick off was moved from the 35 to the 30 yard line. Before 1994, it was about a 50/50 split.

See http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041106/mathtrek.asp for some overtime statistics (although admittedly only through 2004). They proposed switching it back to the 30 yard line last year....http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-03-22-rules-proposals_N.htm They didn't change the rule, right? I guess I've never paid attention to what yard line the kickoff was in overtime.

[Jarhead]

From my point of view no other sport decides a tie score game or a dead heat race with only one side getting to perform the activity in which the points or time are earned. Only the NFL does so. In fact, even in the NFL, in all other games other than tie games, the coin toss is used to make a choice of some sort that is given first to one team and later to the other. That would be the coin toss at the beginning of the game. The team that wins that toss gets to make a choice at the start of the game, and the team that lost that coin toss gets to make that same same kind of choice at the beginning of the second half of the game. There is no intent to give an advantage to one side or the other.

In football, the only measure of victory is the point score. There is nothing in the rules that says coin tosses count in the scoring. Except in the NFL where a coin toss is used to give one team a scoring chance, and if that team is successful, the other team does not get a chance to score. Explain to me how that is fair competition.