I guess this is the product of too much excellence in the specialized field of placekicking. Extra points in the NFL have become so automatic, the league actually considered just getting rid of them altogether. One idea on the table a year ago would have given teams the option of taking 7 points automatically on a touchdown, or taking 6 and going for 2 - so disgusted had the league become with the mere formality that was the easy 1-point kick of 9 or 10 yards.
Granted, it wouldn't have been terrible if defensive teams showed some interest in trying to block the kick, but they almost never do for whatever reason.
So instead, the clubs yesterday voted 30-2 (with the racist Redskins and the thug Raiders dissenting) to move the line of scrimmage on a 1-yard extra point attempt back to the 15-yard line from the 2, with 2-point attempts still originating from the 2. That means the extra point kick will now be the equivalent of a 33-yard field goal. A major difference? Probably just enough of a difference for it to become what the league wanted, which is to introduce at least some semblance of question into the extra point. Kickers were converting the traditional extra points to the tune of 99 percent, whereas they converted 33-yard field goals at a pace of 92 percent. So it's not like they'll be missing them all the time, but if they really miss 8 percent, you'll at least make extra points a factor of some question in the game.
I wonder, though: Does that 92 percent average include all 33-yard field goals? Or just the ones kicked from the center of the field? Because remember, a field goal is kicked from the spot on the field where the previous ball-carrier was tackled, or from the hash mark (which is lined up with the goal post upright) if the tackle was made wide of the hash mark. It's more difficult to make the kick if you kick it from the hash mark because you have to angle it to ensure it goes through the uprights. The new, longer extra points will presumably be kicked from the center of the field, which means a kicker doesn't have to kick it 100 percent straight to still put it through. Will the difference in the percentage of those kicks made really be that different?
(Another thing for teams to think about: On a 2-point conversion, the defense can now return the play for its own 2 points in the event they intercept a pass or recover a fumble. I doubt this will have much impact on whether teams try for 2. They'll still do it when they need the 2 points.)
The best idea I heard for changing extra points, and I don't remember who suggested it, was to make the player who scored the touchdown kick the extra point. I guess it's sort of like basketball, where the player who gets fouled shoots the free throws. Of course, shooting is supposed to be a basic skill for all basketball players. If you made regular football players kick extra points, you'd force some of your star players to suddenly work on an entirely different skill - but one many of them could probably master if they only had to make a 10-yard kick. The NFLPA would probably have had a conniption fit, but it would have been kind of cool, no? I think if running backs, wide receivers and quarterbacks worked at it a little, most could probably get to the point where they could make the kicks the majority of the time. Some would struggle, of course, and extra points when they score the touchdowns would have become nail-biters in the tradition of a Shaq freel throw attempt. And that would make it kind of fun, wouldn't it?
Anyway, that's not the direction the NFL took, and now extra points will be a little harder - although I suspect not much for NFL kickers who these days are expected to regularly hit field goals as long as 45 yards with virtually no drama whatsoever.
At least it gave me something to talk about on a morning when I can't quite bring myself to dive in to the latest Hillary idiocy just yet.
