field goals

[itsbob]

If you're kicking a field goal from the opposite 40 yard line shouldn't it be worth.more than 3 points? What a motivator getting teams to stretch the attempts. Say anything from the 1-50 is 3 points opposing 49 -40 4 points 39 and better 5 points.

I'm thinking scoring from where the ball is placed not line of scrimmage. Coach can send his long Snapper on to bring the ball back to the opposing 49 yard line
from say the 30 or 40 to go for that extra point.

 

[BuddyLee]

If you're kicking a field goal from the opposite 40 yard line shouldn't it be worth.more than 3 points? What a motivator getting teams to stretch the attempts. Say anything from the 1-50 is 3 points opposing 49 -40 4 points 39 and better 5 points.

I'm thinking scoring from where the ball is placed not line of scrimmage. Coach can send his long Snapper on to bring the ball back to the opposing 49 yard line
from say the 30 or 40 to go for that extra point.

Sounds good to me.

In my fantasy league if you score a 50+ field goal you get 5 points instead of 3. Lucky for me, I have Janikowski!That was a helluva kick and he still had a good 5 yards on it at least.

 

[Baltimore_Colt]

I've had this discussion many times before. I used to be 100% in favor of the NFL making field goals of 50 yards or more worth 4 points but I eventually changed my mind for several reasons.
One is that it just doesn't seem right to reward a team for not getting any closer to the other team's endzone than to attempt a 50 yard field goal. Something just doesn't seem right about having a team work their way most of the way down the field just to come away with 3 points when they could've barely crossed the 50 yard line and gotten 4 points.
Also, I seem to recall another league that actually had the 4 point rule, think it may have been the NFL Europe, where teams would actually lose yards on purpose so they could attempt a longer field goal in hopes of getting 4 points instead of 3. Something just didn't sit well with me about that.

You could even make the argument that, if anything, it should be the other way around - the closer you are to the opposing team's endzone, the MORE points you get for a successful field goal. I don't know, It's very late for me and I've had a long day so I hope this makes at least a little bit of sense.

 

[Larry Gude]

Where does it end? The same argument can be made for passing TD's, the more yards it covers, the more points you get. Same thing for running scores. :shrug:

How about a point for a sack? More points if it forces a fumble or a punt?

If you had to attempt a 55 yard FG, it's because you didn't do very well in the rest of the game, running, blocking, passing, etc. Does the defense therefore get some sort of points for making you try a long kick?

Do we just set 'football' aside completely and replace it, officially, with fantasy football?

We could just change the name to...footketball???

Al queda is, in fact, winning.

 

[aps45819]

Why is a touchdown 6 points?

 

[Otter]

Where does it end? The same argument can be made for passing TD's, the more yards it covers, the more points you get. Same thing for running scores. :shrug:

How about a point for a sack? More points if it forces a fumble or a punt?

If you had to attempt a 55 yard FG, it's because you didn't do very well in the rest of the game, running, blocking, passing, etc. Does the defense therefore get some sort of points for making you try a long kick?

Do we just set 'football' aside completely and replace it, officially, with fantasy football?

We could just change the name to...footketball???

Al queda is, in fact, winning.

 

[donbarzini]

And for my money the record should go back to whatever it was before Tom Dempsey. Dempsey did it with a specially weighted shoe. And both Elam and Janikowski did it in Denver. They don't allow sprinters records if there's a tail wind above a certain mph. Or they can place the footballs in the Rockies "humidor".

 

[Dondi]

Why is a touchdown 6 points?

"Scoring changes in the early twentieth century also helped popularize the game by increasing the value of touchdowns. When the first true football scoring system was devised in 1883 (replacing customary scoring procedures in which one point usually was awarded for advancing the ball across the goal in any fashion), kicking was emphasized. Field goals counted 5 points while touchdowns and conversions each counted 4. In 1884 the total for a safety was increased from 1 to 2 points, still in existence today. In 1897 the value of a TD was raised to 5 points with a successful conversion worth an additional 1 point. The field goal remained at 5 points until 1904, when it was reduced to 4 points. In 1909 it was further lowered to its modern 3-point value. The touchdown was given its modern 6-point value in 1912."

Source: College Football Encyclopedia - Introduction

 

[Beta84]

Where does it end? The same argument can be made for passing TD's, the more yards it covers, the more points you get. Same thing for running scores. :shrug:

How about a point for a sack? More points if it forces a fumble or a punt?

If you had to attempt a 55 yard FG, it's because you didn't do very well in the rest of the game, running, blocking, passing, etc. Does the defense therefore get some sort of points for making you try a long kick?

Do we just set 'football' aside completely and replace it, officially, with fantasy football?

We could just change the name to...footketball???

Al queda is, in fact, winning.

This is starting to sound like fantasy football, which means there's already a good place for people to get points for things like this.

Baltimore_Colt brings up a great point. You don't want to encourage teams to lose yards to attempt longer distance FGs. They may be hard, but the entire point behind them is that it should be HARDER to get your measly 3 points since you failed to advance the ball.

 

[Tech]

If you're not good enough to take it into the endzone for six then you should get nothing. We are rewarding failure.