PAT Boggle

I've never understood the issue that so many have with the NFL's current Point after Touchdown system. The PAT. Ball snapped from the 2-yard line. A nice, easy kick from about the 10-yard line. An easy single point to cap off a touchdown. A 7-point point package. I don't understand the issues with this because I don't care that the kick has become automatic. Apparently, there aren't many that feel this way. The PAT system is going to change.

Peter King wrote about this issue in his weekly Monday Morning Quarterback column on his brilliant website of the same name. He mentioned that the Tennessee Titans haven't missed a PAT since 2005, Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers since 2006. That's pretty automatic. The NFL owners met last week in Arizona to talk rules of the game. The PAT was a hotly debated topic. The system is going to change. 30 of 32 owners want it to change. I wonder if two of those owners are among the owners of the Titans, Chiefs, and 49ers. The owners want it to change but there was no consensus on how to change it. The suggestions were "all over the map." Since there was no consensus the PAT boggle was tabled until the owners meet again in May. The Competition Committee, which presents proposed rule changes to the owners, must come up with a compromise PAT system that will get the required 24 votes. Since so many of the ownership want a change I'm sure that something will be done to change it.

Here's what King presented in his column:

"This is the most likely compromise to be advanced, and the most likely way the league will amend how teams can score after a touchdown:

• Teams will have a choice whether to go for one or two points after a touchdown, from different distances.

• If the offensive team chooses to kick for one point, the scrimmage line will move from the 2-yard-line to the 15-yard line, making it a 32- or 33-yard attempt.

• If the offensive team chooses to go for two points, the scrimmage line will be either the 1-and-a half- or 2-yard line. There was much debate about making it the 1, the 1-and-a-half or the 2. The feeling about putting it on the 1 was that it could turn into too much of a scrum/push-the-pile play, or a fluky puncture-the-goal-line-with-the-ball-and-bring-it-back play by the quarterback. Putting it at the 1-and-a-half or leaving it at the 2 would increase the chances of a real football play with some drama.

• The defensive team would be able to score two points by either blocking the PAT and returning it downfield to the end zone, or by intercepting the two-point attempt and running it back, or recovering a fumble on the two-point play and returning it all the way."

The main reason that I'm resistant to any change to the PAT system is that I'm a traditionalist. I love the game as it is and, for the most part, I don't like seeing anyone monkeying with the game. Even if it's something as routine as the PAT. I also realize that if it weren't for changes to this game that we'd still be watching the mass collision plays that defined the game in the late 1800s. No passing and 0-0 finals. What seems like a travesty now will probably be seen as brilliant in the next decade. Anyway, I've accepted that my beloved PAT is about to change. I'm ok with it. And, I agree with King that the above is probably the change that we'll be seeing. 

As for the spot of the 2-point attempt, I vote for the 2-yard line. But, I think that the 3-yard line is better.