This past weekend, the commissioner of the NFL announced that the competition committee is going to look into abolishing the extra-point after a touchdown. The only explanation of what is being discussed is the idea of having a touchdown be worth seven points. Afterward, the team may elect to try for a two-point conversion. A successful conversion will make the entire event worth eight points, but if the team fails to convert, the team will only get six points. Therefore, the extra-point kick is eliminated but the option for two points is there. This has, as expected, divided the fans of football. Some believe this is a long time coming while others yell about keeping football pure. Having been a long time fan of both American Football and Rugby, I like to think that my thoughts are situated somewhere in between.

American Football has its roots in Rugby, and it was this original form of the game that put a much higher emphasis on kicking. A touchdown was worth very little while the kick through the goalposts was much higher. The idea was that a touchdown was giving you an uncontested go at the goalposts. In 1881, a touchdown was worth one-quarter of a goal when used for tie-breaking purposes. The act of scoring a touchdown was worth no points. By 1883, the use of points was introduced into American Football. A touchdown was worth four points, the point after a touchdown was also four points. This changed in 1897 when the touchdown was set to five points and the extra-point to one. The six and one systems we have today came in 1912. The two-point conversion was first used at the college level in 1958, 1969 in high school, and 1994 in the NFL. An interesting note: the term touchdown was coined because – like in Rugby – you had to physically touch the ball to the ground beyond the goal line to score. This requirement was removed in 1889, but it continues to exist today in Rugby.

I challenge those who speak of keeping football pure. The idea that changing the rules of football ruins the game is absurd. Since football branched off of Rugby and Association Football, the rules have been tinkered and modified constantly. Be it the forward pass, the addition of padding and helmets, moving the goalposts off the goal line, the addition of the two-point conversion, modifications to the play clock, or the position of the kickoff, the rules and game evolve continuously.

Back to the topic at hand: the extra-point after the touchdown. This process of kicking a goal for a single point has become practically automatic. Of the nearly 1200 extra-point attempts in the 2013 season, only four were missed. This is a success rate of 99.6%. For most people I know, the extra-point is just additional time to take in the bathroom or the kitchen. While I think this is a fantastic idea, I do have other ideas on how to make the extra-point interesting again.

Idea 1

Move the extra-point back to the 20-yard line. Currently, the ball is snapped on the two-yard line and kicked from the nine. Moving the ball back to the 20 will add 18-yards to the length of the kick. Instead of a 19-yard kick, it will become 37-yard kick. Not nearly as automatic as it is presently.

Idea 2

Make the kick worth more points based on distance. Make the position of the ball an option to the team that just score a touchdown. Make it worth more points the further back from the goal line they place the ball. One option could be to have the kick after a touchdown worth 1-point per every 15-yards back. Therefore, you would score based on the table below:

Idea 3

Make the kick positional. The rules of Rugby make you kick the ball for the extra points from a point directly in front of where you scored the try (Rugby’s equivalent to a touchdown). This leads to some very interesting angles when attempting the conversion. Rugby conversions are rarely easy.

Idea 4

Just remove the extra-point, as the only rule change example given by the commissioner states. Make the touchdown worth seven, but risk one-point to run a two-point conversion attempt.

Regardless of what the competition committee decides, the game will change continuously into the future. It must change, or it will become stagnant.