Tunescribe said:
You make some reasonable points. I was thinking more in terms of the extra stratetgic option available late in a game when a team is down three or four points and can't get it in the end zone. Few kickers can hit consistently from 50-plus, so it would be a big gamble in any case. You must agree that the chances of hitting a 50 yarder are much less than a 30 or 40 yarder, so why not reward that special feat with an extra point?
Because the length of the field goal depends on how far the offense drives -- and the offense's ultimate goal is to drive as far as it can, not stop at the 32-yard line.
If you put in a rule that discourages offenses from crossing the 32 by a few yards, you create a "dead zone" for offenses in normal situations. Once an offense reached the opponent's 32 or so, there would be very little incentive to gain small chunks of yardage unless you pick up a first down. Instead of trying to move the ball closer, at least to set up a shorter field goal, offenses would be in all-or-nothing situations. If you don't get a first down, as long as your kicker can hit from 50, you're better off with fourth-and-10 at the 32 than you'd be with fourth-and-2 at the 24. And if you do pick up a first down, you'd better get a touchdown instead of stalling around the 20.
Imagine a team leading 13-10, early fourth quarter, facing third-and-20 from the opponent's 30-yard line, with a strong-legged kicker waiting on the sideline. Normally, the team would at least try to pick up 5-10 yards, with a chance to break one for a first down or touchdown. It might run a draw, or a screen, or a short pattern to give a receiver the ball in the open field, maybe even a longer pattern near the first-down marker. It might even throw the long ball, taking a shot into the end zone if the defense is expecting something shorter. But if there's a four-point field goal, the "book" would tell you to take a 2-yard loss and try a four-point field goal. A short gain would be detrimental, and trying a long pass would be extremely foolish.
Sorry, but I don't ever want to see those kinds of situations in an NFL game.
Say the Pats are down by four at the end of the game, on the opponent's 33 with four seconds left. Wouldn't you rather see a 50-yard field goal attempt to tie the game than a futile lob into the end zone?
I'm not a Pats fan, but the answer would be no, even if you used the Cowboys as an example. What's next, field goals worth one, two, five and six points? Wouldn't you rather see a five-point field goal than a futile lob into the end zone? Or three- and four- point conversions? Wouldn't you rather see a team try a four-point conversion than a futile onside kick? I wouldn't. You don't change the rules just to present more scenarios for ties, especially when it changes the basic purposes of the game. (Imagine MLB making a rule that says teams score two runs by scoring from second base and three by scoring from first. There'd be very little incentive to try to advance to third base, in most situations.)
