Going for two and touchbacks

[dolphins4life]

Let's make this a twofold post

1)

In 2022, Going for two when down 8 was introduced.

I predict that in the future, extra points will become rarer and rarer.

Can you think of any other future scenarios when teams will start going for two?

Maybe if you score early or midway through the fourth quarter?

2)

TikTok is buzzing about fumbles through the end zone being ruled touchbacks.  The claim is that the punishment is too harsh

I disagree.  

I'd have to look at some stats.  They fall into three categories

- Stretching for the endzone and keeping the ball and coming up short
- Stretching  for the endzone, and fumbling the ball
- Stretching for the endzone and scoring

I wonder what the numbers are for each of them.

I always thought it's not worth the risk unless it's fourth down, of course.  Just protect the ball.  

[Dave Gray]

If games start going high scoring and teams execute 2 pt conversions at more than a 50% rate, they'd be stupid not to go for it every time.

This happened in the NBA.  Once teams realized that they could shoot 3s at more than 2/3rds the rate of their 2 point attempts, teams started jacking up 3s and Steph Curry replaced Shaq as the most valuable type of player.  In addition, they started creating offenses to improve their 3 pt game.

The NFL could maybe go through a similar thing.  If the Eagles can tush push a 2 pointer 75% of the time, why wouldn't they?

[Dave Gray]

As for your 2nd question, I'm kind of torn.

Here's why:
At first thought, it just seems too severe and isn't really indicative of the play on the field.  Back in the day, there was a rule that if you broke the plane of the endzone and then went back in, it was a safety.  So, what would happen is someone would be backpedaling to catch a kickoff, kneel in the endzone, but since they maybe made contact on the 2 inch line, it was ruled a safety.  It was points for the kicking team and the ball back. ...for what?  Catching the ball while backpedaling.  It was dumb and it just wasn't worthy because it's not like the kicking team made a play or something.

I have a little bit of similar feeling for this rule, especially in these weird cases where guys fall without being contacted, and then the ball is considered live, hits the pylon and now it's a turnover.  It doesn't happen often, but it's just like rewarding a team for nothing.

HOWEVER...

Someone I know made a really good point of why to keep the rule.  I don't even know that I agree with him, but I appreciated, at least, that he had some logic.  The field of play is neutral.  So, fumbles in the field of play that go out of bounds are awarded to nobody.  The ball just goes back to where it was.  However, the endzones are owned by the teams.  So, fumbling in your opponents endzone means it's their ball -- because it's their endzone.  Fumbling in your own endzone is a safety, because you failed to keep the ball from your own endzone. 

I can get on board with that, I guess.

[Spider-Dan]

Regarding the end zone touchback rule, it would not have affected the KC/BAL game, as that was a fumble that was recovered by the defense in their endzone.

To me, it seems silly that a fumble out of bounds at the 1-inch line means the offense gets the ball at that spot, but if the defense allows an additional inch before the fumble then they are richly rewarded with a takeaway.  It seems super weird that the only fumble out of bounds that directly results in a turnover is if the offense actually reached the opponent's goal; if every fumble out of bounds was an automatic turnover, then a touchback would make sense.

[Pappy13]

You still can't convince me that going for 2 when down by 8 is the right choice and I don't care what the odds say. Seen a TON of teams win a game when down by 8 kicking the extra point. Now that they have moved the extra point back a bit it's a little less automatic than it used to be but, but not much. Honestly this says to your kicker, I don't trust you and if that truly is the case, then it makes sense to go for 2, but if you trust your kicker, take the XP. You can decide on your next score whether to go for 2 or not based on how it turns out.

[Dave Gray]

You still can't convince me that going for 2 when down by 8 is the right choice and I don't care what the odds say.

That's not a very good way to look at life.

[Pappy13]

That's not a very good way to look at life.

How so? The odds are just that, they don't really help you win games. I've played too many games myself to assume because the odds are with you that's always the right way to play it. You ever heard the saying "That's why they play the game"? Well it's because the odds don't mean shit when it comes time to play. The stats might favor going for 2 over a very large sample size, but when the sample size is 2, which it is in any particular game, it doesn't mean shit and I don't buy it that it helps you win games. There are too many other variables at play to simply say that going for 2 will lead to a better chance at winning. I don't buy it, odds be damned especially when the odds are a percentage point or 2. Gimme a break.

And before you think that I'm being foolish, well personally I think anyone that plays the lottery is stupid. Doesn't stop millions from playing every day and I'm absolutely certain that many people believe it's the smart play too. People like to fall back on the "odds" when it supports their opinion and they conveniently forget about the "odds" when it doesn't.

[Spider-Dan]

It's quite strange to see a Dolphins fan so resistant to this idea, which was executed to perfection in a very memorable recent Dolphins game.
It's like a Colts fan who insists you should never do an onside kick in the Super Bowl, or a 49ers fan who says you should never take an intentional safety in the playoffs.

And before you think that I'm being foolish, well personally I think anyone that plays the lottery is stupid.

The odds say that playing the lottery is stupid.

[Pappy13]

It's quite strange to see a Dolphins fan so resistant to this idea, which was executed to perfection in a very memorable recent Dolphins game.

Because the Dolphins have never won kicking the XP? Doubt it. I'm also not arrogant enough to say you should never do it, I'm saying that I wouldn't do it.

The odds say that playing the lottery is stupid.

and yet millions play it every day so it seems that many people don't really care about the odds when it suits their purposes. At least the odds of kicking 2 extra points is pretty close to the odds of getting a single successful 2 point conversion in 2 tries and much higher than the odds of getting a successful 2 point conversion and an extra point. The odds of winning the lottery are ridiculously low.

[Spider-Dan]

But YOU are here, right now, saying screw the odds.  So I'm not sure what the lottery point is supposed to prove.

I'm in favor of following the odds on this 2-point conversion.
But I also don't play the lottery.
Because the odds are bad.

[Pappy13]

But YOU are here, right now, saying screw the odds.  So I'm not sure what the lottery point is supposed to prove.

I'm in favor of following the odds on this 2-point conversion.
But I also don't play the lottery.
Because the odds are bad.

The odds of winning the lottery are horrible, there's really no choice to be made there.

The odds of successfully kicking 2 extra points aren't bad, they're only slightly worse than the odds of successfully converting a 2 point conversion in 2 tries both of which result in a tie game. If you kick the extra point when you are down by 8 you can always try for the 2 point conversion on the 2nd TD if you prefer to go for the win rather than the tie. Even if you miss the first extra point attempt which is unlikely you can still go for the 2pt conversion on the 2nd TD and a tie and you really haven't risked anything at all. I don't think people really understand that the difference is very slight, unlike the lottery. That's my point.

If you just consider the Dolphins in 2023 the success rate of extra points this year was 58 out of 59 or 98.3% whereas the success rate of 2 point conversions was 0 out of 2 or 0%. If I'm the coach of the Dolphins I'm kicking the 2 extra points without question and that would be going with the odds for the Dolphins for 2023.

[Dave Gray]

In general, the teams that follows the odds will do better over a full sample size than the team that doesn't.  That's just math.  There may be special circumstances in an event here or there, but by and large, if the odds say that you're going to get more points by going for 2 than for 1, the teams that go for 2 are statistically going to win more games over the long haul.  That's not really something I'm willing to argue, as is it a fact.

You can stand on 16 in blackjack and you might win -- the odds aren't very good either way.  But over time, hitting will produce more wins.

If you are trying to argue that it's not better odds, fine -- but once those odds are established, it would be foolish not to follow them.

[Phishfan]

Since we are arguing math, the percentage of two point conversions is meaningless in factoring wins. The more important number is how many opportunities the team has to go for two.

[Spider-Dan]

If you just consider the Dolphins in 2023 the success rate of extra points this year was 58 out of 59 or 98.3% whereas the success rate of 2 point conversions was 0 out of 2 or 0%. If I'm the coach of the Dolphins I'm kicking the 2 extra points without question and that would be going with the odds for the Dolphins for 2023.

This logic is no different than saying, "If you consider how many people I know that have made money by playing the lottery, the odds of the lottery are therefore x."
It is absolutely not how "odds" work.

[masterfins]

I don't like the constant changing of rules, I can't keep track of all of them.  But one rule change I would like to see is the one that the Packers have taken advantage of a couple times - Kickoff goes along the sidelines but not out of bounds and the receiving team player goes out of bounds, then reaches into the field of play to get the ball and it is ruled kicked out of bounds; and the receiving team then gets the ball at the 35.  This is a manipulation of the rule and shouldn't be allowed.

A rule that I would like to see come back is when a team receives the ball in their own endzone (kickoff, fumble recovery, interception) if they make an effort to leave the endzone with the ball then they are live and if they don't make it out it's a safety.  This is analogous to baseball were if the runner rounds first base towards second he can be tagged out.  If a player wants to try and make a big play then he should be penalized when he doesn't.