Converts: 1 point or 2?

The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12580
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

It's early yet but the changes in convert rules are having a big impact on games and I'm not sure all coaches are fully aware of that impact. In tonight's Winnipeg-Calgary game, won by Calgary 26-25, both teams missed 1-point converts but Calgary made a 2-point convert, even after a penalty pushed the ball back to the 13 yard line. That 2-point play was a key to the victory.

In past years, it was generally accepted that 2-point converts were low-risk propositions only to be attempted in the drying minutes of a game. Success rates ranged from just over 30% last year to just over 45% in the previous two years. The success rate for 1-point converts last year was 99.4%, making it almost automatic.

Through the first three weeks this year, not including this weekend's games, the success rate for longer 1-point converts (generally from the 32 yard line) was only 79.2%, while the success rate for shorter 2-point converts (generally from the 3 yard line) was 73.7%. I'm not a mathematician, but that tells me the average 1-point convert attempt so far this year has resulted in .792 points, while the average 2-point attempt has resulted in 1.474 points. If those figures hold up, it would seem to make sense for coaches to go for 2 points nearly every time.
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

Good to see that the convert is no longer automatic. Have a feeling that teams will begin to go for the 2 point conversions. The odds are much more favourable than in the past. Teams now scrimmage on the 3 yard line
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

I like it.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12580
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

I think Calgary was the only team to make a 2-point convert this week. Edmonton and Ottawa each failed once. It's still a learning process for everyone.
User avatar
sj-roc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7539
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:39 pm
Location: Kerrisdale

B.C.FAN wrote:It's early yet but the changes in convert rules are having a big impact on games and I'm not sure all coaches are fully aware of that impact. In tonight's Winnipeg-Calgary game, won by Calgary 26-25, both teams missed 1-point converts but Calgary made a 2-point convert, even after a penalty pushed the ball back to the 13 yard line. That 2-point play was a key to the victory.

In past years, it was generally accepted that 2-point converts were low-risk propositions only to be attempted in the drying minutes of a game. Success rates ranged from just over 30% last year to just over 45% in the previous two years. The success rate for 1-point converts last year was 99.4%, making it almost automatic.
I think you meant to say "low-percentage propositions" here?
Through the first three weeks this year, not including this weekend's games, the success rate for longer 1-point converts (generally from the 32 yard line) was only 79.2%, while the success rate for shorter 2-point converts (generally from the 3 yard line) was 73.7%. I'm not a mathematician, but that tells me the average 1-point convert attempt so far this year has resulted in .792 points, while the average 2-point attempt has resulted in 1.474 points. If those figures hold up, it would seem to make sense for coaches to go for 2 points nearly every time.
One thing I got to wondering after Cgy fouled on their initial 2PC attempt and had to replay it, were they obligated to stay in 2PC formation @13YL, or could they have chosen to have the penalty applied @25YL and opt for a 1PC attempt if they felt the penalty made the 2PC a higher-risk play than the 1PC? Seems like a team ought to be free to change their mind there but I can't say for a fact.

Overall I think the convert rule changes are having the desired effect of turning an automatic decision into one that requires some coaching acumen. Initially I wasn't on board with the change but I've quickly become a... wait for it... convert. The ends are being met even if the means to get there weren't all that appealing at the outset. And as I've stated before I'd like to see the extra step of abolishing the mandatory 2PC in OT.

It was made mandatory in the first place since with the shootout format, teams that kept exchanging TDs weren't breaking enough ties because the 1PC was essentially automatic. But the 1PC isn't so automatic anymore, so let's bring it back for OT and give everyone something extra to talk about afterward as to whether the coach made the right convert call.

The convert rule changes, and the distance from goal for the spot of the ball in each case, were judiciously chosen to yield certain approximate percentage success rates for the two plays, based on historical average rates of success over a wide range of field positions. I recall an article where Steve Daniel, the league's top statistician, said they wanted 80-85% success on the new 1PC. I don't recall as clearly what the 2PC target rate was but I'm thinking ~60%.

In future years we might see the league tinker with these distances if the success ratio gets too lopsided one way or the other. If for example as you indicate the 2PC play becomes too successful for its own good so to speak, the ball might get spotted back at the five where it had been for all converts pre-2015, but the typical success rate in short yardage may not be monotonically increasing with goal line proximity so you might never arrive at an ideal distance to properly level out the relative success rates of 1&2PC attempts.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
Qman
Champion
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:59 pm
Location: Section 240

Pretty sure its:
32FG last few years was 82%
2nd and 3 last few years was 63%

you should go for 2 on every convert ... with the exeption of late in the game where it would be situational


suits said a couple games ago the 1pt was at 83% and 2pt was at 72% early in the season so far
User avatar
JohnHenry
Champion
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:46 pm
Location: Crescent Beach

Yep, go for two every time. It's also good practice for scoring TD's close in...so it becomes more automatic.
Last edited by JohnHenry on Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

sj-roc .. I didn't see the Calg game but this rule may apply here:
Rule 4 - Scrimmage

NOTE: Where a violation under this Rule occurs before the ball has been snapped, the officials are empowered to stop the play and apply the penalty. Such penalty shall apply without option; however, the yardage may be declined. For a violation during the last three minutes of a half, see Rule 1, Section 7, Article 4.
When I looked at the convert rule it didn't say anything directly on this -
SECTION 5 – FOUL ON CONVERT
Article 1
For the purposes of this article, a convert attempt shall be deemed to commence when the Referee declares the ball in play and to conclude when the play is terminated or Team B gains possession. If a foul is committed during such convert attempt, the following shall apply:
(a) If either team commits a foul (except a Major Foul or Defensive Offside) prior to the ball being snapped or during a convert attempt, the non-offending team may elect to have the penalty applied from PLS or accept the play as it terminated,
(b) If the foul is a Major Foul or Defensive Offside, the non-offending team may elect to have the penalty applied from PLS or accept the play as it terminated and apply the penalty on the subsequent kickoff,
(c) If the time has expired in the period, the kickoff will take place at the start of the following period. If game time has expired, no further play shall be permitted.
Article 2
If the ball continues in play after an unsuccessful convert attempt and a foul occurs, the following shall apply:
(a) If the team in possession creates a foul, it shall forfeit the right to score,
(b) If the team not in possession creates a foul, the penalty shall be applied on the ensuing kickoff,
(c) If either team creates a major foul, the penalty shall be applied on the ensuing kickoff.
Article 3
If either team creates a major foul after the convert attempt is terminated, the penalty shall be applied on the ensuing kickoff.
I like this new rule on converts as singles all of a sudden are looking much more important. If your K misses the PAT from the 32, it still lets the opponent go for 1 as it does give them something. It also keeps it open to say match a 6 pt TD's failed convert with a PAT run for 2 as you have nothing to lose.

What I sure hope though we never do is give up our single rule on missed FGs or punts not run out of the end zone as I love all that.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
User avatar
Big Time
Champion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 6:45 pm

Have to admit I thought this rule change was gimmicky and didn't make much sense when it was announced. I was okay with the PAT being moved back to the 32 but I did not like the two point conversion being moved up to the 2 yard line as it makes it too much of a gimmy.

With that being said, these changes sure have made the games more competitive, which I assume was the goal. Used to be being up by double digits late was pretty insurmountable. However the Lions showed being down by 11 with less than three minutes to go can still be overcome. It works out great when your team is on the right side of the ledger.

So consider me converted if you will to this rule change. I think it's added more excitement to the games so far. After the incredibly boring last regular season, I'm thankful for this improvement.
User avatar
KnowItAll
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7458
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Delta

for me, it would be purrfect if percentage for 1 pt would be about 70 and percentage for 2 pt would be about 40

but, not gonna happen.

I do think that the 2pt should be from the 7.
Every day that passes is one you can't get back
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12580
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

Through four weeks, the success rate for 1-point attempts is 80.0% (48 of 60 attempts). The success rate for 2-point attempts is 68.2% (15 of 22 attempts), yet coaches are still going for 1-point attempts 73% of the time.

The odds suggest that coaches who go for 1 point most of the time are passing up points. If you score three touchdowns a game and convert two of three 1-point attempts, you score two points. If you score three touchdowns a game and convert two of three 2-pointers, you score four points. Even if you successfully kick all three 1-pointers, you come out behind. The odds favor 2 point attempts almost every time.
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

B.C.FAN wrote:Through four weeks, the success rate for 1-point attempts is 80.0% (48 of 60 attempts). The success rate for 2-point attempts is 68.2% (15 of 22 attempts), yet coaches are still going for 1-point attempts 73% of the time.

The odds suggest that coaches who go for 1 point most of the time are passing up points. If you score three touchdowns a game and convert two of three 1-point attempts, you score two points. If you score three touchdowns a game and convert two of three 2-pointers, you score four points. Even if you successfully kick all three 1-pointers, you come out behind. The odds favor 2 point attempts almost every time.
Good logic but one unintended consequence of the 2 pt PAT from the 2 yard line.

This will really challenge teams to develop a lot more red zone inside the 3 packages (many of which are in place but never, ever got called). The Lions had one for Buck Pierce years back but IIRC the ONLY time I saw it run it failed due to a Lion offside as BP scrambled to get around the right end from right over Centre on the snap.

Will it lead to teams running out of plays or what the TSN panel calls for - spread it out there and make them cover from sideline to sideline and in depth in the end zone.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
User avatar
sj-roc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7539
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:39 pm
Location: Kerrisdale

An article from the Province by way of the Calgary Herald:

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/footb ... story.html
Having convert kick no longer automatic a welcome CFL rule change
By Daryl Slade, Calgary Herald, Calgary Herald July 22, 2015

It took the Canadian Football League more than 60 years after the first grumblings about the one-point convert kick after a touchdown being too “automatic” to change its rules and make it more difficult.

They finally got the point — and the desired effect — this year.

The CFL moved the ball placement back 20 yards to the 25-yard line, so the ball is now kicked from 32 yards out for one-point converts. If the team opts to go for the two-point convert, by running or passing, it is scrimmaged from the three-yard line.

That extra 20 yards added on to the kick has so far taken away the automatic element of the play.

Through the first four weeks and only 16 games of the 2015 season, kickers have already missed 12 of 60 convert attempts for a success rate of just 80 per cent; compared to an aggregate 99.4 per cent over the past 15 years when there were never more than four miscues throughout the nine-team league on an average 374 kicks per season.

It has also encouraged more two-point attempts on runs or passes, with 15 already successfully made in 22 attempts compared to 12 made all of last season.

“It’s spruced up the kicking game and it’s great for the fans,” said Larry Robinson, Canadian Football Hall of Famer and former Calgary Stampeder defensive back and kicker from 1961-74. “It used to be pretty automatic. I like the changes.

“In fact, if I was a coach I wouldn’t even kick it anymore. I’d go for two.”

Robinson said, because of the large 20-yard end zones in the CFL, it is harder to defend against a three-yard pass for a two-point convert.

He also said the rule change will force teams to adapt their strategy to whatever the other team is doing. If the opposition makes a two-pointer, he would have to do the same to keep pace. If they kicked for one, he’d do that as well.

J.T. Hay, the Stampeders’ kicker from 1979-88, says moving the ball to the 25 for 32-yard kicked converts makes it more challenging and more exciting for the fans.

“It’s for the entertainment of the game and the fans and it doesn’t hurt,” said Hay. “It was a boring play to kick it in the middle of the uprights from the 12. And for the offence, there is a good chance of moving it in for a two-pointer. It is not that difficult for a running back to run in from the three compared to the five.”

“I don’t think it’s as automatic anymore. The coach is thinking, ‘do we go for one, if it’s not so automatic, or go or two?’ It’s automatic from the 12 but not from the 32. I like the change and it hasn’t hurt the integrity of the game.”

In an article in The Canadian Football News on Oct. 17, 1953, entitled ‘Is convert waste of time?’, National Football League commissioner Bert Bell said what we were already thinking up north — that we should give the convert the boot.

“The extra point, in my opinion, is a waste of time,” Bell proclaimed to a predominantly Canadian audience.

“Through coaching techniques, practice and concentration, this all adds up to expensive specializations — our kickers have become so skilled they make the play look easy. Understandably, sportswriters have labelled it the ‘automatic point.’ ”

Bell’s rationale was that the extra point “has little spectator appeal, kickers have become so proficient it is virtually an automatic score and it is not nearly so much a team effort as it is the effort of three men: the centre, the ball holder and the kicker.”

As history will show, the NFL also never scrapped the extra point after touchdowns and, like the CFL, also later added the two-point option.

Interestingly, the success rate in Canada’s West Division the year of that article was not quite as automatic as it would later become. It was 87.6 per cent, the highest mark in four years of record keeping, on kicks scrimmaged on the 10-yard line and hoisted from the 17. It was not until the next year that the East began recording official statistics.

There was no change in the way converts were kicked in Canada until 1975 when the ball was moved in to the five-yard line for kicks and the two-point convert was added by the rules committee. But it was used sparingly and many fans would usually take their attention off the field while the kicker was doing his duties.

A few exceptions to that came in the 1954 Grey Cup, when Bob Dean hoofed the winning point after Edmonton Eskimos’ Jackie Parker rambled 90 yards to tie Montreal, and in 1991 and 1992 when Mark McLoughlin booted the winning points in western finals after Peewee Smith and Doug Flutie, respectively, had scored dramatic late-game-tying touchdowns against Edmonton.

No doubt, all eyes were on the field for those dramatic converts.

Interestingly, as Stampeders’ statistician and historian, I proposed to the CFL after the 2006 season to move the ball on converts to the three-yard line and included a statistical analysis to support such a change.

In my proposal, the scoring team could run or pass from there but, if it kicked, it had to do so from the sharp angle of the ball being pinned on one of the hash marks on the 10-yard line — depending on the side the touchdown was scored, as in traditional rugby.

Unfortunately, my proposal did not make it past the CFL’s rules committee’s first stage and no further changes were made until this year, other than mandating two-point converts be tried in overtime.

No doubt, kickers aren’t as thrilled with losing potential points on their resumes, but it’s better for the game.
Among active kickers, Paul McCallum probably doesn't mind the convert rule change that much — because it makes his record of consecutive 1PCs (at 794 and counting, according to his stat page on cfl.ca — he's never missed one in his 23-season career) pretty much unbreakable. Not that it was in much danger any time soon anyway as no other active kicker is close even on total made, let alone in a row. In fact I don't think anyone else has even 100 in a row right now.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
Qman
Champion
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:59 pm
Location: Section 240

Toppy Vann wrote:
B.C.FAN wrote:Through four weeks, the success rate for 1-point attempts is 80.0% (48 of 60 attempts). The success rate for 2-point attempts is 68.2% (15 of 22 attempts), yet coaches are still going for 1-point attempts 73% of the time.

The odds suggest that coaches who go for 1 point most of the time are passing up points. If you score three touchdowns a game and convert two of three 1-point attempts, you score two points. If you score three touchdowns a game and convert two of three 2-pointers, you score four points. Even if you successfully kick all three 1-pointers, you come out behind. The odds favor 2 point attempts almost every time.
Good logic but one unintended consequence of the 2 pt PAT from the 2 yard line.

This will really challenge teams to develop a lot more red zone inside the 3 packages (many of which are in place but never, ever got called). The Lions had one for Buck Pierce years back but IIRC the ONLY time I saw it run it failed due to a Lion offside as BP scrambled to get around the right end from right over Centre on the snap.

Will it lead to teams running out of plays or what the TSN panel calls for - spread it out there and make them cover from sideline to sideline and in depth in the end zone.
Lions have gone 5 of 6 times for the 1pt conversion. the one 2pt convert was one they had to go for late in the game vs SSK. Looks like Tedford didn't pass math in college.

FYI: 2pt conversion is from the 3 yd line
User avatar
DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4309
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

Qman wrote:
Toppy Vann wrote:
B.C.FAN wrote:Through four weeks, the success rate for 1-point attempts is 80.0% (48 of 60 attempts). The success rate for 2-point attempts is 68.2% (15 of 22 attempts), yet coaches are still going for 1-point attempts 73% of the time.

The odds suggest that coaches who go for 1 point most of the time are passing up points. If you score three touchdowns a game and convert two of three 1-point attempts, you score two points. If you score three touchdowns a game and convert two of three 2-pointers, you score four points. Even if you successfully kick all three 1-pointers, you come out behind. The odds favor 2 point attempts almost every time.
Good logic but one unintended consequence of the 2 pt PAT from the 2 yard line.

This will really challenge teams to develop a lot more red zone inside the 3 packages (many of which are in place but never, ever got called). The Lions had one for Buck Pierce years back but IIRC the ONLY time I saw it run it failed due to a Lion offside as BP scrambled to get around the right end from right over Centre on the snap.

Will it lead to teams running out of plays or what the TSN panel calls for - spread it out there and make them cover from sideline to sideline and in depth in the end zone.
Lions have gone 5 of 6 times for the 1pt conversion. the one 2pt convert was one they had to go for late in the game vs SSK. Looks like Tedford didn't pass math in college.

FYI: 2pt conversion is from the 3 yd line
Leone is primarily a punter, so when you have an inexperienced rookie FG kicker it is not a bad idea to get him some extra live action convert kicking. So the convert becomes sort of a practice FG. :beauty:
Post Reply