My Annual PAT Rant

So far this year, according to the stats on this site there have been 216 XP's attempted and 216 XP's made ...

The PAT is a completely useless, utterly boring, and totally perfunctory play. The time is long overdue for it to be abolished.

Put the ball on the 3 yard line, and make teams go for 2 points after a TD. It would add another dimension to the game which has heretofore never, ever been experienced in the history of football.

For the life of me - I cannot think of one good reason to keep the PAT in the CFL game. In fact, I go insane trying to come up with any justification whatsoever for it.

End rant. See you next year.


admittedly, a compulsory two point scrimmage play would be much more engaging/dramatic for the fans than the conventional PAT.
personally, I would be in support of said change, although believe the ball should be placed at the 5 yard line.

I would be in support of said change,
You are one of very few ... If this thread gains traction - you will see just how unpopular this idea is. Again, for whatever stubborn reasons - people just can't get their head around what an exciting innovation this would be.
although believe the ball should be placed at the 5 yard line.
tangled ... the reason behind the 3 yard line is as follows : A good to above average running back averages 4 plus yards per carry ... very few teams average more than 5 yards per carry ... placement on the 3 yard line would make a running play a realistic / viable option, and therefore keep defenses honest ... with a 5 yard line placement I believe there would be an overwhelming tendency to pass for the 2 points - thereby limiting strategical / tactical decisions and reducing the drama we are attempting to create.


understandable take FA
The current two point convert is placed on the 5 yard line and more often entails a pass play which is thrilling nonetheless.

Your argument does have some rationale and deserves contemplation though.

This would be great for the CFL just as proposed by Flying A. :thup: Rant away.

I could have sworn there was one missed PAT this year. Either way, a 99.7% success ratio is still boring. :stuck_out_tongue: I like this idea.

Using the stats available at this site ... going back to 2005 - there have been 2607 PAT attempted and 2598 PAT made (9 missed for those arithmetically challenged). As observed above - that is a 99.7 % success rate. It is the very definition of perfunctory !!

It boggles my mind when I think of all of those potential football plays missed out on over the years. All of those momentum swinging, game changing, chest beating, RELEVANT plays !!!

For those who support the single extra point I ask the following ... How many of the aforementioned 2607 PAT were ever shown on a highlight reel package ? How many made the TSN Honor Roll, or Play of the Night ? Why does there not exist a DVD of the 100 greatest extra point attempts ?

These questions, of course, are rhetorical - because there is absolutely nothing exciting, or even remotely interesting about a single extra point attempt. There is, simply, no good reason for the CFL to hang on to this entirely irrelevant play. PERIOD.

Okay, now the rant is officially over.


The PAT evolved from rugby like the rest of the basics of the game so why not incorporate the rugby style of PAT. Have the ball spotted on the 3 yard line straight back from where they broke the plane of the goal for a touchdown. By going to the 3 it would make running plays more of an option, as already stated, and would make the kick less of a gaurantee when the ball was spotted closer to the sidelines. Also use more than the standard hash marks for spotting the ball for the PAT so it could be placed as far out from centre as possible to stay in line with where the player crossed the goal line.

I would be open to seeing changes to the PAT. I'm always several minutes behind a broadcast because I rewind to create my own highlights or rewatch a certain play so when a touchdown is scored I immediately fast forward because I know there will be a PAT that is made then 2 commercials. Rarely watch the PAT.

I thought I recalled the TiCats botching 1 this season.

Since the Rugby World Cup last year, I've been paying more attention to that sport, which also has conversions. I was surprised when I realized that they weren't an automatic 2 points after a try (a try, corresponding to our touchdowns is still worth only 5, like it used to be in Canadian and American football).

Rather than getting field position that makes the conversion automatic, like in the North American games, the ball is placed anywhere on the line parallel to the sidelines (touch lines in rugby terminology) through the point where the ball was grounded (or "downed" in our terminology, except that the ball is required to actually touch the ground). If the ball is ground far enough from centre, the kick is harder to make. A rule like that could make the PAT less automatic.

I don't see us moving towards the rugby rule, though (especially since the ball is always snapped from within or on the hash marks in gridiron). So, we could skip the convert altogether and make a touchdown worth an automatic 7 points, but give the teams an option of another offensive play from the 3 yard line which, if successful, would earn 1 more point and if unsuccessful would lose 1 point. This would make things effectively the same as now, but without the time spent on the convert.

How about taking a page out of the Touch Football rule book. Abolish the PAT and replace it with a 1 point try from the 5 and a 2 point try from the 10.

even better.
A true incentive laden rule right there.

Not sure where you're from, but they're actually called Conversions or Converts, not Pat's?

Lining up directly in front of the goal posts was borrowed from the American game. Traditionally in Canadian football the conversion was attempted from the spot on the field where the scorer crossed the goal line...but back 15 yards. They should go back to this to make converts more of a challenge.

Maybe make them allowed only with a drop kick or punt (take away the place kick option), that would make them less automatic. :wink:

Successful ones, i.e. almost all of them, are frequently called Point After Touchdown. PAT is an acronym. In the rulebook for the NFL, the official term for the conversion or convert is actually "try" (not to be confused with "try" in rugby). See section 40 here, ... 20Book.pdf

I would support eliminating the kicked convert (unless it was drop-kicked) and making teams try to score on an offensive play.

What's even worse than the certain success of converts, IMO, is the fact that at some point in the past the timing rules were changed and the clock now continues running during convert attempts (except in the final three minutes of a half). Over the course of a game this wastes several minutes that could have been spent on actual game action. It is one of the reasons that teams run fewer offensive plays in a game than they did 30 years ago. Another reason is the decision to start the 20-second clock only when the ref decides both teams have their personnel sorted out. This was done, I assume, to accommodate coaches who wanted to make more substitutions to take advantage of larger rosters, but what it means is that plays often take place 35-45 seconds apart (on the game clock) rather than the 20-30 seconds it used to take under the old clock rules. So teams now run 45-55 plays a game whereas in the 1980s it was typically closer to 55-65.

Touchdown’s still need to be worth 7. (or potentially worth 7)

The problem I see with 1 point from the 5, 2 points from the 10, Is that every team is just going to go for 2. No matter what.

Drop kick seems like an interesting alternative. But probably won’t fly.

My suggestion is simple. Give the teams the choice.

After a touchdown, ask the coach/team captain. What they want to do? 7 for the TD or 6 points and go for 2 extra?

This still balances risk vs reward and eliminates a play that is completely useless.

I seem to recall someone suggesting an "action point" a few years ago on here... :twisted:

then there is lingerie style



I still think they should move the goal posts to the back of the endzone, then the convert wouldnt be so automatic.

or just leave them where they are and move the PK's line of scrimmage back.

My solution is:

After every TD, give the scoring team the option to either tack on an extra point automatically (bringing it up to 7) or go for the two-point convert.

As it stands now, touchdowns are worth 7 points. Yes, technically they're only worth 6, but in reality (216 / 216 TDs converted), they're worth seven. Get rid of the stupid PAT and save everyone the trouble. Make TDs worth 7 by default, and 8 only if teams are in a gambling mood.

Edit: apologies. Several posters have already made my suggestion. :slight_smile: