Two Point Converts.

I was just wondering why it is that Hamilton never makes a good decision as to when to go for the 2 point convert. By going for the single, it ment that at the end of the game all Edmonton needed was a FG to win.

The coaches need a chart telling them when to go for it because they always make the wrong decisions.

I don't disagree with this call, reason being the call was early in the 3rd and the single point factor

it wasn't a given that they would succeed in getting two points either...

the rule of thumb is to only go for 2 when you have too

early in the 3rd qtr is not desperation time, i don't understand why the announcers wanted the cats to go for 2

It was actually early in the 4th. (Tisdale ran from right to left on your TV screen, the same direction Printers was going when he fumbled.)

But that's still too early. Don't start chasing the point.

Going for two is an easy decision in the NFL, where the scoring is much more rigid and predictable.

In the CFL so many things can happen in a short period of time including safeties and singles.

You just don't have that same dynamic in the NFL.

Two point converts Every Time!!! Until 4th Q Then it depends on Score etc

The American Football version of "The Chart" for two-point conversions can be found here:

My rule of thumb is that the coach should go for a two-point conversion whenever it reduces the number of possessions necessary to tie the game if behind. You start "chasing the points" thinking in the fourth quarter, IMHO, so I would have gone for the 2-pointer in that instance on Saturday.

Oski Wee Wee,

Thanks for the comments. I think when you can tie the game up with a two pointer you should do it. Ultimately it put us in bad postion late in the game. I agree getting two points is not a given

Unless you're Mike of the Denver Broncos.

That man has testicular courage to spare.

What a call yesterday. 'Cuz it worked.

He's so tight with his owner Pat Bowlen, he can't be shoehorned. LOL Having that kind of support allows one to haul the ol' grapefruits around to make decisions like that. :wink:

Then there's Lane Kiffin's situation with Al Davis re my Raiders, but I digress. LOL

Oski Wee Wee,

I must have had my TV upside down the whole game :slight_smile:

I once asked Al Bruno (back in the day) why not go for 2 points as a rule after every TD?
He thought that it might be a good idea in the long run, and it would help the short yardage team by having more reps doing it...but overall he thought it was a little too radical.
I wonder if there is a 2 point conversion stat league or even team wide?
If it is over 50% successful you know the math!

I, too, am STUPIFIED by the lack of STRATEGIC ACUMEN displayed by MANY a Coach when it comes to the use of the 2 point convert.

To me it is BASIC FOOTBALL 101 ... If the FAILURE to convert does NOT CHANGE the NUMBER of POSSESSIONS required to LOSE/GAIN the lead then GO FOR IT - EVERYTIME !!

I just WISH they would ELIMINATE the single point convert ALTOGETHER !! It is the MOST BORING, USELESS, MUNDANE feature of the entire GAME ... but that is another RANT.


I am all over that.

7 points for a TD.
8 points if you can score from the 5 instead of kicking the convert.

Meanstreak you are on to something here!!!

For those of you keeping track of such things:
238 converts attempted
237 converts good
99.57983% success rate = waste of time!!!

no. They should not do away with the single. They should just move the goal posts to the back of the 20 yrd endzone and move the convert kick 5 yrds back. That way its less of a sure thing.

Side benifit, takes away midfield FG attempts. Teams should have to get inside the 30 for a reasonable chance at a FG.

That would take away one of the greatest parts of our unique game!
Being able to run back a missed FG is one of the most exciting plays in the CFL!
We do not want to get rid of that!!

that would not happen,they would still try longer ones sometimes and be short. With the number of punt and kickoff returns in a game, a few less FG returns would not be noticed much, let alone missed. There is not that many returns per game anyhow. Many are conceded for a single, and many others dont get very far. I would not be much of a loss, compared to the gains.

You’re reinventing a wheel that’s been tried. :wink:

Re the WFL:

“Conversions were called “Action Points” and could only be scored via a run or pass play (as opposed to by kick as in other football leagues), and were worth one point. The ball was placed on the five yard line for an Action Point. The XFL employed a similar rule 27 years later.”

[url=] ... ague#Rules[/url]

I’m a traditionalist on this point. I think that the CFL’s emphasis on special teams is a key feature of its attractiveness. That includes kicking FGs and converts AND rouges.

Oski Wee Wee,