![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Safety (gridiron football score) has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 9, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
The article isn't completely clear. Can a one point saftey only be scored following a PAT try?
What about other plays from scrimmage? Specifically: a defensive player intercepts the ball at the 1yd line and then carrys the ball back into his own end zone where he is tackled. What is the result of this play? - 51.7.144.71 ( talk) 09:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be split into two separate articles, since the word means two totally different things in American football? Miraculouschaos 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The NFL also has a one-point safety rule on conversion attempts. However, a one-point safety would be almost impossible in the NFL, since the ball becomes dead immediately if the defense gains possession of it during a conversion attempt. If someone could explain how this would occur (is it truly impossible or is there a way for it to occur?) If there isn't, the wording should be changed to just "impossible". I tried to explain the way it is done but I guess I was in the wrong. I'm curious to know DOAsaturn 18:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The article suggests that if a turnover occurs on a conversion attempt, and the defensive team advances the ball and scores, that this play is considered a safety (in college and Canadian football, where the defense may advance the ball on a conversion). Is this correct? I've never heard such a play referred to, or credited as, a safety--safeties only occur when the offensive team--maintaining possession--is forced to down the ball inside their own end zone (or loses it out of bounds, etc). -- EngineerScotty 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, if the offense commits a holding penalty in their own end zone then that results in a safety. The same may be true of intentional grounding, but I'm not sure. I looked at the NFL rules on safeties and the only conditions it lays out for a safety in that situation is "Offensive team commits a foul and spot of enforcement is behind its own goal line". That seemed pretty vague at first, but I think it's jogged my memory and now I'm thinking that any offensive penalty committed in the end zone results in a safety. Perhaps someone who is positive about the rules could add a couple sentences about this?
Also, in the third paragraph of the Safeties on conversion attempts section it says "Another scenario would be if Team B had blocked the [extra point] and began to run it back for two points, but at the last moment a pursuer from Team A knocked the ball loose. If he were to pick up the ball, run into the endzone and be tackled, Team B would score one point, and the score would then be 6-1." Just to clarify, that would be the resulting score if the player on Team A who recovered the ball mistakenly ran into and was tackled in Team B's end zone? It's a little unclear. There's a couple of places in this article where it says "the end zone" without being specific about which end zone, and even as a lifelong football fan I had to think for a second as to which one it was talking about. That might be even more confusing for readers who aren't very familar with the game. BACON 04:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed this from the article, because it doesn't make any sense: "In order for the offense to score a one-point safety, a member of the defensive team would have to intentionally bat a fumble into the endzone (over 90 yards away) without taking possession of the ball." On a touchdown conversion attempt, the DEFENDER'S end zone wouldn't be 90 yards away, it would be just a few yards "behind" them! You score a safety in your own end zone, not in the one downfield. User:68.161.28.157 13:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
In the NCAA, conversions would score as follows: Team B recovers turnover and scores in opposite endzone = 2 points for Team B (score is 6-2);
Team B recovers turnover but is tackled in its own endzone = 1 point for Team A (score is 7-0);
Team A somehow gets tackled all the way back in its own endzone = 1 point for Team B (score is 6-1) ScottSwan 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Think of "the try" as a condensed, one-third version of a regular scrimmage. Think about it. On the try, a "touchdown" play is worth 6/3 points, or 2. A "field goal" play is worth 3/3 of a point, or 1. A "safety" play is worth 2/3 point, but we round to the nearest integer, and you get 1. In addition, you don't get four downs to score, you get 4/3 downs, which rounds off to one down. Does that make it all clearer? Ehh, I thought not! WHPratt ( talk) 00:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Additionally, you don't have 10 yards to gain, but rather 10/3 or 3.33, which rounds down to 3 (not 2, as the NFL uses). So, NCAA has it right. ;) WHPratt ( talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw a game this year with what I think may be a new and very clever strategy involving an elective safety. It is not something that will come up in a game often but may be of interest to football geeks. What's different about it is that it involves the team trailing giving up a safety. Since it is fairly obscure I leave it to you regulars whether to add it to the elective safety strategy section.
On November 18, 2006, UAB trailed Southern Miss by 3 points late in the game. UAB faced a 4th and long from their own 2 with under a minute to go. If they couldn't gain 37 yards Southern Miss would take over on downs and run out the clock. The quarterback got the ball, ran into the endzone, and went through his receivers. None were open for the necessary yardage so he took a safety with 38 seconds to go. Game over and Southern Miss wins by 5 right? No! UAB apparently set up this play realizing they could get another shot at winning the game even if unsuccessful on 4th down by taking the safety and going for an onside kick on their free kick. They didn't recover it. But it was a clever strategy to give yourself another shot at the game if converting the 4th down looked hopeless. James 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
We may have seen a new facet in elective safeties tonight. With the Green Bay Packers deep in their end, the Minnesota Vikings (who led 28-14) recovered a fumble, and should have been first-and-goal and ready to put the game away. The Packers challenged the play, and succeeded in getting a safety ruled, thus giving away two points, but avoiding a certain 3 or near-certain 7, and mathematically staying alive at 30-14 with a kickoff. Rather sad, but reasonable. WHPratt ( talk) 03:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I should add that the strategy almost worked. Green Bay scored next and could have closed the gap to 8 points with a successful 2-point conversion. That failed, but they still had time for a field goal and a fighting chance at an onside kick, ultimately losing 30-23. Had they not used their challenge to get a self-inflicted, ex post facto safety none of this would have mattered had Minnesota added any points at all. WHPratt ( talk) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I changed the following sentence: "American teams typically only take a safety on purpose if they are winning by 3 to 8 points very late in the game and do not want to risk giving up a touchdown on a blocked or muffed punt from their own end zone." The point spreads of 3 and 8 don't make sense, since the safety would hurt the team taking it intentionally. A 6 point spread, however, would make the safety almost irrelevant, as NFL kickers almost always make extra points. Dave6 09:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Lead | Score needed by trailing team |
---|---|
1 | Field goal to win |
2 | Field goal to win |
3 | FG to tie, TD to win |
4 | TD to win |
5 | TD to win |
6 | TD to win (unless kicker misses PAT - rare) |
7 | TD and 1 point conversion to tie |
8 | TD and 2 point conversion to tie |
9+ | Need 2 scores to win or tie |
Dave6 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't the Colts take an elective safety in a playoff game versus New England? I seem to recall, but am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.31.2 ( talk) 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the changes made by User:24.174.14.12 because IMO neither added anything of value to the article. Yes, if the blocked-kick "conversion safety" scenario had occurred on a field goal instead of a PAT, it would have been worth two points instead of one, but we make that clear throughout the section and the article. The confusion surrounding the Texas-TA&M conversion safety is irrelevant; we're just citing it as an example and the user can click through to the link for details. Dpiranha 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The rule used to be ruled as such: If a player takes possession of the ball in the end-zone an immediate imaginary line should be drawn the width of the field. This line impacted the ruling as to weather or not a player was showing intent to leave the end-zone. If the player crossed this line without taking a knee, basically showing intent to leave the end-zone, it would be ruled a safety if he was tackled. Somehow this rule has gone by the way side most likely due to the difficulty in making a proper ruling. -- 206.168.96.120
Until the AFL-NFL merger, all NFL conversion attempts - kicking, or running, or this "conversion safety" scenario - counted as a single point. Actually that was the case until well after the merger - merger in 1970, 2-pt conversion adopted in 1994. Gr8white ( talk) 08:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Aren't free kicks termed as such because the kick is not contested at the line of scrimmage? Kickoffs, Safety Kicks, and the uber-obscure Fair catch kick are the other Free Kicks. Behold the NFL Rulebook on the subject:
1 In addition to a kickoff, the other free kick is a kick after a safety (safety kick). A punt may be used (a punt may not be used on a kickoff).
2 On a safety kick, the team scored upon puts ball in play by a punt, dropkick, or placekick without tee. No score can be made on a free kick following a safety, even if a series of penalties places team in position. (A field goal can be scored only on a play from scrimmage or a free kick after a fair catch.)
That's not quite right either, because it ignores the Fair catch kick (maybe for clarity, but it's pretty clear the very rare Fair catch kick is a free kick).
There are slightly different rules about how the three types of free kicks may be kicked, but the common thread that separates them from "non-free" kicks (punts and field goals from scrimmage) is the lack of a normal scrimmage or down. That is, the opposing team is backed off.
In my opinion, it's slightly unfortunate that Free Kick redirects to Safety, but given the extremely minor nature of this football terminology, understandable. But if that's the case, the definition of a free kick here ought to be correct. I shall change it. -- rcousine ( talk) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting table, but please sort it by date, or by something! WHPratt ( talk) 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
is it possible to get two safeties at once, like if there was a holding call, and then a grounding call on the same play? 98.212.3.189 ( talk) 05:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This statement needs to be clarified: "A safety is the only score that can be awarded based on a judgment call (a penalty)."
Any touchdown is arguably a "judgment call." The same is true of any field goal (did the ball go over the crossbar and between the uprights?). As far as points being awarded by penalty, I believe sideline interference can also result in a touchdown being awarded if the officials believe that the interfering player (or coach) on the sideline prevented what would have otherwise been a touchdown. 66.234.218.146 ( talk) 06:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
For your information, the 1954 Cotton Bowl had a sideline-interference incident, in which ball-carrier Dicky Moegle was tackled by Tommy Lewis, who, without putting on his helmet, came off the bench for such purpose. The referee saw what happened and awarded a touchdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It is still possible, although extremely unlikely, for a forward pass to hit a team's own goalpost. It would require the passer to stand just in front of the back line, extend his arm behind himself and well over the line, and throw slightly forward and mostly up. The most likely circumstance for this to happen is if he's hit while throwing. Another remote possibility is for a pass to be deflected and hit the goalpost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisMaple ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think a pass remains a pass even if it is batted. Sometimes you hear a pass being incomplete when it's batted down. But further down on this page, I recalled that a pass was batted up in the air in the end zone, and the quarterback was able to get to the ball and bat it out of the end zone. And I recall that Roger Staubach (still playing for Navy?) had a pass batted up in the air; he caught it, threw it again, and drew a penalty call for throwing that 2nd pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Brad Johnson, Minnesota vs Carolina, 1997
Marcus Mariota, Tennessee vs Kansas City, 2018, AFC Wild Card Game
See:
https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/17536/quarterback-pass-to-self
WHPratt (
talk)
12:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This article is starting to suffer from example inflation, where everyone wants to add another example. There's really no reason to have more than one example to illustrate each topic. For example there are now five examples for "clock time". And as another example, there are three examples for "field position"... Gr8white ( talk) 01:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Notice this:
The "unintentional" intentional safety
I don't think I understand your use of "intentional". I was able to get to video of this play, and I was able to see the ball leave the end zone (heading toward the 1 yard line), and then being grabbed by the return man, who knelt down for what he apparently thought was a touchback. It seems he didn't fully realize where the ball was and the implications of where it was. (In case the title in the wikipedia article gets changed, this is referring to a game of 1 Jan 2012.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Today, I shortened the article slightly (noting that "out of the end zone" usually means out of bounds behind one's own goal line). What was Green Bay's challenge about? At the start of this play, Green Bay was down 7-0; because of the safety, they then had to free-kick from their 20 instead of starting their own drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now been to the NFL site. Because I couldn't figure out how to get to regular-season week 17, I got to that game via Green Bay Packers team page. It says the play was challenged by the Replay Assistant (not Green Bay), and also it says the return man was tackled (we see he was NOT). I don't know how to send feedback regarding the NFL site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 18:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
(Followup: I have now gotten to "Contact Us" on NFL site, and I have complained about week 17 and about the writeup of this safety; latter item is because, as said above, the return man was not tackled.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Shall I go ahead and edit in title something like "Safety, not touchback"? Taking an apparent touchback and having it ruled a safety instead is unusual enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 15:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Having seen "After a loose ball", I recall seeing on TV a play where a quarterback tried to pass from his own end zone. The ball was batted up in the air, and the quarterback, being physically able to reach the ball, had the presence of mind to bat it out of the end zone so that neither a safety nor a TD would be scored; the result was just an incomplete pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 17:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I am seeing changes of today (Nov. 14) which split the notable safeties (such as Jim Marshall's wrong-way run of 1964) into a new article. Where is the link to that article from the one I am currently writing about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 19:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok I was at "List of Safety records" before comng here. It states in the Superbowl a Safety has occurred an average of every 5 Superbowls. By contrast - from http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&season=2013&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=false&Submit=Go, there were only 32 safeties total in all of the 2013 regular season Wfoj3 ( talk) 00:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
For reasons only explained as "overhauling," some interesting material — why a team might choose to intentionally draw a safety — was removed in a 14 November 2012 edit. I recognize that it may have been overly lengthy, but I think it contained some valuable information and that the examples were insightful.
I'm adding it back for now, as the deleted content wasn't transferred along with the Notable Safeties section to the List of safety records article. MattSoave ( talk) 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I admit the concept of a conversion safety is new to me, but I think some people are confused about the difference between an offensive and a defensive conversion safety. An offensive conversion safety is what we just saw in the fiesta bowl where Oregon (the offensive team) was kicking the extra point, it was recovered by Kansas State (the defensive team) in the field of play and taken back into their own end zone where the defensive player was downed by the offensive team, thus the offensive team scored an offensive conversion safety.
In contrast, a defensive conversion safety would have been if Kansas State (the defensive team) had managed to run the ball all the way back to almost the other end of the field near the Oregon end zone, had fumbled the ball, Oregon recovered in the field of play, took it back into their own end zone and then was downed, thus the defensive (non-kicking) team would have scored a defensive conversion safety. A highly unlikely series of events, which is why it has never happened in a game. Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Both are correct as listed. In the Fiesta Bowl, a offensive safety was awarded because the score was given TO the offense and against the defense, in this case Kansas State. They were downed in possession in their own end zone after having blocked the kick. In the UT-A&M game the snap was fumbled and run back 97 yards by the defense, awarding the point against the offense (A&M) who fumbled the ball and lost possession. In both cases the post is correct. The Fiesta Bowl was an offensive safety because the offense was awarded the point and in the Nov. 2004 game it was a defensive safety because the defense was awarded the point, just as in a normal safety. I looked it up in the NCAA records and statistics book and the UT - A&M game and the Fiesta Bowl are both correct and are the only ones on record in Division one. This is correct on both. Look it up if you don't believe me, and next time check your research BEFORE you go editing other people's contributions back to what you think is correct. Find out for sure first, please. The Moody Blue (Talk) 04:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a list of ALL collegiate conversion safeties at all levels of competition. http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/08/one-point-safety.html The Moody Blue (Talk) 05:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a video of the UT-A&M conversion safety: [1]. As you can see, UT scored both the touchdown and the one-point safety, so it was an offensive conversion safety. There was no 97-yard run. I'm no football expert, but I believe it is true that there has never been a defensive conversion safety. Ravi12346 ( talk) 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
"next time check your research BEFORE you go editing other people's contributions back to what you think is correct." Hey Themoodyblue, you going to man up and apologize or you going to continue to be a jerk? I posted the damn video as a reference and you still changed it. The blog you supplied doesn't even describe the play the way you do. AND you got the date wrong. 70.26.61.115 ( talk) 05:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Alright now, I don't think this discussion needs to be escalated any more. We've established that both the UT-A&M game and the Fiesta Bowl had offensive conversion safeties, and that's all we need to know. Just to remind everyone: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Ravi12346 ( talk) 05:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem with using the phrase "Conversion safety", especially as a title. This is NOT an official term, and it does not exist anywhere within the official NFL Rulebook or the NCAA rulebook. It's just a made-up phrase designed to help people to understand the concept. I would suggest that the title of this section be changed to something along the lines of "Safeties on conversion attempts", etc. ScottSwan ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, a team which returns the ball and performs a drop-kick could theoretically get one point. But I don't know enough about the drop-kick to comment on which levels of football this would be legal. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The very last line on the current article refers to "the kicking team" in reference to the conversion safety scored by the defence. I am not an expert but would it not be more accurate to say "the team attempting the conversion," since this would apply in the case of either a PAT or a 2-point conversion attempt? Petermgiles ( talk) 15:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is not clear about which team gets the two points. Is it the offensive team that gets only two instead of seven because it was tackled, or the defensive that gets two for tackling?— msh210℠ 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Albacore ( talk · contribs) 12:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks good other than those small issues. Albacore ( talk) 15:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reception (American football) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The one-point safety is known to have happened 12 times in college football. The first time was a point scored by Syracuse in 1971 on a ball-batting penalty by Indiana. It's happened two more recent times in Division I-A (FBS), once in I-AA (FCS), once in Division II, 4 times in Division III (including the most recent occurrence in history in the 2013 Bluffton vs. Franklin game), once in NAIA, and twice in junior colleges in California.
The date of that first game was October 2, 1971, in Bloomington, Indiana. Various descriptions of the play appeared in the next day's Indiana Sunday newspapers but did not use the term "one-point safety" (see "Hungry Crowd", "Feelings Mixed" and "Indiana Blanked"). It appears that within a day or two, the play had been characterized as a one-point safety in a post-game explanation of the ruling, because that's when an AP syndicated football column described it as a one-point safety (see "College Football Notes"):
Relevant ARs from the 2016 NCAA rulebook include:
Did AR 9-4-1-II and AR 9-4-1-V exist in 1971? Unless there were different rules in 1971 (there were; see below), it seems that the referees either (1) incorrectly called a safety thinking that an Indiana player, not a Syracuse player, had fallen on the batted ball, or (2) awarded a safety believing that the ball, having been batted by Indiana, had gone out of the end zone before it was next touched (similar to the pre-2015 NFL rule), or (3) egregiously awarded one point instead of two for the try touchdown (as the Sunday Bedford Daily Times news article suggests).
It is obvious that the characterization of any scoring play must correspond to the rulebook's point values awarded by the referees. In this case the score awarded was one point to Syracuse. The point could not be attributed to a successful try, because the try attempt by Syracuse was certainly not successful, either physically or by rule.
The point could also not be attributed to a try touchdown because of the fact that only one point was awarded, not two points. (Awarding one point for a score that is supposed to be two points by rule would be an egregious made-up thing and not simply a rule interpretation.) The only other plausible ruling relevant to the actual try attempt witnessed on the field carried a value of one point, matching the official award of one point to Syracuse. Of course, that was the one-point safety.
Once the referee whistles the game over, the score of the game cannot be changed. Calls and non-calls can't be retroactively fixed. A not good try remains a not good try, and a one-point try touchdown remains an imaginary thing.
The referees' award of one point to Syracuse stood at the final gun, attributed to the only appropriate thing, a one-point safety, even if the application of the rule to what happened on the field might have been a bit incorrect. As a comparison, in 1988 the first defensive two-point try touchdown (two-point conversion) scored in a college game went into the record book despite that it should have been blown dead as a grounded fumble recovery. It stood as a two-pointer at the end of that game, so that is what it remains to this day.
The above is construed upon the 2016 NCAA football rules. Upon review of the rules in effect in 1970, it appears that the officials made a correct ruling exactly in accord with the rules of the time. The relevant rules are as follows.
1970 NCAA Official Football Rules
Rule 9 Section 4 "Batting and Kicking"
Rule 8 Section 5 "Safety and Touchback"
Rule 10 Section 2 "Enforcement Procedures"
1970 NCAA Official Football Rule Interpretations
The Try (pages 59--60)
"Batting and Kicking" (page 70)
Jeff in CA ( talk) 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paco2718 ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The article states: "scoring play that results in two points being awarded to the scoring team", but does not define who the scoring team is. 2600:4040:54B0:5C00:8865:C4E3:CDE7:6FD4 ( talk) 15:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Safety (gridiron football score) has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 9, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
The article isn't completely clear. Can a one point saftey only be scored following a PAT try?
What about other plays from scrimmage? Specifically: a defensive player intercepts the ball at the 1yd line and then carrys the ball back into his own end zone where he is tackled. What is the result of this play? - 51.7.144.71 ( talk) 09:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be split into two separate articles, since the word means two totally different things in American football? Miraculouschaos 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The NFL also has a one-point safety rule on conversion attempts. However, a one-point safety would be almost impossible in the NFL, since the ball becomes dead immediately if the defense gains possession of it during a conversion attempt. If someone could explain how this would occur (is it truly impossible or is there a way for it to occur?) If there isn't, the wording should be changed to just "impossible". I tried to explain the way it is done but I guess I was in the wrong. I'm curious to know DOAsaturn 18:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The article suggests that if a turnover occurs on a conversion attempt, and the defensive team advances the ball and scores, that this play is considered a safety (in college and Canadian football, where the defense may advance the ball on a conversion). Is this correct? I've never heard such a play referred to, or credited as, a safety--safeties only occur when the offensive team--maintaining possession--is forced to down the ball inside their own end zone (or loses it out of bounds, etc). -- EngineerScotty 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, if the offense commits a holding penalty in their own end zone then that results in a safety. The same may be true of intentional grounding, but I'm not sure. I looked at the NFL rules on safeties and the only conditions it lays out for a safety in that situation is "Offensive team commits a foul and spot of enforcement is behind its own goal line". That seemed pretty vague at first, but I think it's jogged my memory and now I'm thinking that any offensive penalty committed in the end zone results in a safety. Perhaps someone who is positive about the rules could add a couple sentences about this?
Also, in the third paragraph of the Safeties on conversion attempts section it says "Another scenario would be if Team B had blocked the [extra point] and began to run it back for two points, but at the last moment a pursuer from Team A knocked the ball loose. If he were to pick up the ball, run into the endzone and be tackled, Team B would score one point, and the score would then be 6-1." Just to clarify, that would be the resulting score if the player on Team A who recovered the ball mistakenly ran into and was tackled in Team B's end zone? It's a little unclear. There's a couple of places in this article where it says "the end zone" without being specific about which end zone, and even as a lifelong football fan I had to think for a second as to which one it was talking about. That might be even more confusing for readers who aren't very familar with the game. BACON 04:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed this from the article, because it doesn't make any sense: "In order for the offense to score a one-point safety, a member of the defensive team would have to intentionally bat a fumble into the endzone (over 90 yards away) without taking possession of the ball." On a touchdown conversion attempt, the DEFENDER'S end zone wouldn't be 90 yards away, it would be just a few yards "behind" them! You score a safety in your own end zone, not in the one downfield. User:68.161.28.157 13:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
In the NCAA, conversions would score as follows: Team B recovers turnover and scores in opposite endzone = 2 points for Team B (score is 6-2);
Team B recovers turnover but is tackled in its own endzone = 1 point for Team A (score is 7-0);
Team A somehow gets tackled all the way back in its own endzone = 1 point for Team B (score is 6-1) ScottSwan 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Think of "the try" as a condensed, one-third version of a regular scrimmage. Think about it. On the try, a "touchdown" play is worth 6/3 points, or 2. A "field goal" play is worth 3/3 of a point, or 1. A "safety" play is worth 2/3 point, but we round to the nearest integer, and you get 1. In addition, you don't get four downs to score, you get 4/3 downs, which rounds off to one down. Does that make it all clearer? Ehh, I thought not! WHPratt ( talk) 00:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Additionally, you don't have 10 yards to gain, but rather 10/3 or 3.33, which rounds down to 3 (not 2, as the NFL uses). So, NCAA has it right. ;) WHPratt ( talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw a game this year with what I think may be a new and very clever strategy involving an elective safety. It is not something that will come up in a game often but may be of interest to football geeks. What's different about it is that it involves the team trailing giving up a safety. Since it is fairly obscure I leave it to you regulars whether to add it to the elective safety strategy section.
On November 18, 2006, UAB trailed Southern Miss by 3 points late in the game. UAB faced a 4th and long from their own 2 with under a minute to go. If they couldn't gain 37 yards Southern Miss would take over on downs and run out the clock. The quarterback got the ball, ran into the endzone, and went through his receivers. None were open for the necessary yardage so he took a safety with 38 seconds to go. Game over and Southern Miss wins by 5 right? No! UAB apparently set up this play realizing they could get another shot at winning the game even if unsuccessful on 4th down by taking the safety and going for an onside kick on their free kick. They didn't recover it. But it was a clever strategy to give yourself another shot at the game if converting the 4th down looked hopeless. James 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
We may have seen a new facet in elective safeties tonight. With the Green Bay Packers deep in their end, the Minnesota Vikings (who led 28-14) recovered a fumble, and should have been first-and-goal and ready to put the game away. The Packers challenged the play, and succeeded in getting a safety ruled, thus giving away two points, but avoiding a certain 3 or near-certain 7, and mathematically staying alive at 30-14 with a kickoff. Rather sad, but reasonable. WHPratt ( talk) 03:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I should add that the strategy almost worked. Green Bay scored next and could have closed the gap to 8 points with a successful 2-point conversion. That failed, but they still had time for a field goal and a fighting chance at an onside kick, ultimately losing 30-23. Had they not used their challenge to get a self-inflicted, ex post facto safety none of this would have mattered had Minnesota added any points at all. WHPratt ( talk) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I changed the following sentence: "American teams typically only take a safety on purpose if they are winning by 3 to 8 points very late in the game and do not want to risk giving up a touchdown on a blocked or muffed punt from their own end zone." The point spreads of 3 and 8 don't make sense, since the safety would hurt the team taking it intentionally. A 6 point spread, however, would make the safety almost irrelevant, as NFL kickers almost always make extra points. Dave6 09:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Lead | Score needed by trailing team |
---|---|
1 | Field goal to win |
2 | Field goal to win |
3 | FG to tie, TD to win |
4 | TD to win |
5 | TD to win |
6 | TD to win (unless kicker misses PAT - rare) |
7 | TD and 1 point conversion to tie |
8 | TD and 2 point conversion to tie |
9+ | Need 2 scores to win or tie |
Dave6 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't the Colts take an elective safety in a playoff game versus New England? I seem to recall, but am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.31.2 ( talk) 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the changes made by User:24.174.14.12 because IMO neither added anything of value to the article. Yes, if the blocked-kick "conversion safety" scenario had occurred on a field goal instead of a PAT, it would have been worth two points instead of one, but we make that clear throughout the section and the article. The confusion surrounding the Texas-TA&M conversion safety is irrelevant; we're just citing it as an example and the user can click through to the link for details. Dpiranha 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The rule used to be ruled as such: If a player takes possession of the ball in the end-zone an immediate imaginary line should be drawn the width of the field. This line impacted the ruling as to weather or not a player was showing intent to leave the end-zone. If the player crossed this line without taking a knee, basically showing intent to leave the end-zone, it would be ruled a safety if he was tackled. Somehow this rule has gone by the way side most likely due to the difficulty in making a proper ruling. -- 206.168.96.120
Until the AFL-NFL merger, all NFL conversion attempts - kicking, or running, or this "conversion safety" scenario - counted as a single point. Actually that was the case until well after the merger - merger in 1970, 2-pt conversion adopted in 1994. Gr8white ( talk) 08:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Aren't free kicks termed as such because the kick is not contested at the line of scrimmage? Kickoffs, Safety Kicks, and the uber-obscure Fair catch kick are the other Free Kicks. Behold the NFL Rulebook on the subject:
1 In addition to a kickoff, the other free kick is a kick after a safety (safety kick). A punt may be used (a punt may not be used on a kickoff).
2 On a safety kick, the team scored upon puts ball in play by a punt, dropkick, or placekick without tee. No score can be made on a free kick following a safety, even if a series of penalties places team in position. (A field goal can be scored only on a play from scrimmage or a free kick after a fair catch.)
That's not quite right either, because it ignores the Fair catch kick (maybe for clarity, but it's pretty clear the very rare Fair catch kick is a free kick).
There are slightly different rules about how the three types of free kicks may be kicked, but the common thread that separates them from "non-free" kicks (punts and field goals from scrimmage) is the lack of a normal scrimmage or down. That is, the opposing team is backed off.
In my opinion, it's slightly unfortunate that Free Kick redirects to Safety, but given the extremely minor nature of this football terminology, understandable. But if that's the case, the definition of a free kick here ought to be correct. I shall change it. -- rcousine ( talk) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting table, but please sort it by date, or by something! WHPratt ( talk) 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
is it possible to get two safeties at once, like if there was a holding call, and then a grounding call on the same play? 98.212.3.189 ( talk) 05:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This statement needs to be clarified: "A safety is the only score that can be awarded based on a judgment call (a penalty)."
Any touchdown is arguably a "judgment call." The same is true of any field goal (did the ball go over the crossbar and between the uprights?). As far as points being awarded by penalty, I believe sideline interference can also result in a touchdown being awarded if the officials believe that the interfering player (or coach) on the sideline prevented what would have otherwise been a touchdown. 66.234.218.146 ( talk) 06:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
For your information, the 1954 Cotton Bowl had a sideline-interference incident, in which ball-carrier Dicky Moegle was tackled by Tommy Lewis, who, without putting on his helmet, came off the bench for such purpose. The referee saw what happened and awarded a touchdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It is still possible, although extremely unlikely, for a forward pass to hit a team's own goalpost. It would require the passer to stand just in front of the back line, extend his arm behind himself and well over the line, and throw slightly forward and mostly up. The most likely circumstance for this to happen is if he's hit while throwing. Another remote possibility is for a pass to be deflected and hit the goalpost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisMaple ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think a pass remains a pass even if it is batted. Sometimes you hear a pass being incomplete when it's batted down. But further down on this page, I recalled that a pass was batted up in the air in the end zone, and the quarterback was able to get to the ball and bat it out of the end zone. And I recall that Roger Staubach (still playing for Navy?) had a pass batted up in the air; he caught it, threw it again, and drew a penalty call for throwing that 2nd pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Brad Johnson, Minnesota vs Carolina, 1997
Marcus Mariota, Tennessee vs Kansas City, 2018, AFC Wild Card Game
See:
https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/17536/quarterback-pass-to-self
WHPratt (
talk)
12:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This article is starting to suffer from example inflation, where everyone wants to add another example. There's really no reason to have more than one example to illustrate each topic. For example there are now five examples for "clock time". And as another example, there are three examples for "field position"... Gr8white ( talk) 01:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Notice this:
The "unintentional" intentional safety
I don't think I understand your use of "intentional". I was able to get to video of this play, and I was able to see the ball leave the end zone (heading toward the 1 yard line), and then being grabbed by the return man, who knelt down for what he apparently thought was a touchback. It seems he didn't fully realize where the ball was and the implications of where it was. (In case the title in the wikipedia article gets changed, this is referring to a game of 1 Jan 2012.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Today, I shortened the article slightly (noting that "out of the end zone" usually means out of bounds behind one's own goal line). What was Green Bay's challenge about? At the start of this play, Green Bay was down 7-0; because of the safety, they then had to free-kick from their 20 instead of starting their own drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now been to the NFL site. Because I couldn't figure out how to get to regular-season week 17, I got to that game via Green Bay Packers team page. It says the play was challenged by the Replay Assistant (not Green Bay), and also it says the return man was tackled (we see he was NOT). I don't know how to send feedback regarding the NFL site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 18:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
(Followup: I have now gotten to "Contact Us" on NFL site, and I have complained about week 17 and about the writeup of this safety; latter item is because, as said above, the return man was not tackled.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Shall I go ahead and edit in title something like "Safety, not touchback"? Taking an apparent touchback and having it ruled a safety instead is unusual enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 15:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Having seen "After a loose ball", I recall seeing on TV a play where a quarterback tried to pass from his own end zone. The ball was batted up in the air, and the quarterback, being physically able to reach the ball, had the presence of mind to bat it out of the end zone so that neither a safety nor a TD would be scored; the result was just an incomplete pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 17:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I am seeing changes of today (Nov. 14) which split the notable safeties (such as Jim Marshall's wrong-way run of 1964) into a new article. Where is the link to that article from the one I am currently writing about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 19:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok I was at "List of Safety records" before comng here. It states in the Superbowl a Safety has occurred an average of every 5 Superbowls. By contrast - from http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&season=2013&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=false&Submit=Go, there were only 32 safeties total in all of the 2013 regular season Wfoj3 ( talk) 00:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
For reasons only explained as "overhauling," some interesting material — why a team might choose to intentionally draw a safety — was removed in a 14 November 2012 edit. I recognize that it may have been overly lengthy, but I think it contained some valuable information and that the examples were insightful.
I'm adding it back for now, as the deleted content wasn't transferred along with the Notable Safeties section to the List of safety records article. MattSoave ( talk) 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I admit the concept of a conversion safety is new to me, but I think some people are confused about the difference between an offensive and a defensive conversion safety. An offensive conversion safety is what we just saw in the fiesta bowl where Oregon (the offensive team) was kicking the extra point, it was recovered by Kansas State (the defensive team) in the field of play and taken back into their own end zone where the defensive player was downed by the offensive team, thus the offensive team scored an offensive conversion safety.
In contrast, a defensive conversion safety would have been if Kansas State (the defensive team) had managed to run the ball all the way back to almost the other end of the field near the Oregon end zone, had fumbled the ball, Oregon recovered in the field of play, took it back into their own end zone and then was downed, thus the defensive (non-kicking) team would have scored a defensive conversion safety. A highly unlikely series of events, which is why it has never happened in a game. Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Both are correct as listed. In the Fiesta Bowl, a offensive safety was awarded because the score was given TO the offense and against the defense, in this case Kansas State. They were downed in possession in their own end zone after having blocked the kick. In the UT-A&M game the snap was fumbled and run back 97 yards by the defense, awarding the point against the offense (A&M) who fumbled the ball and lost possession. In both cases the post is correct. The Fiesta Bowl was an offensive safety because the offense was awarded the point and in the Nov. 2004 game it was a defensive safety because the defense was awarded the point, just as in a normal safety. I looked it up in the NCAA records and statistics book and the UT - A&M game and the Fiesta Bowl are both correct and are the only ones on record in Division one. This is correct on both. Look it up if you don't believe me, and next time check your research BEFORE you go editing other people's contributions back to what you think is correct. Find out for sure first, please. The Moody Blue (Talk) 04:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a list of ALL collegiate conversion safeties at all levels of competition. http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/08/one-point-safety.html The Moody Blue (Talk) 05:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a video of the UT-A&M conversion safety: [1]. As you can see, UT scored both the touchdown and the one-point safety, so it was an offensive conversion safety. There was no 97-yard run. I'm no football expert, but I believe it is true that there has never been a defensive conversion safety. Ravi12346 ( talk) 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
"next time check your research BEFORE you go editing other people's contributions back to what you think is correct." Hey Themoodyblue, you going to man up and apologize or you going to continue to be a jerk? I posted the damn video as a reference and you still changed it. The blog you supplied doesn't even describe the play the way you do. AND you got the date wrong. 70.26.61.115 ( talk) 05:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Alright now, I don't think this discussion needs to be escalated any more. We've established that both the UT-A&M game and the Fiesta Bowl had offensive conversion safeties, and that's all we need to know. Just to remind everyone: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Ravi12346 ( talk) 05:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem with using the phrase "Conversion safety", especially as a title. This is NOT an official term, and it does not exist anywhere within the official NFL Rulebook or the NCAA rulebook. It's just a made-up phrase designed to help people to understand the concept. I would suggest that the title of this section be changed to something along the lines of "Safeties on conversion attempts", etc. ScottSwan ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, a team which returns the ball and performs a drop-kick could theoretically get one point. But I don't know enough about the drop-kick to comment on which levels of football this would be legal. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The very last line on the current article refers to "the kicking team" in reference to the conversion safety scored by the defence. I am not an expert but would it not be more accurate to say "the team attempting the conversion," since this would apply in the case of either a PAT or a 2-point conversion attempt? Petermgiles ( talk) 15:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is not clear about which team gets the two points. Is it the offensive team that gets only two instead of seven because it was tackled, or the defensive that gets two for tackling?— msh210℠ 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Albacore ( talk · contribs) 12:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks good other than those small issues. Albacore ( talk) 15:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reception (American football) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The one-point safety is known to have happened 12 times in college football. The first time was a point scored by Syracuse in 1971 on a ball-batting penalty by Indiana. It's happened two more recent times in Division I-A (FBS), once in I-AA (FCS), once in Division II, 4 times in Division III (including the most recent occurrence in history in the 2013 Bluffton vs. Franklin game), once in NAIA, and twice in junior colleges in California.
The date of that first game was October 2, 1971, in Bloomington, Indiana. Various descriptions of the play appeared in the next day's Indiana Sunday newspapers but did not use the term "one-point safety" (see "Hungry Crowd", "Feelings Mixed" and "Indiana Blanked"). It appears that within a day or two, the play had been characterized as a one-point safety in a post-game explanation of the ruling, because that's when an AP syndicated football column described it as a one-point safety (see "College Football Notes"):
Relevant ARs from the 2016 NCAA rulebook include:
Did AR 9-4-1-II and AR 9-4-1-V exist in 1971? Unless there were different rules in 1971 (there were; see below), it seems that the referees either (1) incorrectly called a safety thinking that an Indiana player, not a Syracuse player, had fallen on the batted ball, or (2) awarded a safety believing that the ball, having been batted by Indiana, had gone out of the end zone before it was next touched (similar to the pre-2015 NFL rule), or (3) egregiously awarded one point instead of two for the try touchdown (as the Sunday Bedford Daily Times news article suggests).
It is obvious that the characterization of any scoring play must correspond to the rulebook's point values awarded by the referees. In this case the score awarded was one point to Syracuse. The point could not be attributed to a successful try, because the try attempt by Syracuse was certainly not successful, either physically or by rule.
The point could also not be attributed to a try touchdown because of the fact that only one point was awarded, not two points. (Awarding one point for a score that is supposed to be two points by rule would be an egregious made-up thing and not simply a rule interpretation.) The only other plausible ruling relevant to the actual try attempt witnessed on the field carried a value of one point, matching the official award of one point to Syracuse. Of course, that was the one-point safety.
Once the referee whistles the game over, the score of the game cannot be changed. Calls and non-calls can't be retroactively fixed. A not good try remains a not good try, and a one-point try touchdown remains an imaginary thing.
The referees' award of one point to Syracuse stood at the final gun, attributed to the only appropriate thing, a one-point safety, even if the application of the rule to what happened on the field might have been a bit incorrect. As a comparison, in 1988 the first defensive two-point try touchdown (two-point conversion) scored in a college game went into the record book despite that it should have been blown dead as a grounded fumble recovery. It stood as a two-pointer at the end of that game, so that is what it remains to this day.
The above is construed upon the 2016 NCAA football rules. Upon review of the rules in effect in 1970, it appears that the officials made a correct ruling exactly in accord with the rules of the time. The relevant rules are as follows.
1970 NCAA Official Football Rules
Rule 9 Section 4 "Batting and Kicking"
Rule 8 Section 5 "Safety and Touchback"
Rule 10 Section 2 "Enforcement Procedures"
1970 NCAA Official Football Rule Interpretations
The Try (pages 59--60)
"Batting and Kicking" (page 70)
Jeff in CA ( talk) 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paco2718 ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The article states: "scoring play that results in two points being awarded to the scoring team", but does not define who the scoring team is. 2600:4040:54B0:5C00:8865:C4E3:CDE7:6FD4 ( talk) 15:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)