# Talk:Safety (gridiron football score)

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)

The one-point safety can only occur on a try (i.e., conversion attempt). The situation that you describe is the standard two-point safety. WHPratt (talk) 18:11, 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)

Only if there's enough information on the safety position. I think the defensive back article should cover it. -- Mwalcoff 01:00, 8 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)

I suppose the only way this could happen is if the scoring team decided to do it on purpose, or somehow a fumble was kicked around down the field all the way to the other end. -- Mwalcoff 17:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I think the language of the rule on nfl.com implies that the safety is a way of scoring the XP for the offense, meaning the defense has to obtain possession outside of the endzones and bring it back into the endzone to score the safety for the kicking team, hence the impossibility due to the ball being dead on possession by the defense 71.36.198.148 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The NFL definitely has a rule for a 1-point Offensive Safety.  It's clearly possible, although extremely unlikely.  It could only occur if there was a fumble during a PAT, and the defense somehow pushed the ball into and out of its own endzone while trying to prevent the offense from taking possession of it.  If the offense pushes the ball out of that endzone, then the play is ruled dead and no points are scored.  If the defense actually gains possession of the ball, the play is also ruled dead. ScottSwan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (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)

Your interpretation is correct. If the defense intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble on a conversion attempt and takes it back all the way, it is worth 2 points. -- Mwalcoff 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
A turnover taken back on a conversion attempt is NOT a safety, it is a defensive conversion.  It is worth 2 points, but I reiterate, it is NOT a safety.  Everything else in the section is correct except for this terminology.  I am going to mark it as disputed.

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)

The rule is that any offensive penalty where the spot of enforcement is in the end zone results in a safety. For some penalties, like illegal procedure, the spot of enforcement is the line of scrimmage, so it would not be a safety. -- Mwalcoff 23:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If Team B recovers a blocked kick, then loses possession while outside the endzone, then recovers inside its own endzone, then Team A would score 1 point and the score would be 7-0.  If Team B recovers a blocked kick, then runs 98 yards toward the other endzone, then loses possession BEFORE entering the endzone, then Team A recovers OUTSIDE the endzone but gets tackled INSIDE the endzone (got all that?), THEN Team B would score 1 point and the score would be 6-1. ScottSwan 06:02, 3 January 2007 (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) 

No, the defenders would have to score this one-point safety in the OFFENSIVE team's end zone. If they fall on it in their own end zone, that's not a safety, it's simply the end of the play on an extra point attempt. But I don't think the scenario painted in the article is valid, for a different reason: on a loose ball, if you fall on it in the other team's end zone, it's normally a touchdown, at least in regular play; not a safety. If you tackle the offensive player carrying the ball in his own end zone, that's a safety. Also, I suspect that batting the ball as described, on purpose, is against the rules. Furthermore, I'd like to see some concrete evidence that there even is such a rule as a "safety" by the defense on a point-after, and what its definition is. I never heard of such a rule until I ran across it in this article, which is why I think it's suspect, even though it could be true. The circumstances for it would have to be bizarre. For example, what if the offense kept making the extra point kick, but kept getting penalized, to where they were past midfield and too far for a kick. Then they might try a pass for the extra point, but instead they fumbled it or kept running backwards to evade tacklers, and through a comedy of errors the ball ended up in their own endzone, in the arms of an offensive player, who was then tackled by a defensive player? I don't think so. Wahkeenah 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The section that was removed was basically correct except for the "(over 90 yards away)" part.  The 1-point Offensive Safety would occur in the same endzone where the offense is trying to score.  There would have to be a loose ball outside the endzone, and somehow the defense would have to cause the ball to go into the endzone without deliberatly batting it (which is typically against the rules) or kicking it (also against the rules) or taking possession of it (which would result in a dead play).  If the OFFENSE causes the ball to go out the endzone, then the play is dead and no points are scored.  In the NFL, this type of score can ONLY be scored by the offense, and ONLY during a conversion attempt.  If for some reason the offensive team went backwards 100 yards and got tackled in the other endzone, the play would simply be ruled dead and no points would be scored. ScottSwan 06:18, 3 January 2007 (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 note that someone has since researched the details and added to the article an account of this odd "please-give-our-opponents-two-points" challenge.  Good show! WHPratt (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that this incident has been eliminated. That's unfortunate, (if indeed it's still unique).  In this situation, the defense did not choose to create an intentional safety, but found a way to get one when the play result turned out to be worse. WHPratt (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Okay!! I see that it was moved, along with other stuff, to the "Records" section.  Not a bad idea.  Sorry I didn't note this earlier. WHPratt (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (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)

I don't get the 6 points. I also don't get the 8. If it's the last play in the game (as I've seen happen), then obviously it has to be at least a 3 point lead. If there is time enough on the clock that you have to punt, then you have to be at least 9 points ahead after allowing the safety, to prevent a single score from turning the game around. I think this paragraph is geting "overanalyzed". Wahkeenah 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea is that there is just enough time on the clock for the trailing team to have one possession, so the concern is what kind of score they need to tie or win the game.  Notice how 4 and 6 point leads put the trailing team in essentially the same position.

Dave6 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

After giving up the safety, if there is time on the clock, you would want to be at least a two-possession lead. In short, 9 points or more. If you're only ahead by 8, they could return the punt for a TD and get a 2-point conversion, and you're tied. You want at least a 9-point lead to be fairly certain of holding the lead. Obviously, if it's the last play of the game and you're ahead by 3, you take the safety to end the game and win by 1. Wahkeenah 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes to try to put the above into words. I'm not at all convinced it's optimal yet. Wahkeenah 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, it would be ideal to be way ahead... it's just that with the way football scoring works, it's possible for two points to be almost worthless, even in a close game.  I'm not saying that 4 points is a comfortable lead.  I'm saying that 4 points is just as good as 6, assuming your kicker is any good.  Suppose you're an NFL coach, and your team is on defense with 55 seconds left in regulation.  Which situation would you rather be in?
(a) Your team leads by 4 points, and the other team has the ball at their own 25.
(b) Your team leads by 6 points, and the other team has the ball at midfield.
Dave6 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem we're running into here is that we're theorizing. That's called "original research". Someone probably needs to do some actual research and find out when elective safeties have been taken in the NFL. My guess is that they are very rare. I only ever recalling seeing one. It was a Dallas Cowboys game years ago. It was 4th down, the Dallas punter took the snap and simply waltzed across the end zone until the clock ran out and then he stepped out of bounds. Wahkeenah 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I need to get a copy of the October 5, 1992 Kansas City Star.  I remember going to the game the day before -- the Chiefs were in a situation like what I'm describing, but they punted, and the Broncos came back to win 20-19.  There's probably some Kansas City sportswriter that thinks they should have taken a safety and wrote a column about why. Dave6 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
They might have lost anyway. It would probably take some diligent research to find every elective safety in the NFL during, say, the last 10 or 20 years. Wahkeenah 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Based strictly on my memory, I'd guess that planned, intentional safeties happen once or twice per year in the NFL, if that often.  I note that in the Canadian Football League games that I manage to see, teams routinely take the safety and a kickoff rather than punt from the endzone or even from near the goal line.  It happens darn near every game.  I can't see how the rule differences favor it, so it may be a difference in philosophy. WHPratt (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2009 (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)

I reverted the para added by User:206.168.96.120 because it is vague and unsourced.  I recall nothing in my football background about the imaginary line s/he speaks of.  However, his recollection of the rule is worth preserving (see boxed item below), because I agree that "somehow" the old safety vs. touchback distinctions have become obsolete or blurred.  (I was taught many years ago that if a player who, say, intercepts a pass in his end zone made any evident attempt to return the ball, and later was tackled or took a knee before leaving the end zone, it was a safety.)  Did the rule change formally at some point, and if so can someone shed some light on it? We need something more authoritative than what he wrote. Dpiranha (talk) 02:55, 9 December 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)

No. In that scenario, no safety would be scored at all. The play would become dead when the ball was intentionally grounded, and the penalty would be 10 yards for the holding and 10 more for the intentional grounding, for a total of 20 yards. Presumably, the original line of scrimmage would have been less than the 40, so the penalties would be reduced to half the distance to the goal line, down repeated. Of course, the defence would have the option of declining the penalties, and the down would be lost, with next scrimmage at the same point as the last. There is no way score two safeties in one play. Indefatigable (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that the question implied that the offense was working near its own goal line, and what would happen if there were two penalties called against them on the same play while the passer/ball-carrier was in the end zone.  What would happen would be that the defensive team would decline one penalty and accept the other.  Which one would depend upon their situation.  The grounding would give them two points and a chance to receive a kickoff.  The holding would just give them half-the-distance and a replay of the down. They'd most often take the points, unless they (desperately) needed more than two and wanted to take a chance.WHPratt (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I am familiar with how a safety is scored. A holding penalty in the end zone is a safety, as is intentional grounding. I didn't think I needed to spell that out.
If there were a holding penalty and intentional grounding called, both in the end zone, on the same play can you get two safeties? 98.212.3.189 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough.  I thought that the safety only occured on a few fouls, those with enforcement from the spot of the foul.  Sometimes a personal foul adds on to another penalty, but that wouldn't apply here.  I'll defer to a real football official, but I can't see any scenario where they'd enforce two penalties with safeties.WHPratt (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
If two infractions occur on the same play and are committed by the same team, one is usually enforced and the other declined. The non-offending team usually gets to choose which one is enforced. In a case of two spot fouls by the offense occurring in the end zone, such as holding and intentional grounding, the defense chooses one and declines the other, and gets two points no matter which penalty is accepted (unless it chooses for some reason to decline both). 66.234.218.146 (talk) 06:11, 6 November 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)

A palpably unfair act can give a score to a team, so it definitely isn't the only score that can result from a judgment call.  The bit about a safety being the only score that can be eliminated by prior results is also incorrect, because a punt touched by the kicking team can nullify a touchdown just as much as it can a safety. 74.222.241.106 (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed the entire "oddities" section.  Almost nothing in it was true, except the one statement about being able to score without the ball; the article already mentioned this anyways, so it was redundant.  --Jayron32 07:00, 24 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) 

Fran Tarkenton did just that in one of his Super Bowl losses: he threw a pass that was deflected by an opponent, caught the rebound and threw again for what looked like a first down.  The officials, however, ruled that he had completed a forward pass to himself, thus the second forward pass was illegal.  A penalty wiped out the apparent gain.  [Edit: It was S.B. IX -- the incident is described in the article.]
A lot of quarterbacks (check their records) have a reception for a big loss on their career record, and I'll bet it's the result of catching one's own deflected pass.  Some day a passer will run for a touchdown on such a play, thus completing a TD pass to himself. WHPratt (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it has happened, twice at least.
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) 

They are located in a section of List of safety records, which frankly doesn't make any sense to me. MattSoave (talk) 19:40, 25 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)

If it is true that a defensive conversion safety was scored in the 2004 game, then I apologize. But what you are describing does not sound like a 1-point defensive conversion safety, it sounds like a defensive 2 point conversion.  Rreagan007 (talk) 04:54, 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)

I just watched the Youtube video, and the defensive team most definintely did NOT run the ball back 97 yards to the other end zone. It's definitely just an offensive conversion safety and not the never-before-seen defensive conversion safety. I agree with Ravi12346 and the sources that say a defensive conversion safety has never been scored. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:11, 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)

Does the rule book just refer to it as a "safety"? During the Fiesta Bowl, the referee referred to it as a "one-point safety" and held up 1 finger before doing the safety signal. The TV announcers referred to it on air as a "conversion safety". Even if neither of these is the official term, I think including both of the common terms in the article for this unusual scoring situation is appropriate.Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The rulebook just calls it a "Safety".  It also refers to the conversion as a "Try".  So I suppose a more official term would be a "Try Safety" or "Safety Point After Try". 216.65.144.24 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Not everything is called by its official name, however. We don't call the kicking team downing a punt 'illegal touching' or an extra point attempt a 'try'. 'Conversion safety' is the common term. However, using the technical or on-field term is a great idea. Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 5 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)

At least in NFL and NCAA rules a drop kick isn't special, just another way to score a field goal or extra point - it is subject to the same restrictions as the place kick, such as the kick having to take place on or behind the LOS. Up until a few decades ago you could still drop-kick from beyond the LOS, but it was still worth three points. Toa Nidhiki05 19:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe the question was whether or not the defensive team could score a kick-conversion on an extra point attempt, after having obtained the ball on a turnover.  I'd say, yes, in the era when a drop-kick was legal from anywhere on the field.  (It would be an unusual circumstance, with the player deciding that he couldn't reach the end zone by running and could settle for one point.) Probably not legal under modern rules, though I'm not certain how the rules would treat a defensive player's attempt. WHPratt (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, and here I'm talking college and below.  In the NFL, the defense can't score anything on a "busted" extra point attempt. WHPratt (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, in that case it would be a one-point safety awarded to the defense. A field goal can only be scored by kicking it through the goal posts of the defense, and an extra point, strictly speaking, is a down called the 'Try' that works just like any other down, except it is untimed, touchdowns are worth two points, and field goals/safeties are worth one point. So kicking the ball through your own goal posts on a try would be a safety since the ball was legally kicked backward out of one's own end zone. Toa Nidhiki05 15:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
If a player kicked the ball through his own goal post uprights, it would be a safety: I agree with that.  I think the original question was whether a player who had blocked a field goal or extra point and had run it back towards the opponent's goal could drop-kick it through the opponents' goal posts rather than complete a run to the end zone. WHPratt (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The answer would be no. Only the team on offense at the start of the play can drop kick and it must be from behind the line of scrimmage. Decades ago that could have worked, but the NFL eliminated the field drop kick sometime in the 90s. I believe you can still do it in the Canadian Football League, however. Toa Nidhiki05 18:19, 26 February 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)

A safety always goes to the defense (unless it is a conversion safety). It happens when the ball becomes dead (ie. the ballcarrier is tackled) in the offense's own end zone (ie. the end zone the offense is moving away from). A touchdown (the seven points you refer to counting the extra point) is scored when the offense advances the ball into the defensive end zone. Toa Nidhiki05 22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I was unclear what "own" meant. Maybe the article should clarify that phrase or link to something that does.—msh210℠ 23:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the article assumes a lot of knowledge of football. A summary table would be nice: Where in the field | who does what | who gets the points | how many points. The parent posts explain some of the confusion to those not immersed in the game.Fotoguzzi (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Safety (gridiron football score)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Albacore (talk · contribs) 12:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. Albacore (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
First, let me apologize for such a long wait. Here is the review:
No DAB links, no dead links
scrimmaging the ball from their 35-yard line or kicking the ball off themselves What do you mean "scrimmaging"? Can you clarify that the team that forfeited the safety has to kick the ball off? As it is, it reads like the team that scored the safety has to kick it off.
a forfeit would be recorded as a 1-0 result 1–0, ndash needed.
Why not just have [4][5][6] after "In American football, a safety is scored when any of the following conditions occur:" like you do for Canadian football?
Can you link "turnover"?
Ref 15 has dating that's different than the rest of the article.
Watch page numbers in references. All should have an ndash.
For multiple pages used in references, pp. should be used instead of p.
Reference 3 needs the format parameter for a PDF, and reference 14 could use a publisher.
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"): 

"It was a one-point safety. A what? A one-point safety. Syracuse was trying to kick the extra point after taking a 6-0 lead. The ball was kicked almost straight up in the air and was coming down obviously short of the crossbar when an Indiana player batted the ball down in the end zone and Syracuse recovered. Since an Indiana player batted the ball illegally, the ruling was that the try was successful."
Relevant ARs from the 2016 NCAA rulebook include:

Rule 9 Section 4 Article 1 "Batting a Loose Ball"
Approved Ruling AR 9-4-1-II:
"Team A attempts a field goal from Team B’s 30-yard line. A Team B player in the end zone leaps above the crossbar and bats the ball in flight. The ball goes into the end zone and is recovered by Team B. RULING: Foul for batting the ball in the end zone. The result of the play is a touchback. Safety if penalty is accepted."
Approved Ruling AR 9-4-1-V:
"Team A attempts a place kick on the try. A Team B player in the end zone leaps above the crossbar and bats the ball in flight. The ball goes into the end zone and is recovered by Team A. RULING: Foul for batting the ball in the end zone. Team A may decline the penalty and scores two points." (i.e., a two-point touchdown on the try)
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"

9.4.1 "Batting a Free Ball" (page 66)

"... any player may block or partially block a scrimmage kick in the field of play or end zone, but no player shall bat any other free ball forward in the field of play or in any direction if it is in an end zone.

Penalty -- Offended team's ball at spot of foul."

Rule 8 Section 5 "Safety and Touchback"

8.5.3 "Initial Impetus" (page 59)

Approved Ruling 39.

"If a scrimmage kick fails to cross the neutral zone, or crosses the neutral zone and is first touched by Team B, or is untouched and then rebounds into the end zone where it is recovered by Team A, it is a safety."

8.5.4 "Resulting From Foul" (page 59)

"If the penalty for a foul committed when the ball is free leaves the ball behind a goal line, it is a safety if behind the offender's goal line;"

Rule 10 Section 2 "Enforcement Procedures"

10.2.1 "Spots" (page 69)

"When no enforcement spot is specified in a penalty, the enforcement spot shall be: ...

b. If the ball was free:

1. From ... a scrimmage kick which did not cross the neutral zone or which had crossed that zone and had touched a Team-B player, the ball shall be awarded to the offended team at the spot of the foul (no distance penalty)."
1970 NCAA Official Football Rule Interpretations
The Try (pages 59--60)

(2) "Safety on the Try"

"A Safety on the Try has always been possible and can be scored if there is a foul by B in his end zone during a free ball. The ball becomes dead when it is evident that the kick cannot score a goal (4-1-3-d). ..."

"Examples of fouls during a Try: ...

(c) A's legal kick, untouched and in the air, has crossed the neutral zone when a foul occurs. RULING: ... If foul by B and kick is ... unsuccessful and spot of foul is in ... end zone, score one point for safety."
"Batting and Kicking" (page 70)

"(1) Batting a Free Ball"

"The following free balls may not be batted forward while between the goal lines, or batted in any direction while in either end zone: ...

(c) A kick, except when blocking or partially blocking it. "Block" as used in 9-4-1 means initial blocking or partially blocking behind the line or in the immediate vicinity of the neutral zone."

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)