Talk:Two-point conversion

Not a safety
I deleted the parenthetical that claims a defensive conversion is classified as a safety. This is not true. I also added that in cases of defensive conversions, the ball is kicked off as normal.49giantsharks 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first time that I saw this in a scoring summary, shortly after the play had been legalized, the account read something like "SMU Jones 25 pass from Smith (kick blocked), 13-7" followed by "USM Safety: blocked PAT returned by Brown, 13-9." I.e., whoever transcribed it described the touchdown and the reversed extra points that followed, but still called it a "safety," presumably because two points were involved. I haven't seen that gaffe since, but I point it out just to show that there was some confusion early on.WHPratt (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What is a one point safety? I have never heard of this. I don't believe it to be true. Wideeyedraven 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A one-point safety is awarded when the team defending a conversion attempt gives up a safety on that play. It happened in a Texas-Texas A&M game a few years ago. A&M blocked the extra point, and recovered the ball. Then, they fumbled the ball into their own end zone, recovered it there, aLlnd were tackled for the safety.

The page claims that teams can drop-kick for a two point conversion; that's not correct, is it? A drop-kick is just an extra point. When Flutie did it a while ago it only scored one, as I recall. Borschevsky 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting if anyone can document a college team "taking a knee" in a point after touchdown situation.

When the NCAA altered the rules to permit the defensive team to score points on a try, it created this interesting situation. If a team trailing by exactly five points were to score a touchdown while game time expired on the play, it would be insanity to even attempt an extra point play. The game is won if they do not score further, but the opposition could score and win the game by blocking a kick, recovering a fumbled snap, or intercepting a "Garo Yepremian" pass on the try. I don't suppose that the officials would permit them to simply walk off the field, so I imagine that they'd have to go into a tight formation and fall on the ball before anything else could happen. Unlikely, but unforgiveable if it happened.

This is as close to a nothing-to-gain, everything-to-lose scenario as one could ask for. WHPratt (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt


 * Such a case is documented in the article on "Convert." WHPratt (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "Both the World Football League and the XFL revived this concept, making it a point not to institute a two-point conversion rule so as to eliminate the easy kick. What would constitute a two-point conversion in other leagues only counted one point in the AFL-NFL games, WFL, or XFL."

It should be noted that the World Football League set the value of a touchdown as seven points, with the subsequent "action point" counting for an eighth point if successful. This addressed a problem found with the AFL-NFL experiment: devaluing a typical touchdown effectively inflates the value of a field goal, as two field goals can neutralize an unconverted touchdown. The rule was designed to replace boring place kicks with more action, but it also made settling for a field goal somewhat more attractive when compared with trying for a touchdown instead. The XFL either failed to learn from the lesson or ignored it, and had to change their rule along the way. WHPratt (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Colorado took a knee in the famous (or infamous, depending on where you live) fifth down game., although with a 3 point lead, they really had nothing to lose. Probably more a case of "let's get out of Dodge" than any strategic ploy. In high school ball, they don't play the conversion on anTD scored as time expires, unless it could affect either the outcome of the game or playoff considerations, where ties can be broken by scoring. Wschart (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Two-point conversion chart
I'm guessing that once the NCAA adopted overtime, "the chart" required revision, as ties are no longer possible. Most teams who trail by one point after a TD will kick the extra point and take their chances in OT. It's considered quite daring to try for the win in regulation (as per The Chart). Under the older rules, they'd be scorned for wimping out with a tie. Some modern examples would be nice. WHPratt (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See article here (http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/01/two_point_conversion_strategy_the_late_game_scenario_in_which_going_for.2.html) about some of the silliness in "the chart". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.160.42 (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone changed it back to "Go for 2," probably based upon Michigan's late try against Ohio State (December 2013). However, that case was definitely atypical. Perehaps this value needs a footnote stating how often (percentage) a team plays for the overtime and acknowledging the rare exception. WHPratt (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Something else that could be added to the article. Due to exceptionally cold weather across most of the U.S. in December 2013, a number of (Sunday NFL) games wewre played on snowy fields. In at least one game that I caught part of, all of the conversion attempts involved runs or passes. The field conditions must have been such that no one wanted to kick if they didn't have to. WHPratt (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibility of defense scoring one point on a try
... "[I]n college or pro ball a conversion safety could be earned by the defense if the offense retreated with the ball all the way back into its own end zone, although this possibility is only hypothetical and has yet to ever occur. If it occurred, it would provide the only way in which a team could finish the game with only a single point (with the exception that Canadian football allows another one-point play called the single or rouge)"

This seems to suggest that the only way the defense can score one point on a convert would be if the offense moves the ball back more than 97 or 98 yards themselves, by an unlikely combination of penalties and a really big loss of yardage. More probably, if it ever happens, it will involve something like this.

(1) Team A scores a touchdown and then attempts the extra point(s). (2) Team B blocks their kick, or intercepts their pass, or recovers their fumble. (3) A Team B player runs the ball back towards the other goal. (4) This runner is tackled just short of the goal line. (5) The ball comes loose. (6) A Team A player, trying to prevent the runner from recovering the ball and still scoring the two points only manages to knock the ball into the end zone and cover it there. The result is a one-point safety against Team A and one point for Team B. If this makes the score 6-1, the game could end that way.

I believe that this admittedly odd sequence is still more likely than one team going backward the length of the field. WHPratt (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Since I wrote that, there was the game of September 9, 2017. Louisiana Tech had a 2nd-and-goal situation from 6 yards out against Mississippi State. After a bad snap, failed recovery attempts resulted in the ball getting batted farther and farther back, with an 87-yard loss by the time of the belated own-recovery. The next play would thus be 3rd-and-goal from their own 7-yard line, i.e., now 93 yards out. (They failed to convert, needless to say, and had to punt on 4th down.) As they were already losing 57-14, it didn't matter very much, but it suggests that a 97-yard loss on a conversion attempt resulting in a one-point safety is not impossible. WHPratt (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Choice of one- or two-point attempt
Shouldn't the opening sentence of the third paragraph of this section be "A more complicated scenario is when a team is trailing by 14 points" (instead of 8)? The rest of the paragraph describes how the losing team makes decisions in order to score 14 points, or to win by scoring 15 points. Holy (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I just checked the history. Before someone did a "big rewrite" ([]), the text did indeed indicate that the scenario envisioned a team losing by 14 points late in the game. Somehow the person who did the rewrite missed this. Based on this history, and the flow of the argument in the paragraph, I'll just make the correction now. Holy (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)