Here’s another scenario: team wins the toss, kicks a FG. Other team drives down to the leading team’s goal line, where some shenanigans ensue (say there is an interception where the interceptor’s own impetus causes him to run into the endzone, and then out of bounds). So that’s a safety-does the other team get to receive the free kick? Or is the game now over, a1 point victory?
The game is over upon change of possession. No free kick.
This thread is entirely theoretical. Don’t fight it.
Oh come on, the interception return could and will happen sometime. If I’m out there and intercept the pass, my logical brain might know it’s best to take a knee, but I’m still running that sucker back for a touchdown. Glory versus logic isn’t really a choice.
I believe that by the letter of the rule, if the defender is deliberately trying to run the ball out of the end zone, but accidentally goes out of bounds, that would be a safety; if the player is carried out of bounds by momentum or or even is pushed out of bounds by an opponent before the defender can establish his intent to run the ball, that would be a touchback.
Without looking up the wording of the rule, I’m not sure exactly how it would be theoretically treated if the defender had time to take a knee but instead deliberately chose to run out of bounds. But in practice, I’m sure referees would be pretty far on the side of assuming there was no intent to run the ball out, and wouldn’t give a safety without very very clear and unambiguous demonstration of intent by the intercepting player.
All that matters in the touchback-versus-safety distinction is how the ball got into the end zone. How the returning player is downed (pushed out of bounds, tackled, takes a knee, fumbles out of the end zone, etc.) is entirely irrelevant.
It might be noted that college football has the same rule during the second possession of each overtime. If the defense is already ahead, and gains possession, the game is over but the play runs to completion. There have been many college overtime games that have ended with margins of 9, 13, or even 14 (8 plus 6) points.
Hmmmmmm. Then realizing this, an end does a 5 yard slant and the holder (usually a backup quarterback) throws it for a touchdown pass.
Sure, that’s just a fake field goal attempt. They happen at least a few times a season. But any halfway decent coach will recognize the possibility in an OT situation like that and guard against it.
You see fake field goal attempts with some regularity in college OT. I’m not sure there’s been one with the current NFL OT rules.
Of course not. I was being silly. I interpreted BobLibDem’s scenario as the interceptor being a cocky ass, mocking the other team, deliberately giving them points, knowing his team was still going to win. Interesting though, because now a team can win by as much as 9 points and as little as 1 point in overtime; two outcomes not possible before the overtime rule changes.
So winning by 9 in OT “almost” happened last night. Washington got a field goal on their opening drive. On the Cowboys’ next drive, on 4th down from their own 27, a Washington defender had his hands on Romo’s pass. He wisely just knocked it down, but he probably could have scored if he went for the interception.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11777089&startTime=02:04
Wouldn’t they still have to kick the field goal, or does that not apply in OT? I know in regulation time, you have to go for the extra point even if the clock is zero (unless they changed that too).
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d827ee2c0/article/nfl-overtime-rules
It doesn’t look like you would need to kick the PAT but the rules themselves don’t mention it specifically. All overtime games that ended with a touchdown show the winning margin at 6 points.
They don’t kick the extra point in OT by rule, and it could only matter when you get down to the tie-breakers involving points scored or allowed.
I very distinctly recall the TV talking heads covering the Minnesota-Tampa Bay game (26 Oct 2014, for the benefit of the future zombie resurrectors out there) discussing this after Anthony Barr’s defensive fumble recovery gamewinner TD.
The TV team’s rented retired zebra commentator stated clearly that there would be no PAT, although it seemed like the on-field zebra herd was discussing it… like they couldn’t remember the rule.
In the end, there was no PAT. So as pointed out, that game ended on a game-winning touchdown with a 6-point margin.
Looks like that is so:
Emphasis added.
But, according to wikipedia, the conversion (PAT) must be attempted during regulation
ETA: Doesn’t point differential also apply for overtime games? Doesn’t make sense that it would be different, but it is what it is.
It makes sense if you don’t think about it too much. The end of a regular game is dependent on time, not a score. PATs don’t take any time and are therefore considered part of the preceding play. A regular game is over when the clock reads 0:00 AND the current play is completed, so you still attempt the PAT.
OT games end when there’s a score*, not based on the clock. Once a team scores a touchdown in sudden death, the game is over. The PAT is no longer part of the play.
*or after initial field goal and opposing team blah blah blah…
For the record, after actually looking at the NFL rule book, I now believe Freddy the Pig is right, and I was completely talking out of my nether regions. That will teach anyone to listen to me (or at least to ask for cites if they’re foolish enough to listen). Intent to run back doesn’t matter at all; it’s only how the ball got into the end zone.
[QUOTE=NFL Rulebook at nfl.com]
*Section 5 Article 1 Safety *
It is a Safety:
(a) if the offense commits a foul in its own end zone or
(b) when an impetus by a team sends the ball behind its own goal line, and the ball is dead in the end zone in its possession or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line.
Exceptions […]
(2) If a defensive player, in the field of play, intercepts a pass or catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass, scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick, and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team’s possession.
[/QUOTE]
So, if a defender intercepts in the end zone and tries to run it out but is tackled in the end zone, that is NOT a safety, but a touchback (the offensive player would have been better off letting the intercepting player get out of the end zone and then tackling him at the one yard line).
The only way intent could possibly matter at all is if a defender intercepts the ball at the 5 yard line, runs into the end zone and then is tackled in the end zone while trying to return the ball. In which case the referee would have to decide whether the defender was carried into the end zone by his original momentum from making the catch (in which case defense’s ball at the 5), or the defender deliberately chose to go into the end zone after making the catch and having an opportunity to stop (in which case safety). Though I stand by my previous statement that I believe a typical referee would tend to avoid calling it a safety if there was any doubt.
Ah, thanks for finding that. I assumed it was true but couldn’t find the proper citation.