Safety???

Anyone with the power to watch the game from Sunday wanna do me a piece of mind favor..

2nd quarter on a punt that Toronto conceded I was pretty sure Argo player took the ball in the field and ran back into end zone before conceding. I would think that's a safety and ticats ball again. But maybe I was just looking for anything to go right that day. Won't help now and probably would not have then either the way they played but why not check it out.

I was at the game and baffled why they didn’t award 2 points but when you are at the game you don’t get an explanation. But I just checked on the TSN video and the camera angle appears to show him catching it outside the goal but they ruled he caught it inside the end zone, since there was no protest by the Ticats and the ref is standing beside the returner I assume it was a 1 point play.

The on-field ruling (a conceded single point) was correct. The returner was backing up, in the field of play, to make the catch, which he did just outside the goal line, and his momentum took him further back into the end zone.
Copied from the rule book:
AR: Team A kicks to Team B. B1 catches the ball in the Field of Play while
moving towards own Goal Line and, in the judgment of the official, the
momentum carries B1 into own Goal Area
. RULING – Rouge (possession
deemed to have been gained in the Goal Area).

On another note, I'd like to track whether the strategy of conceding a safety ever works for us this year.

I know the rationale: when you're deep in your end, better to give up 2 than punt it and let the other guys have a sure 3 and possibly 7. The problem is that we give up a sure 2 and the other guys still get a possession. In the case of the last game, the Argos scored a TD anyway, so we went down by 9 in total before getting the ball back.

I have never been a fan of giving up a safety on a punt.
Punt the ball out of the endzone, hope for an illegal block or a turnover on the punt and count on your defence to hold out for a FG.
Another thing is, if you intend to give up a safety and you want the kicker to run around in the endzone to kill time, why wouldn't you just put Masoli back there which keeps a threat of a pass play or run, or try Speedy Banks to run around to kill time

I understand the reasoning about giving up a safety, but not for killing time in most cases. There are times maybe but what I have seen you usually need time to "catch up"!

It really depends on circumstances, from my understanding it was looked at a couple years back and around 60-65% of the time you benefit from the safety, but more importantly the statistic that the probability of a drive being successful, takes a drastic jump when that drive starts before the 55 yard line.

It's generally better to take the Safety, unless you have the wind at your back.

A strong wind at your back, you have a realistic chance of putting it beyond the 45, and you have a much better chance to force a field goal attempt and make the opposing team kick into said strong wind. It gives you a chance to get a 2 and out without the risk of points, or forcing the opposing team and missed field goals tend to offer better returns then punts or kickoffs. Conversely, if you are kicking into the wind, you're pretty much giving the ball up to the point where it will be either a hard or easy field goal, in the area where most drives that score touchdowns, start and giving the opposition, wind at his back to score 3. Realistically too, unless you have wet conditions, fumbles aren't very common and experienced QBs like Ricky Ray aren't very prone to interceptions, without substantial pressure, because they don't force the issue, they throw it away.

In my eyes, completely the right call to be made, and you needed only look at the banners blowing on the roof at BMO to see why.

Always a lot of factors, but for me, if you are kicking into the wind, often giving up a safety probably means giving up a FG, at worst, on the resulting drive - 2 + 3 = 5 points.

Kicking into a wind probably means an automatic FG at best, and often a TD. So, either "saving" the 2 from the safety, or worse, "losing" an additional 2 over the cost of a safety plus FG.

In the Cats pre-season game, I recall Dave Taylor saying to the effect, that statisically giving up the safety rarely saves points. I guess it comes down to your confidence in your kicker and your defence, and your assessment of the other guy's offence and kicker? That's why coaches get the big bucks? Or get fired? :slight_smile:

I wouldn't agree with that assessment. Offensive scoring isn't automatic after a kickoff into the wind. In truth, most drives that start in your own end fail. Generally the likelihood of success starting behind your 20 is something like 10% and then 40% before the 40. If you kicker can get it past the 35 (which most can, barring absurd winds) you can settle into the spot where defenses shine. If you add wet conditions, you also have a much higher chance of getting a turnover, as forcing longer drives tends to force more turnovers in these conditions.

There are of course other factors, in particular how reliable and distanced your kicker is, how well your special teams cover, how good the return guy is on the other end and how good your defense is. However, generally unless you/the other team is notoriously good or notoriously bad at some of these factors, the Safety is usually the better option.

Do you remember when the team giving up the safety would retain possession of the ball
? How many safeties did Kenny Ploen or Charlie Shepherd give up in that Bomber-Cat Grey Cup? Bud Grant was an evil genius who used the existing rule to his advantage.

That was the first cup that I attended and I believe that was 1959 in Toronto. The dates become fuzzier with time but the pain still hurts. :lol:

Pat Lynch (the old guy)

It was '65, @ CNE Stadium, Pat. The Bombers deliberately conceded 3 safety touches (6 pts.) ... the exact margin by which the TiCats won. This appears to be pretty accurate by my memory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53rd_Grey_Cup