Ask Sam Farmer: When is the right time to try a two-point conversion?

Have a question about the NFL? Ask Times NFL writer Sam Farmer, and he will answer as many as he can online and in the Sunday editions of the newspaper throughout the season. Email questions to sam.farmer@latimes.com.

Question: I love two-point conversions, but TV analysts seem to hate them. You can set your watch on it — a team signals for two and every time the analyst moans, “Oh, I disagree with this.” Who’s right?

John Thompson, Downey

Farmer: Ah, there’s the rub: Who is right? I’ve done a bit of research on this, and my head is already swimming. People have written analytical thesis papers on the wisdom, or folly, of NFL coaches opting for two-point conversions in various situations. Google a few of them. They’ll make your head spin.

So instead of citing those, I turned to Super Bowl-winning coach Dick Vermeil, who helped develop a two-point conversion chart in the 1970s when he was at UCLA as an offensive coordinator under Tommy Prothro. It’s a simple mathematical table and doesn’t take into account specific game situations. (If you trail by two after scoring a touchdown with 30 seconds left, for instance, of course you’re going to go for two.)

Regardless, because the NFL adopted the two-point conversion only in 1994, Vermeil used his chart as coach of the St. Louis Rams (1997-99) and Kansas City Chiefs (2001-05).

“Tommy and I collaborated on that chart and put that together,” Vermeil said this week. “If you remember, Tommy was a world-class bridge player. I have trouble with two times two, but he was a mathematical genius.”

Vermeil said that if he were back in coaching, he would have gone for two more often, and especially at the end of close games. Given the chance to make those choices again, he would have opted against kicking as many extra points, especially if it meant heading into overtime and resting so much hope on the flip of a coin.

Case in point: In 2002, Vermeil’s Chiefs were in a shootout at New England, and scored a touchdown on the final play of regulation. Kansas City kicked the point after to forge a 38-38 tie and force overtime. In the extra period, the Patriots marched downfield on their opening possession and won with a field goal.

Vermeil still thinks about that game, and what might have happened had the Chiefs gone for two.

“Now, as a second-guesser of myself,” he said, “I think back and say, ‘Hell, we would have been better off going for two, because we couldn’t stop anybody anyway.’ ”
So who’s right? Seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Question: On Sunday, I had Carolina and the 6 1/2 points, so when the game got to OT, I figured I was holding a winner. However, after the Bengals scored the field goal I got to thinking, what if Carolina fumbled in their end zone and Cincinnati recovered, or took an interception back to the house? The score would count in that situation, wouldn’t it? I ask because I am the one guy who could actually lose in a situation like that.

Joel Schechter, Costa Mesa

Farmer: We know that game ended in a tie, but the scenarios are intriguing and the answer might surprise you.

If Cincinnati were leading by three, and then recovered a Carolina fumble in the end zone, the touchdown would count and the Bengals would win by nine. Why? Because the touchdown was instantaneous.

However, if Cincinnati were to intercept a pass anywhere on the field (but standing in the end zone), the game would end immediately at that point — even before, say, that interception could be returned for a touchdown. The play would be blown dead as soon as the turnover occurred. Game over.