Let's assume we have a crazy qb on a two point conversion that runs backwards toward his own end zone in order for there to be a safety. then what?
We don't have a crazy QB. We have a coach that wants to tie the game up 12-12 so he can play the overtime period to get a touchdown and win 18-12, thus going to the playoffs instead of winning 12-11 and not going to the playoffs.
Taking a safety has never been a travesty of the game. I'm winning 16-10, instead of punting from my own endzone and allowing the other team a short field, I take a safety, still winning 16-12, and kick deep. How would this different situation be a 'travesty'? If the rules allow a safety, and it's to the offense's advantage to use this rule, it should be legal both during play and during a try.
Would ALLOWING a team to score a touchdown when you're winning 16-15 be a travesty as well? Or is this good coaching, because being down 22-16 with 1:00 left is a lot better than being ahead 16-15 with the ball on the 3, and the opposing team trying a field goal with 0:02 on the clock.
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but why if something is LEGAL according to the rules or case book, can't someone use it to their advantage? Just last year someone out-of-bounds could influence the play and bat a ball back in-bounds if they just jumped up in the air. That was stupid, but 'allowed' according to the rules writers. If the rules writers decide that a 1-point safety can be awarded to B, why would using this rule be illegal?