ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
LOL, it's NEVER been that way. Never. Your football knowledge is showing again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tart
It is not the same as before.
Under the old system:
-The winner was forced to chose whether they wanted to kick/receive in the first half.
-The loser was forced to chose whether they wanted to kick/receive in the second half.
-It was not automatically the opposite in the second half. If you won the toss and decided to kick, the other team still had the option of deciding to receive in the second half. Obviously, this was stupid, so no one did it. If you won the toss you were forced to receive the ball to start the game.
Under the new system:
-The winner can decide whether they want to chose to kick/receive for the the first or the second half. If they chose to defer their decision to the second half, the losing team gets to chose whether they wanted to kick/receive for the first half, and much like the situation of the OLD winning team, are forced to receive.
Basically: Before the winning team on the coin toss was forced to receive in the first half, now they can chose to receive in the first or the second half.
This is where both of you are not getting my point. Nothing has changed because if team A wins the coin toss and decides to defer for the second half what do you think team A would do? Let's say they kicked in the first half. Do you think they would want to kick again for the second half? No they are going to want the ball for the start of the second half. If team B lost the coin toss but was given the choice to kick/receive because team A chose to defer, what do you think they would do? They would have to receive the ball because team A will want the ball in the second half. No team will ever win the coin toss, defer and decide to kick in the second half. It's a stupid rule. A great way to simplify this is to ask winners of the coin toss whether you want the ball for the start of the game or the start of the second half. It's that simple.
Last edited by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?; 10-21-2008 at 02:46 PM..
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
This is where both of you are not getting my point. Nothing has changed because if team A wins the coin toss and decides to defer for the second half what do you think team A would do? Let's say they kicked in the first half. Do you think they would want to kick again for the second half? If team B lost the coin toss but was given the choice to kick/receive because team A chose to defer, what do you think they would do? They would have to receive the ball because team A will want the ball in the second half. No team will ever win the coin toss, defer and decide to kick in the second half.
But in the past they had no option to defer, and if they won the coin toss they had no way to choose to receive the 2nd half kickoff. Now they do.
You do realize that in the past, if a team elected to kick, that had no effect on the second half? The other team would get the second half choice and would of course elect to receive. No, I don't think you knew this.
This is where both of you are not getting my point. Nothing has changed because if team A wins the coin toss and decides to defer for the second half what do you think team A would do? Let's say they kicked in the first half. Do you think they would want to kick again for the second half? No they are going to want the ball for the start of the second half. If team B lost the coin toss but was given the choice to kick/receive because team A chose to defer, what do you think they would do? They would have to receive the ball because team A will want the ball in the second half. No team will ever win the coin toss, defer and decide to kick in the second half. It's a stupid rule. A great way to simplify this is to ask winners of the coin toss whether you want the ball for the start of the game or the start of the second half. It's that simple.
Perhaps the rule should be simplified as you suggest, but your claim that "nothing has changed" is just wrong. Something very significant has changed: under the old rules, the winner of the coin toss could not opt to receive the ball for the start of the second half. Now they can.
Perhaps the rule should be simplified as you suggest, but your claim that "nothing has changed" is just wrong. Something very significant has changed: under the old rules, the winner of the coin toss could not opt to receive the ball for the start of the second half. Now they can.
Fine, they rules have changed. But the result is the same. Who ever kicks in the first half, will get the ball in the second half.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alamo
But in the past they had no option to defer, and if they won the coin toss they had no way to choose to receive the 2nd half kickoff. Now they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alamo
You do realize that in the past, if a team elected to kick, that had no effect on the second half? The other team would get the second half choice and would of course elect to receive. No, I don't think you knew this.
Yes it did. Have you ever seen a team kick in the first and second half? Whoever kicked in the first half, got the ball in the second half.
Here is my point, again. If team A wins the coin toss and decides to defer for the second half, team B will have to receive the ball for the start of the game or else team A will get the ball at the start of the first and second half. That is why I think nothing has changed. Whoever kicks in the first half will want the ball in the second half.
Never has a rule change irritated me like this one because of the rant I stated above.
Last edited by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?; 10-21-2008 at 03:15 PM..
Yes it did. Have you ever seen a team kick in the first and second half? Whoever kicked in the first half, got the ball in the second half.
That's because whoever won the toss ALWAYS elected to receive, since electing to kick or choosing which end to defend would mean they would be certain to have to receive twice.
That's exactly what the new rule fixes: the old choice was really no choice at all.
That's because whoever won the toss ALWAYS elected to receive, since electing to kick or choosing which end to defend would mean they would be certain to have to receive twice.
That's exactly what the new rule fixes: the old choice was really no choice at all.
I swear I have seen teams in the past win the coin toss, elect to kick for the start of the half and get the ball back in the second half.
Last edited by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?; 10-21-2008 at 03:21 PM..
Re: Thoughts on Deferring
But the result is the same. Who ever kicks in the first half, will get the ball in the second half.
Linear Mode
