Thoughts on deferring

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

LOL, it's NEVER been that way. Never. Your football knowledge is showing again!

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.

 

[Nunchucks]

This thread makes me want to stab myself in the eye. WTF is wrong with some of you?

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

This thread makes me want to stab myself in the eye. WTF is wrong with some of you?

Now that is just disturbing! I'm sorry but I'm glad someone brought this up because it's the most annoying rule change that is confusing most people.

 

[alamo]

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.

 

[patchick]

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.

 

[patchick]

This thread makes me want to stab myself in the eye. WTF is wrong with some of you?

That depends on which of us you're referring to. If you'd like to know what's wrong with me personally, I'd be glad to assemble a lengthy list!

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

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.

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.

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.

 

[alamo]

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.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

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.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

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.

you would probably be wrong. In the old system, the loser of the toss got to choose in the 2nd half....why would they choose to kick?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

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.

My you are a stubborn one! Maybe you're thinking of college.

Let me offer you two scenarios:

1) You are right. We are all wrong. And the rules committee, which understands the rules better than most people on the planet, spent their valuable time making a rules change that has no effect whatsoever. And perhaps the best coach of a generation, in fact, seems to believe that the rule has changed, because he announced in a press conference that under the new rule he likes deferral.

2) You are right. We are all wrong. The rules committee and Bill Belichick are confused.

As others have noted, the old rule was this and only this: The winner of the coin toss "won" the following: the right to choose ball or possession in the first half. The "loser" of the coin toss got the right to choose ball or possession in the second half. I believe there actually are situations in the NFL where the person electing the choice chose direction over ball, but those are weather related and this election would typically mean that one team got the kick off both halves.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

you would probably be wrong. In the old system, the loser of the toss got to choose in the 2nd half....why would they choose to kick?

It is possible the rule was the way it is now 25 years ago, got changed and now changed back again. Cause I vaguely remember the rule being as it is now, when I was a kid.

 

[ScottieC]

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.

Can someone please find us a NFL Rule and Fact book online? It would be a pretty sweet addition to the board.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I like deferring, particularly on the road.

As most remember, halftime has been shortened significantly to accomodate the new timeout rules (and to get more commercials in during the game). With a 12 minute half time, the opening kick off usually happens in front of a half-empty stadium. I think it's easier to be on offense without 80,000 rabid fans screaming their lungs out, because they are still waiting to go to the can or get a beer.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

It is possible the rule was the way it is now 25 years ago, got changed and now changed back again. Cause I vaguely remember the rule being as it is now, when I was a kid.

Actually, I believe that is correct, although I think it was a bit more than 25 years ago.

 

[pao]

Definately think it's best. If you're winning at halftime, you have a chance to extend it. If you're losing at halftime, you make sure that they do not have a chance to extend before you do.

Wow, couldn't agree more.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

This is why BB is one of the best ever, and once again I am in 100% agreeance with him. That opportunity to have back-to-back possessions is huge especially if the defense is off to a rocky start. If you get the ball with 5-6 minutes left in the 2nd quarter you could structure your drive to keep the other offense off the field for a long time. At least for significant snaps (if you can keep possession until under a minute or so they'll most likely be kneeling).

 

[spacecrime]

I'm all confused as to how this deferment is new?

before, you either chose to kick or recieve, and you would get the opposite to start the 2nd half. This is how it works in every video game released for the last 20 years

video game?

Before, the winner of the coin toss got to choose to start the game, and the loser got to choose to start the second half.

Now the winner can either choose at the start of the game OR to start the second half, at his discretion.

Before, I always hoped the Pats would lose the coin toss, so obviously I'm in favor of deferring.

If the defense can make a stop on the other team's opening drive, you have a good advantage because you hve the ball in the first half and will get it to start the second half. If you don't make the stop, no biggie, you can still get the ball at the start of the second half.

It is a huge momentum builder if you score at the end of the first have and know you will get the ball again to start the second half.

Also, it the other team chooses to receive, you get to select which goal you defend, and you can select so that you have the wind at your back in the fourth quarter.

What's not to like about deferring?

 

[spacecrime]

LOL, it's NEVER been that way. Never. Your football knowledge is showing again!

Or lack thereof

 

[spacecrime]

Regardless of why it's better to defer, it is better. Statistically, the team that gets the ball to start the 2nd half has a slightly better winning percentage. So it's bizarre to me that so many teams are still asking for the ball at the opening kickoff. As a fan, that would set off warning bells about my coach's whole approach to the game -- blindly clinging to the customary and familiar and refusing to reexamine his own assumptions.

In fairness, some bad teams need the boost of a score or being ahead at least for a few minutes a game. Also, teams that are built to rush the passer do better when playing with a lead, so they would do well to elect to receive.

But for any team with a decent defense, I agree with you. 'Tis better to kick than receive.