New Rules - Defer Coin flip, no 5-yard face mask

[sableholic]

Your explanation is actually more complicated than the new rule. :doh:

New rule:

Team A wins coin toss. They can:

a) Defer

Kick

c) Receive

If they choose Kick they have just set themselves up to Kickoff in both halves. If they choose to receive they will receive the 1st half and kick the 2nd. If they defer Team B will choose to receive and Team A will receive in the 2nd half.

Any way you look at it Team A will kick the ball one half and Team B will kick the other. I don't see any coach choosing to kick twice.

Because of this, why not just say the winner of the coin toss gets to choose what half they kickoff during. Isn't that more simple?

[Dan T.]

Repeat, now there are four options:

1. Kick off

2. Receive

3. Which goal to defend

4. Defer

Sableholic, I do understand your point. I just like the extra potential for gamesmanship with "defer" as an option... No big deal.

[S4L]

New rule:

Team A wins coin toss. They can:

a) Defer

Kick

c) Receive

If they choose Kick they have just set themselves up to Kickoff in both halves. If they choose to receive they will receive the 1st half and kick the 2nd. If they defer Team B will choose to receive and Team A will receive in the 2nd half.

Any way you look at it Team A will kick the ball one half and Team B will kick the other. I don't see any coach choosing to kick twice.

Because of this, why not just say the winner of the coin toss gets to choose what half they kickoff during. Isn't that more simple?

What was the problem with the coin toss originally? Why is this an issue? If I kick first, then you kick second. If you kick first, then I kick second.

Now you can defer the decision all togther? :doh:

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill...

[Dan T.]

What was the problem with the coin toss originally? Why is this an issue? If I kick first, then you kick second. If you kick first, then I kick second.

Now you can defer the decision all togther? :doh:

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill...

As was explained before, the defer options lets the coin toss winner choose in the second half, which is not an option now.

[S4L]

As was explained before, the defer options lets the coin toss winner choose in the second half, which is not an option now.

Well... if that's what they want then fine.

As a Skins' fan I always want the ball first in the second half to score based on Joe Gibbs "sit on a lead" style, but I guess the half-time score would dictate that choice if you're way ahead. Alright... well I guess I can see more strategy playing out a bit.

[Area51]

When they were trying to figure out on how to change the coin toss rule, they should've just looked to Madden. Very simple and very fair. That's how I thought it already was(or used to be now).

[jb4348]

I think everyone is confusing eachother here. Yes if you defer and the the other team chooses to receive in the first half, doesn't mean they get to receive in the 2nd half too. Either way each team will kick either at the start of the game or the start of the 2nd half. No way would they vote that one team could receive at the beg of the game and the beg of the 2nd half. That would be unfair and would make no sense at all.

[Dan T.]

I think everyone is confusing eachother here. Yes if you defer and the the other team chooses to receive in the first half, doesn't mean they get to receive in the 2nd half too. Either way each team will kick either at the start of the game or the start of the 2nd half. No way would they vote that one team could receive at the beg of the game and the beg of the 2nd half. That would be unfair and would make no sense at all.

:doh: It baffles me that people find this so confusing...

[jb4348]

:doh: It baffles me that people find this so confusing...

I am sorry I didn't know you were the king of knowing all rules in the football world. So you're saying that 1 team could receive the kickoff twice in one game? Once at the beg. and after half time? So me the link where it states this please. Or give me a link with an example of a game (college) where this has happened.

[Dan T.]

I am sorry I didn't know you were the king of knowing all rules in the football world. So you're saying that 1 team could receive the kickoff twice in one game? Once at the beg. and after half time? So me the link where it states this please. Or give me a link with an example of a game (college) where this has happened.

Sorry for the tone. It's frustrating because I thought it was explained fairly well during this thread. Anyway. . .

With the "defer" option, yes it could happen that a team receives the ball twice.

Coin toss to start the game, the Redskins win the toss. They can choose to kick, receive, defend a goal, or "defer". They choose defer, meaning the Giants must now choose, and the Redskins get to choose to start the second half. For whatever reason, the Giants choose to kick off.

So in the second half, thanks to selecting defer at the coin flip, the Redskins choose to receive. Voila, they've received in both halves.

It apparently happened at the University of Wisconsin. Here's a link to a long piece that includes a discussion about the rule and the incident.

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rfsc/intro/answers.shtml

Here's the section (Note it's college, the Jets are not the NFL Jets.) :

Question: Last Sunday I noticed that the Jets won the coin toss and elected to kick off. Then to start off the second half, the Jets kicked off again. How is that possible? Is it true that if you win the coin toss and elect to kick off, you risk kicking off to start the third quarter also as the team who lost the toss gets to pick in the second half? Also, can a team that won the opening coin toss "defer" and thus be able to choose to get the ball to start the third quarter?

Answer: Electing to kickoff after winning the coin toss is always a mistake. Yes, the team that won the coin toss can elect to defer having the first choice until the start of the second half. If you defer, you normally end up kicking off at the start of the game. I saw one game where the University of Wisconsin coach intended to defer but the player on the field elected to kickoff instead. The player did not appreciated the difference. The coach was not pleased; Wisconsin ended up kicking off at the start of both halves.

[jb4348]

Sorry for the tone. It's frustrating because I thought it was explained fairly well during this thread. Anyway. . .

With the "defer" option, yes it could happen that a team received the ball twice.

Coin toss to start the game, the Redskins win the toss. They can choose to kick, receive, defend a goal, or "defer". They choose defer, meaning the Giants must now choose, and the Redskins get to choose to start the second half. For whatever reason, the Giants choose to kick off.

So in the second half, thanks to selecting defer at the coin flip, the Redskins choose to receive. Voila, they've received in both halves.

It apparently happened at the University of Wisconsin. Here's a link to a long piece that includes a discussion about the rule and the incident.

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rfsc/intro/answers.shtml

Here's the section (Note it's college, the Jets are not the NFL Jets.) :

Question: Last Sunday I noticed that the Jets won the coin toss and elected to kick off. Then to start off the second half, the Jets kicked off again. How is that possible? Is it true that if you win the coin toss and elect to kick off, you risk kicking off to start the third quarter also as the team who lost the toss gets to pick in the second half? Also, can a team that won the opening coin toss "defer" and thus be able to choose to get the ball to start the third quarter?

Answer: Electing to kickoff after winning the coin toss is always a mistake. Yes, the team that won the coin toss can elect to defer having the first choice until the start of the second half. If you defer, you normally end up kicking off at the start of the game. I saw one game where the University of Wisconsin coach intended to defer but the player on the field elected to kickoff instead. The player did not appreciated the difference. The coach was not pleased; Wisconsin ended up kicking off at the start of both halves.

Ok now I understand better. It would just be stupid if a team lost the defer to Kick off to start a game, because they would end up kicking again. I guess its not as confusing as it seems. I guess we will see mistakes with this though as any new rule.

[Dan T.]

The NFL team that lost the coin toss at the beginning of the game has always gotten to choose in the second half. They didn't automatically get to receive in the 2nd half just because they kicked off in the 1st half. Obviously, they choose to receive in the 2nd half 99.9 percent of the time.

I'd be curious if anyone could think of NFL examples where

1) a team won the opening toss and chose to kick-off or defend a goal instead of receive.

2) a team in the second half chose to kick-off or defend a goal instead of receive.

I'll bet its happened. I just can't recall an example.

[Dan T.]

Ok now I understand better. It would just be stupid if a team lost the defer to Kick off to start a game, because they would end up kicking again. I guess its not as confusing as it seems. I guess we will see mistakes with this though as any new rule.

[Larry Brown #43]

It would just be stupid if a team lost the defer to Kick off to start a game, because they would end up kicking again. I guess its not as confusing as it seems. I guess we will see mistakes with this though as any new rule.

Man, if a coach wins the toss and elects to kick to start the game, and then is forced to kick again after halftime, he should have a pink slip waiting for him after the game.

That would be right up there with Marty Mohrninweg's decision to kickoff at the beginning of OT that time when he was coaching Detroit. He can't escape the shadow of that bizarre decision.

[jb4348]

Man, if a coach wins the toss and elects to kick to start the game, and then is forced to kick again after halftime, he should have a pink slip waiting for him after the game.

That would be right up there with Marty Mohrninweg's decision to kickoff at the beginning of OT that time when he was coaching Detroit. He can't escape the shadow of that bizarre decision.

I agree completely. I will never forget when Marty did that. I was thinking to myself what an idiot.

[Duckus]

In Madden if you choose to kick (which I always do) you 100% get the ball in the second half. I always thought that was the real rule. Turns out Madden used to wrong rule. Never knew this.

[FUBAR]

In Madden if you choose to kick (which I always do) you 100% get the ball in the second half. I always thought that was the real rule. Turns out Madden used to wrong rule. Never knew this.

AMEN! I have been horribly confused for about 10 minutes, but just now figured it out. And I have nothing but Madden to blame. :mad:

[SonnyJ]

:doh: It baffles me that people find this so confusing...

I was thinking the same thing as I waded through page after page of this thread :laugh:. I guess a lot of people here don't watch college football, because this is the way it has been done at that level for quite some time.

- A direct snap from center that goes backward will now be treated as a fumble. Previously, it was ruled a false start. (I didn't know that!)

This is the one that confuses the heck out of me. When would a center snap ever NOT go backward? If it's loose, how can it not be a fumble? I can't think of one time I've ever seen this ruled a false start. :confused:

[Dan T.]

In Madden if you choose to kick (which I always do) you 100% get the ball in the second half. I always thought that was the real rule. Turns out Madden used to wrong rule. Never knew this.

AMEN! I have been horribly confused for about 10 minutes, but just now figured it out. And I have nothing but Madden to blame. :mad:

So, yet another example of video games being the root of a problem!!!

[jb4348]

I was thinking the same thing as I waded through page after page of this thread :laugh:. I guess a lot of people here don't watch college football, because this is the way it has been done at that level for quite some time.

This is the one that confuses the heck out of me. When would a center snap ever NOT go backward? If it's loose, how can it not be a fumble? I can't think of one time I've ever seen this ruled a false start. :confused:

You sit here and laugh at people because they are confused on a rule, like everyone thats ever watched college football should know how the rule works. because like in a previous post you rarely ever see the same team kicking off twice in one game at beg. of game. and the start of the 2nd half. If its so common list the games where this has occured, because I would be interested in seeing.

For your other question I am going to try to anwser what I think and I could be completely wrong, but I think as of right now if the center where to snap the ball without anyother movement it would be a dead ball and a false start. So they changed it to if the center snaps it without anyother movement it will be a fumble and a live ball.

[Dan T.]

For your other question I am going to try to anwser what I think and I could be completely wrong, but I think as of right now if the center where to snap the ball without anyother movement it would be a dead ball and a false start. So they changed it to if the center snaps it without anyother movement it will be a fumble and a live ball.

That's what I guessed too.

And, in addition to the new "no force out" rule, this is another rule favoring the defense over the offense:

-Early snap with no other movement-

Before: 5 yard false start penalty. Replay the down.

Now: Live ball. Fumble. Chance for the D to recover. Likely loss of yardage at least. Loss of down

[sableholic]

Man, if a coach wins the toss and elects to kick to start the game, and then is forced to kick again after halftime, he should have a pink slip waiting for him after the game.

That would be right up there with Marty Mohrninweg's decision to kickoff at the beginning of OT that time when he was coaching Detroit. He can't escape the shadow of that bizarre decision.

Exactly why I was saying they should make the rule simpler cause in reality nobody should ever be choosing some of those options. It should just be the winner of the coin toss choices which half to kickoff and the loser will kickoff whichever half they didnt choose.

That's what I guessed too.

And, in addition to the new "no force out" rule, this is another rule favoring the defense over the offense:

-Early snap with no other movement-

Before: 5 yard false start penalty. Replay the down.

Now: Live ball. Fumble. Chance for the D to recover. Likely loss of yardage at least. Loss of down

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/nflinsider/

During a game this past season in Philadelphia between the Eagles and Chicago Bears, an odd play happened. With the Bears on offense, a snap with the quarterback directly under center went straight through the quarterback's legs untouched. The Eagles recovered the loose ball and made a lengthy return deep into Bears' territory, potentially setting up a key touchdown.

However, the officials ruled the play a false start because the snap had gone untouched past the quarterback with the quarterback under center. The Bears retained possession, albeit with a five-yard penalty, and went on to win the game.

I was at that game, and I can tell you that no one in the stadium but the officials on the field and the officiating supervisors in the press box knew that rule. The players didn't. The coaches didn't. Reporters and fans certainly didn't. It was called correctly, but it didn't make much sense. League officials later told me that the obscure rule was intended to aid the defense by prohibiting the offense from using a trick play in which the ball could be snapped past the quarterback to another player. In this case, though, the rule had hurt the defense.

The rule was changed this week at the annual league meeting. Such an untouched hand-to-hand snap no longer will be called a false start. The ball will be live, and either team can recover and advance it.

...

There was another play this past season involving the New York Giants in which the Giants got a first down on a pass from quarterback Eli Manning to tight end Jeremy Shockey. The play had begun with a defender jumping offside, and it ended with Shockey spiking the ball. That's a dead-ball five-yard penalty for spiking the ball after a play that didn't result in a touchdown. Under the rule at the time, the offside and spiking penalties offset; the Giants lost their first down and the play was replayed. That rule was changed this week. Under the new rule, the Giants would have been allowed to decline the offside penalty; they could have kept their first down and been penalized five yards for Shockey's dead-ball spike. The rule applies only to a dead-ball spike infraction. The scenario came up only one other time this past season, according to the league.

Also, muffed forward handoffs beyond the line of scrimmage used to be treated as incomplete passes, meaning that the other team could not recover the loose ball. Now, the opposing team can recover the ball in such a circumstance.

I think that blog post does a great job of explaining it.

[Dan T.]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/nflinsider/

I think that blog post does a great job of explaining it.

So, if I read that right, the fumble rule applied to the rare instance in which a direct snap from center doesn't touch any other offensive player.

[sableholic]

So, if I read that right, the fumble rule applied to the rare instance in which a direct snap from center doesn't touch any other offensive player.

I believe so. Thats how I read it as well.

[OWUeagleMD]

For the record, the Eagles lost to the Bears this season in large part to the "false start" rule that has now been changed.

Had this rule change came a year earlier, the Eagles probably would have made the playoffs.

Not that I'm bitter.