Albany v Mart, Mart kicked both halves

[ElvisLives]

I believe the Captain (with/without concurrence from their HC) correctly calling the coin toss, has the option to select his choice (to kick, receive or choose a goal to defend) or to "defer" (make that choice prior to the second half KO).  He DOESN'T get to choose for both half's.  He gets the same 3 choices for the second half regardless of what the opponent chooses to begin the game. (K, R or D). 

If, after choosing to defer, the opponent gets the SAME 3 choices for the 1st half, and should that opponent then choose to Kick, the coin toss winner can only choose to Receive or Defend a goal, and the original toss winner  gets to choose "which goal to defend", while maintaining to exercise his (full) choice for the 2nd half.

Al, this is NCAA football, nothing else. The UIL (Texas) has no exceptions to the coin toss procedure (other than that the coaches may choose to have the coin toss between themselves at some time other than 3 minutes before scheduled KO).
Whether coaches or captains, the first thing that happens is the coin toss itself, which ONLY determines which team will have the first choice of options for the kickoff, itself. Before there was the ability of a team to 'defer' their first choice of kickoff options, the winner of the coin toss had the first choice of the kickoff options for the first half, and that was that.
For some time now, the winner of the toss has had the ability to elect to have their first choice of kickoff options for the first half, or may elect to 'defer' their first choice of kickoff options to the second half kickoff.
So, after the team with the first choice of kickoff options is determined (first half or second half), by rule, that team has two options to choose: 1) To designate which team shall kickoff (making the other team the receiving team, by default), or 2) select the goal line they will defend in that period.

That's it. Not three options. Two (2).

Now, many people have morphed that into a dumbed-down statement: The team with the first choice can choose to "kick, receive, or defend a goal." In most cases, that proves to be the effect. But those are NOT the actual choices to be made.

Yes, during the toss, if the team with the first choice says, "We'll receive," we simply know that they actually mean they are designating their opponent to kick off (after all, if they want to receive, their opponent has to be the one kicking off). Then the opponent has the choice of which end they will defend.

I have had a team choose to kick, as their first option. And they truly wanted to kick. They had a very good kicker, and a very good defense, and felt they could get great field position by pinning their opponent deep in their own end of the field. But, of course, by choosing to kick, they gave up the ability to choose which end of the field they would defend. They didn't care. The wind was very mild that day, and would not have affected their kicker much. But, we knew that is what they wanted, by asking the HC before the coin toss.

We should not be pointing fingers at the officials in the coin toss case that started this discussion. The blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the person responsible for teaching their players the game of football, which includes the rules of the game (of which, the coin toss is part and parcel). That person is the Head Coach. If he teaches them the rules, then we won't be having to conduct a mini-clinic on the coin toss and kickoff optipons before the coin toss, or, worse, during the coin toss procedure. Oh. He doesn't know the rules, you say? Well, how can he fix that problem? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

[JasonTX]

I'm not sure if it showed on the TV broadcast but as the teams are entering the field for the start of the game, the North Shore coach was being interviewed by the sideline reporter and he noticed his captains were lining up.  He quickly, without warning to the reporter, ran 20 yards to his captains to give them instructions.  He then returned back to the sideline reporter to resume the interview.  I imagine he saw the Mart game and didn't want his captains to screw it up.

[AlUpstateNY]

Al, this is NCAA football, nothing else. The UIL (Texas) has no exceptions to the coin toss procedure (other than that the coaches may choose to have the coin toss between themselves at some time other than 3 minutes before scheduled KO).
Whether coaches or captains, the first thing that happens is the coin toss itself, which ONLY determines which team will have the first choice of options for the kickoff, itself. Before there was the ability of a team to 'defer' their first choice of kickoff options, the winner of the coin toss had the first choice of the kickoff options for the first half, and that was that.
For some time now, the winner of the toss has had the ability to elect to have their first choice of kickoff options for the first half, or may elect to 'defer' their first choice of kickoff options to the second half kickoff.
So, after the team with the first choice of kickoff options is determined (first half or second half), by rule, that team has two options to choose: 1) To designate which team shall kickoff (making the other team the receiving team, by default), or 2) select the goal line they will defend in that period.

That's it. Not three options. Two (2).

Now, many people have morphed that into a dumbed-down statement: The team with the first choice can choose to "kick, receive, or defend a goal." In most cases, that proves to be the effect. But those are NOT the actual choices to be made.

Yes, during the toss, if the team with the first choice says, "We'll receive," we simply know that they actually mean they are designating their opponent to kick off (after all, if they want to receive, their opponent has to be the one kicking off). Then the opponent has the choice of which end they will defend.

I have had a team choose to kick, as their first option. And they truly wanted to kick. They had a very good kicker, and a very good defense, and felt they could get great field position by pinning their opponent deep in their own end of the field. But, of course, by choosing to kick, they gave up the ability to choose which end of the field they would defend. They didn't care. The wind was very mild that day, and would not have affected their kicker much. But, we knew that is what they wanted, by asking the HC before the coin toss.

We should not be pointing fingers at the officials in the coin toss case that started this discussion. The blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the person responsible for teaching their players the game of football, which includes the rules of the game (of which, the coin toss is part and parcel). That person is the Head Coach. If he teaches them the rules, then we won't be having to conduct a mini-clinic on the coin toss and kickoff optipons before the coin toss, or, worse, during the coin toss procedure. Oh. He doesn't know the rules, you say? Well, how can he fix that problem? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

I thought that was basically, what I was trying to say.

[Covid 22]

A question for Elvis.
If receive has morphed to "the other ream kicking", why hasn't kick morphed to defer?  Seem like that solves 99.99% of the confusion.

[TxBJ]

.

[ElvisLives]

A question for Elvis.
If receive has morphed to "the other ream kicking", why hasn't kick morphed to defer?  Seem like that solves 99.99% of the confusion.

Read the 8th paragraph of my message of 12/19. That’s why not. And that is why the rule is as it is.

I will draw the ire of many, I’m sure, but this goes back to the earliest days of American football, when the rules were written by the players who were actually playing the game at the time. They were “college guys,” long before we had politicians wanting give away college educations to everybody. Back then, people that went to college were more motivated and, on average, more intelligent than the rest of the general population of the country. They didn’t need the rules to be dumbed-down to their level, like so many players and coaches today. Sadly, we seem to see a continual lowering of standards for almost everything in the country, these days.
I was bummed when Redding removed the provision for a team scored upon to decide which team would kick off. So, even if a team, behind in score, scores to narrow the scoring gap to 93 points, their opponent doesn’t have the ability to be merciful and choose to kickoff (so as to give the team behind a chance to avoid losing by 100 points). That was nothing but dumbing down. Not the worst example, I’ll grant you, but an example, nonetheless. A more egregious example is when Redding changed the “inbounds lines” to “hash marks.” The only people that knew their correct name was “inbounds lines” were officials, and we all knew that. No need to dumb the rules down for us. But he did.
Let’s pretend the players are young men (and some women) with brains, and try to teach them the actual rules. They just might respond by understanding them, and making good choices (coin toss or actual playing of the game). And be better coaches after their playing days.
Somebody wake me up…

[TxSkyBolt]

Read the 8th paragraph of my message of 12/19. T

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk