Is it an actual rule that it has to flip? Or is throwing it in the air enough? When you redo the toss, shouldn't the visiting team be allowed to pick between heads and tails again?
(Yes it does not matter as it came up heads twice. Just asking about the rule)
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 17, 2016, 07:31:34 AM
Is it an actual rule that it has to flip? Or is throwing it in the air enough? When you redo the toss, shouldn't the visiting team be allowed to pick between heads and tails again?
(Yes it does not matter as it came up heads twice. Just asking about the rule)
No re-pick on the re-do. Since the coin didn't actually flip, there technically wasn't a "coin flip" so re-picking wouldn't be allowed.
OK, I just made that up. Either way, Rodgers claiming he would have called heads was pretty weak.
Apparently, the NFL confirmed this morning that the rules do not require the coin to flip during the "coin toss," but that the officials decided to re-toss because it seemed "fair."
If that's the new officiating standard, it could open up a pretty large Pandora's box in terms of "fairness" vs what the rules actually require.
Like Heisy said, it made no difference in this case, but it's interesting for the NFL to confirm that these guys were pretty much making it up as they went.
Coin tosses don't lose games.
Giving up 16 point in 6 minutes - when the game is on the line - does.
Quote from: brandx on January 17, 2016, 12:21:13 PM
Coin tosses don't lose games.
Giving up 16 point in 6 minutes - when the game is on the line - does.
Word.
Quote from: brandx on January 17, 2016, 12:21:13 PM
Coin tosses don't lose games.
Giving up 16 point in 6 minutes - when the game is on the line - does.
As does your offense scoring 13 points in 59 minutes and 56 seconds.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 17, 2016, 08:10:33 AM
No re-pick on the re-do. Since the coin didn't actually flip, there technically wasn't a "coin flip" so re-picking wouldn't be allowed.
OK, I just made that up. Either way, Rodgers claiming he would have called heads was pretty weak.
If fairness is an issue than let's see refs call penalties that were missed but not reviewable because it was fair. Start with the Cardinals pick on their touchdown. Continue with the missed interference penalties.
Quote from: brandx on January 17, 2016, 12:21:13 PM
Coin tosses don't lose games.
Giving up 16 point in 6 minutes - when the game is on the line - does.
Actually they do in NFL overtime. College has it correct as the toss really doesn't matter.
Statistical look at the "new" OT rules (self.nfl)https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/2h30h8/statistical_look_at_the_new_ot_rules/
Starting with the 2011-2012 Playoffs and the 2012-2013 regular season, the NFL changed the OT rules so that the team kicking off to start OT would receive a possession if the receiving team scored a FG on the first drive of OT. Let's looks at the 41 OT games.
24 out of 42 (57%) team that won the toss won the game.
TL;DR After 42 OT games since the new rules went in to place, only 1 game has had a team score after the other team would have won under old rules. Even in that game, however, the first team to score won. 5 out of 42 (11.0%) would have ended the game with an opening drive FG . This means 79% of the time, the game still went into a Sudden Death format, where the next team to score wins.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/17/its-time-to-go-the-rest-of-the-way-with-overtime-equity/
Six years ago, after the Saints advanced to the Super Bowl following a first-possession field goal in sudden-death overtime against the Vikings, the NFL finally realized the unfairness of allowing so much to hinge on a coin toss. After Saturday night's overtime session, launched by a coin-toss misfire, it should be more clear than ever that the team that loses the toss in overtime should get a chance to match any score that the receiving team musters.
Spare me the "if you want to win the game stop them" nonsense. The question of whether a team goes to the next level of the postseason shouldn't hinge, ultimately, on the outcome of a coin toss. Both teams should have a chance to possess the ball, and the kicking team should have a chance to match any score mustered, field goal or touchdown, by the team that receives the kickoff.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 17, 2016, 10:15:04 PM
Spare me the "if you want to win the game stop them" nonsense. The question of whether a team goes to the next level of the postseason shouldn't hinge, ultimately, on the outcome of a coin toss. Both teams should have a chance to possess the ball, and the kicking team should have a chance to match any score mustered, field goal or touchdown, by the team that receives the kickoff.
Why is it "nonsense" to think that if a team wants to win a Playoff game they should have to stop the other team from scoring?
You can't win. If you gave each team a possession, and then after that it became sudden death, then everyone would say that teams should have equal possessions after a game where both teams scored a TD and then one of them won on a field goal. If the losing team isn't sore about one thing, they will find another thing to be sore about.
I wonder if players would support the college format. I think it would be split pretty good. I don't think any pro want to play a 7OT game.
Quote from: RushmoreAcademy on January 18, 2016, 12:32:08 PM
You can't win. If you gave each team a possession, and then after that it became sudden death, then everyone would say that teams should have equal possessions after a game where both teams scored a TD and then one of them won on a field goal. If the losing team isn't sore about one thing, they will find another thing to be sore about.
I wonder if players would support the college format. I think it would be split pretty good. I don't think any pro want to play a 7OT game.
Agree that the players would be a tough sell. And you're right - there is no perfect system that would make everybody happy.
But as a fan, some of those crazy college OT games are a blast.
Quote from: RushmoreAcademy on January 18, 2016, 12:32:08 PM
You can't win. If you gave each team a possession, and then after that it became sudden death, then everyone would say that teams should have equal possessions after a game where both teams scored a TD and then one of them won on a field goal. If the losing team isn't sore about one thing, they will find another thing to be sore about.
I wonder if players would support the college format. I think it would be split pretty good. I don't think any pro want to play a 7OT game.
While I agree to a certain extent, I think it's pretty easy to stop that "slippery slope" argument by simply making the rule, "both teams get the ball at least once." I don't think that should be a particularly controversial rule. I don't have a big problem with the current rule, but I would prefer this change. I understand the argument against ("you want to win, make sure you at least hold the other team to a FG"), but I still would prefer each team to have possession.
I think the college rule is fun to watch, but I see no reason to bring that into the NFL.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 18, 2016, 01:26:01 PM
While I agree to a certain extent, I think it's pretty easy to stop that "slippery slope" argument by simply making the rule, "both teams get the ball at least once." I don't think that should be a particularly controversial rule. I don't have a big problem with the current rule, but I would prefer this change. I understand the argument against ("you want to win, make sure you at least hold the other team to a FG"), but I still would prefer each team to have possession.
I think the college rule is fun to watch, but I see no reason to bring that into the NFL.
Both teams get a possession scenario...
Team A wins the coin toss, gets the ball and scores a TD.
Team B gets the ball and scores a TD.
Team A gets the ball again and scores to win the game.
Team A
still got the advantage of an extra possession by winning the coin toss.
I say...Go XFL-style!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeeVwkLYD5g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeeVwkLYD5g)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 18, 2016, 01:33:50 PM
Both teams get a possession scenario...
Team A wins the coin toss, gets the ball and scores a TD.
Team B gets the ball and scores a TD.
Team A gets the ball again and scores to win the game.
Team A still got the advantage of an extra possession by winning the coin toss.
And I'm totally OK with that. You have to draw the line somewhere. It seems to me that "both teams get the ball at least once" is a pretty logical place to draw the line. I would argue that it's the
most logical.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 17, 2016, 10:15:04 PM
Actually they do in NFL overtime. College has it correct as the toss really doesn't matter.
Even in college, the toss does matter....because you would rather go second, knowing what your opponent did in their possession. In the end, the coin toss still matters and gives a team an advantage.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 18, 2016, 01:36:56 PM
And I'm totally OK with that. You have to draw the line somewhere. It seems to me that "both teams get the ball at least once" is a pretty logical place to draw the line. I would argue that it's the most logical.
Why would that be the most logical? Because a coin toss is "unfair?" Wouldn't it also be "unfair" to give a team who couldn't stop the opposing team on the game's most important possession a chance to then tie or win the game?
How about this...In the Playoffs, overtime is sudden death and the home team gets the ball first. They earned homefield advantage in the regular season, why not give them this additional advantage as well?
Side question: If that was the rule, think McCarthy would have gone for 2 knowing that his team was kicking off to start OT?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 18, 2016, 02:02:27 PM
Even in college, the toss does matter....because you would rather go second, knowing what your opponent did in their possession. In the end, the coin toss still matters and gives a team an advantage.
+1
Life isn't fair. The NFL can try to make overtime as fair as possible, but even in college, the coin flip does have an impact. Just the way things go. The Packers had plenty of opportunities to win the game, and they didn't.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 18, 2016, 02:21:12 PM
Why would that be the most logical? Because a coin toss is "unfair?" Wouldn't it also be "unfair" to give a team who couldn't stop the opposing team on the game's most important possession a chance to then tie or win the game?
How about this...In the Playoffs, overtime is sudden death and the home team gets the ball first. They earned homefield advantage in the regular season, why not give them this additional advantage as well?
Side question: If that was the rule, think McCarthy would have gone for 2 knowing that his team was kicking off to start OT?
I just think it is the most logical. Others may disagree. Football is made up of offense, defense and special teams. I think it is logical to give both teams an opportunity to utilize all three phases. I can understand the alternate position, but I personally would prefer it to be handled differently than the current rule.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 18, 2016, 01:33:50 PM
I say...Go XFL-style!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeeVwkLYD5g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeeVwkLYD5g)
Hahaha. I forgot about the XFL. I looked up the rule changes they put in place:
----------------
There is no coin toss to determine which team will get the ball first. Instead of the coin toss, the action in the XFL will start before the game even kicks off. Player from each team will line up on the 35-yard line. The referee will blow the whistle and each player will dash to the 50-yard line where a ball will be placed. The team that recovers the ball has the choice to kick or receive.
There is no coin toss to determine which team will get the ball first. Instead of the coin toss, the action in the XFL will start before the game even kicks off. Player from each team will line up on the 35-yard line. The referee will blow the whistle and each player will dash to the 50-yard line where a ball will be placed. The team that recovers the ball has the choice to kick or receive.
Returning teams must run kickoffs back out of the end zone, unless the kick goes through the end zone.
The extra point will either be pass or run attempted only after a touchdown. The ball spotted on the 2-yard line. Eliminating the extra-point attempt by the kicker.
Receivers needed only one foot inbounds for a pass reception.
Defensive players may use bump-and-run tactics on offensive players down the field. Changed back to NFL rule eliminating the bump-and-run only after 4 weeks.
Teams have 35 seconds to get a play off after previous play is ruled dead and 25 seconds following any clock stoppage.
Quarterbacks who slide can be downed just by contact and can't be hit.
No in the grasp rule, the play stops when forward progress is halted.
College football overtime system was used. In overtime, each team will have at least one possession, a maximum of four downs from the opposition's 20-yard line, unless a defensive touchdown is scored on the first possession. However, if the first team scores a touchdown in fewer than four downs, the second team only gets that many plays to respond.
Offensive back is allowed in motion toward line of scrimmage before ball is snapped.
No fair catches are permitted, but the returning player is granted a 5-yard protected halo where a member of the kicking team may not encroach until the ball is touched. The kicking team may not cross the line of scrimmage until the ball is punted. At the same time, any punt traveling more than 25 yards past the line of scrimmage is a live ball and can be recovered by either team.
"HE HATES ME"
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 18, 2016, 02:21:12 PM
Side question: If that was the rule, think McCarthy would have gone for 2 knowing that his team was kicking off to start OT?
Honestly, I was screaming in my head to go for 2. End the game right there... trust in your offense to gain 2 yards instead of 80 (if you win the toss) and don't worry about your defense. Don't rely on coin flips, busted plays, avoiding mistakes, exploiting the other team's mistakes, injuries, tipped balls, bad penalties, laces in, missed penalties, dropped balls, clock errors, wind changes, breakdowns in coverage, free plays, etc.
2-friggin-yards. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to win.
This is the ultimate case in point that head coaching in the NFL is
not about playing to win, it's about playing to not lose.
Quote from: Benny B on January 19, 2016, 11:36:00 AM
Honestly, I was screaming in my head to go for 2. End the game right there... trust in your offense to gain 2 yards instead of 80 (if you win the toss) and don't worry about your defense. Don't rely on coin flips, busted plays, avoiding mistakes, exploiting the other team's mistakes, injuries, tipped balls, bad penalties, laces in, missed penalties, dropped balls, clock errors, wind changes, breakdowns in coverage, free plays, etc. 2-friggin-yards. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to win.
This is the ultimate case in point that head coaching in the NFL is not about playing to win, it's about playing to not lose.
It's pretty much a 50-50 proposition either way, and if Aaron Rodgers is my QB, I think I'd want to give the ball to him to win the game right then and there. Not sure if it is playing not to lose, but NFL coaches seem to be afraid to go against traditional thinking when making big decisions.
Quote from: Benny B on January 19, 2016, 11:36:00 AM
Honestly, I was screaming in my head to go for 2. End the game right there... trust in your offense to gain 2 yards instead of 80 (if you win the toss) and don't worry about your defense. Don't rely on coin flips, busted plays, avoiding mistakes, exploiting the other team's mistakes, injuries, tipped balls, bad penalties, laces in, missed penalties, dropped balls, clock errors, wind changes, breakdowns in coverage, free plays, etc. 2-friggin-yards. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to win.
This is the ultimate case in point that head coaching in the NFL is not about playing to win, it's about playing to not lose.
Agreed. And for those who tossed stats in the other thread, here's something to ponder.
GB was 66.7% on 2-point attempts this season (4-6). Even the NFL averages around 50%. http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-two-point-conversion-statistics/2015/
In games that go to OT, road teams win about 46% of the time. http://www.todayspigskin.com/football-analytics/when-was-the-last-time-your-team-won-an-overtime-game-on-the-road/
So if you're a numbers guy, the 2-point conversion was the way to go (even if you use the lower NFL 2-pt conversion percentage).
Then you add in the extraneous factors. The Packers had the momentum, while the Cardinals were stunned. And the Cardinals had no TOs left. A 2-point attempt would have been far from a given, but from the start I believed that it was the Packers' better option.
Quote from: CTWarrior on January 19, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
It's pretty much a 50-50 proposition either way, and if Aaron Rodgers is my QB, I think I'd want to give the ball to him to win the game right then and there. Not sure if it is playing not to lose, but NFL coaches seem to be afraid to go against traditional thinking when making big decisions.
Which leads me to my next point... head coaching positions in the NFL are more secure when you lose
if you play to not lose rather than if you play to win.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 18, 2016, 01:26:01 PM
While I agree to a certain extent, I think it's pretty easy to stop that "slippery slope" argument by simply making the rule, "both teams get the ball at least once." I don't think that should be a particularly controversial rule. I don't have a big problem with the current rule, but I would prefer this change. I understand the argument against ("you want to win, make sure you at least hold the other team to a FG"), but I still would prefer each team to have possession.
I think the college rule is fun to watch, but I see no reason to bring that into the NFL.
I agree with this proposition, you do have to draw the line somewhere but giving each team a possession is not unreasonable. Scott Van Pelt weighed in on this topic earlier and he basically had the same solution.
Quote from: Benny B on January 19, 2016, 12:18:14 PM
Which leads me to my next point... head coaching positions in the NFL are more secure when you lose if you play to not lose rather than if you play to win.
Yep, that seems to be the case. The whole world expected McCarthy to play for OT...so that's exactly what he did. Doesn't matter that the stats show his changes were actually
better going for two. Play it conservative, and the pundits chalk the loss to bad luck instead of a coaching blunder.
Regular season. No overtime. Be OK with ties.
Playoffs. Play full quarters. No sudden death.
I've apparently gone full soccer.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on January 19, 2016, 09:26:49 PM
Regular season. No overtime. Be OK with ties.
Playoffs. Play full quarters. No sudden death.
I've apparently gone full soccer.
75 minutes is a lot of football. I wouldn't mind it as a fan but I think you are putting players at risk of injury
Quote from: Coleman on January 19, 2016, 10:28:04 PM
75 minutes is a lot of football. I wouldn't mind it as a fan but I think you are putting players at risk of injury
It also increases the chances that the game is still tied after the extra 15.
Personally, I like the sudden death format.