Accepting or declining to receive opening kick-off

There is a difference. If you declined to take the ball that means you are electing to kickoff. Then in the second half the other team gets the choice so that team could be getting the ball both halves.

With respect to deferring, mathematically you can give yourself and extra possession. If you defer and then end the half with the ball then you get the ball back to start the second half it is like a two for one deal. It doesn't always work out like that but that is the mentality.

There are mamy factors that go into what choice you make like wind, potential storm, home or away, what type of team you are facing, does scorimg first matter, etc.

the choice was a strict decision - a deferral wasn't possible. You either chose to receive or to kick. Then sometime in the mid-00's, the rule changed so you could choose the end zone you wanted to defend and let the other team decide what to do to start the game.

Teams increasingly wanted the ball to start the second half than the first.

Probably because they realized they'd rather know where they stood at the end of the half instead of getting the ball to start the game.

Teams that go into halftime scoring than get the ball to start the second half have a unique psychological advantage.

/Ernie Adams started it IMO (in the NFL).

They were well ahead of the curve, the rule was only introduced to the NFL in 2008 or so and since then he was almost immediately at something like 75% defer while the rest of the league was at 10%.

Most use the reason about doubling up with getting the ball end of the half and to start the 2nd half, but to me this is flawed since you are not guaranteed to get the ball at the end of the 1st, but it probably still makes sense to defer, because if you're a good coach, you see what happened in the first half and have a chance to make adjustments to start the 2nd half.

would you rather bat first or second? Not an exact analogy and the football situation is not as important but still take every little advantage. Knowledge is power. I always preferred losing the coin toss before the deferment option rule came in.

.

If handled right it's almost like a turnover. Always defer.

In comment 14298854 since1925 said:

Quote:

If handled right it's almost like a turnover. Always defer.

Now that is exactly what I was thinking, except that deferring the ball to the other team is kind of like a turnover as well. Interesting topic.

In comment 14298803 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

/Ernie Adams started it IMO (in the NFL). They were well ahead of the curve, the rule was only introduced to the NFL in 2008 or so and since then he was almost immediately at something like 75% defer while the rest of the league was at 10%. Most use the reason about doubling up with getting the ball end of the half and to start the 2nd half, but to me this is flawed since you are not guaranteed to get the ball at the end of the 1st, but it probably still makes sense to defer, because if you're a good coach, you see what happened in the first half and have a chance to make adjustments to start the 2nd half.

It's not just about getting the ball at the end of the half and start 2nd, it is also about taking away your opponents ability to do so. Football is an extremely emotional game and when one team scores going into half getting the ball to start the second it is a distinct advantage.

says what other posters here have said, and reaches no firm conclusion.


Lonk - ( New Window )

In comment 14298799 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

the choice was a strict decision - a deferral wasn't possible. You either chose to receive or to kick. Then sometime in the mid-00's, the rule changed so you could choose the end zone you wanted to defend and let the other team decide what to do to start the game. Teams increasingly wanted the ball to start the second half than the first. Probably because they realized they'd rather know where they stood at the end of the half instead of getting the ball to start the game.

IS this true? I recall the Parcells Giants electing to kick and take and/or take the wind when they, wanted. Did that manifest to losing the 2nd half decision?

In comment 14298867 Matt M. said:

Quote:

In comment 14298799 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: the choice was a strict decision - a deferral wasn't possible. You either chose to receive or to kick. Then sometime in the mid-00's, the rule changed so you could choose the end zone you wanted to defend and let the other team decide what to do to start the game. Teams increasingly wanted the ball to start the second half than the first. Probably because they realized they'd rather know where they stood at the end of the half instead of getting the ball to start the game. IS this true? I recall the Parcells Giants electing to kick and take and/or take the wind when they, wanted. Did that manifest to losing the 2nd half decision?

Yes.

it still helps to a lesser extent today.

There's also a crowd noise benefit. The crowd will typically be ready to go and loud for the first drive of the game. If you're the home team, you want your opponent to have to deal with that noise. If you're the away team, you'd like to avoid that opening possession.

After the half, the crowd usually takes a while to come back from concessions, bathroom, etc. So that first possession is quieter than opening the game. The crowd is also typically not as "fired up" at that point.

And as other posters have mentioned, it can sometimes be an advantage to get "2 for 1." If you can end the first half with the ball, you can keep the other team's offense off the field for a long time - which can get them out of rhythm.

Teams also do this when the strength of their roster is their defense - they want to put their best unit on the field first, set the tone, and get the battle for FP in their favor right away.

It makes more sense for a team like KC to take the ball a bit more since their offense is so good. When you have a plus offense, you sometimes want to just go out there and put the other team in a hole before theirs can even see the field.

I don't recall offhand what Reid's general preference was when they won the toss, but they probably took the ball at least a few times.

Generally, the goal should be to opt for the matchup where you think you have the bigger advantage out of the gates.

....John Madden always wanted to play defense first. Different era, of course!

Madden also loved playing division rivals on the road in their first meeting of the year.........kinda like stealing a win and then they have to come to your place.

Psychological on both instances, but the coach/athlete psyche is something to significantly consider!

and eventually, teams decided that was one piece of strategy that was easy to copy.

Here's the thinking, I think - you want to have as many possessions as possible during a game. The more times you have the ball, the more chances you have to score.

I think the logic is, at the start of the game, offenses, which rely so much on rhythm and timing to be successful might not be totally in synch on their first drive. So a dropped pass, a false start, really anything, can sabotage a team's first drive.

If all goes to plan - the team starting on defense effectively gives up nothing. And meanwhile, if they have a good offense and good clock management, they have the chance to finish the 1st half by scoring points, then immediately take the ball to start the 2nd half.

Once the game starts they're fine. Since the offense need more cohesion than defense, deferring makes sense for that reason as well as the others.

In comment 14299032 BlackLight said:

Quote:

and eventually, teams decided that was one piece of strategy that was easy to copy. Here's the thinking, I think - you want to have as many possessions as possible during a game. The more times you have the ball, the more chances you have to score. I think the logic is, at the start of the game, offenses, which rely so much on rhythm and timing to be successful might not be totally in synch on their first drive. So a dropped pass, a false start, really anything, can sabotage a team's first drive. If all goes to plan - the team starting on defense effectively gives up nothing. And meanwhile, if they have a good offense and good clock management, they have the chance to finish the 1st half by scoring points, then immediately take the ball to start the 2nd half.

Yup. My major problem with TC. As a fan, I just couldn’t fathom why he ALWAYS took the ball..Never made much sense to me. FINALLY, the last year or two of his tenure, he started to defer.