PDA

View Full Version : Rules Change: No More Peel-Back Blocks


Texaninlild
03-23-2009, 10:12 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AtDR_E1X4fc3DGBZ_WVuMjg5nYcB?slug=cr-nflownerssafety032309&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Now, in the wake of several crushing “blind” helmet-to-helmet hits by offensive players, the NFL is aiming to do just that. When the league’s annual meetings wrap up later this week, the competition committee hopes to have a new rule passed that will protect defensive players from devastating peel-back blows.

We are getting to the point where all big hits will be eliminated.

bah007
03-23-2009, 10:15 PM
At least they are consistent.

Now both teams can take their pads off instead of just the offense seeing as how neither will need them.

DiehardChris
03-23-2009, 11:48 PM
That is bullshit. BULLSHIT. That's one of the most exciting parts of the game - and EVERYONE who gets hit with one of them can prevent it if they listen to the coaching they've gotten since they played in middle school - KEEP YOUR HEAD ON A SWIVEL.

Such garbage. I hate, hate, hate this ruling.

Maybe next we can replace tackling with deep tongue-kissing.

rmartin65
03-23-2009, 11:55 PM
Football is becoming wussier. Safety is important, but damn, leave some excitement in it.

Different sport, same idea: Hockey better not get rid of fighting. I swear, it is an integral part of the game.

People need to man up.

hot pickle
03-24-2009, 12:18 AM
i was talking to a guy at work about this.. the players get paid millions of dollars to play a contact sport that has lots of risks thats why they get paid so much... NO FUN LEAGUE

False Start
03-24-2009, 12:29 AM
The NFL getting closer and closer to becoming this......

http://stagefour.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/13/sillynanniesone.jpg

gg no re
03-24-2009, 12:33 AM
so uh

does that mean David Carr can become an elite NFL QB soon?

Lucky
03-24-2009, 12:43 AM
These "big hits" generally come away from the play, and are unnecessary. The hits on Chad Clifton and Matt Schaub (by Warren Sapp and Drayton Florence, respectively) would now be illegal. As they should be. There's no legitimate reason to use your helmet as a weapon.

DiehardChris
03-24-2009, 01:11 AM
These "big hits" generally come away from the play, and are unnecessary. The hits on Chad Clifton and Matt Schaub (by Warren Sapp and Drayton Florence, respectively) would now be illegal. As they should be. There's no legitimate reason to use your helmet as a weapon.

Yes - but also the hit on Keith Rivers by Hines Ward would be illegal, and that's ridiculous, because if Rivers had KEPT HIS HEAD ON A SWIVEL as he's been coached to do since a youth - it never would have happened.

Maddict5
03-24-2009, 06:56 AM
i havent read but i thought i heard its only helemt to helmet peel back blocks that were being made illegal, which im fine with

going for someones head or knee ( ask travis) when they arent looking is a grade A ***** move anyway. you can stil KTFO of someone who isnt looking with a body block- just man up because it'll hurt you a bit more too

HJam72
03-24-2009, 08:59 AM
so uh

does that mean David Carr can become an elite NFL QB soon?

No. He still needs the "No defensive ends or secondary" rule. :)

HJam72
03-24-2009, 09:01 AM
Actually, what bugs me even more is that they won't change the overtime rules. When you know that the team winning the coin toss scores on the first drive in OT 43% of the time, you change the overtime system OR YOU JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE COMPETITION and trying to have the best team win. :foottap:

pbat488
03-24-2009, 09:19 AM
Some may see it as making the league more wussier, but I still see it as a good move, these players, though they get paid millions of dollars, do need to be protected from hits that endanger their careers/bodies. It's part of the game to get hit, but not helmet to helmet or other dangerous ways, those types of hits can cause serious problems immediately or later in life.

Also, I like the current OT rules, I've always liked having the coin-toss being a big factor in OT, because it's all up to chance who wins it... not to mention the college OT rules are absolutely ridiculous.

Polo
03-24-2009, 09:47 AM
I don't like the helmet to helmet stuff...When you're on the field and you're moving so fast it's not exactly always easy to avoid hitting another player in the head...

But atleast they are making the rules somewhat more even...

Errant Hothy
03-24-2009, 10:59 AM
These "big hits" generally come away from the play, and are unnecessary. The hits on Chad Clifton and Matt Schaub (by Warren Sapp and Drayton Florence, respectively) would now be illegal. As they should be. There's no legitimate reason to use your helmet as a weapon.

Indeed. It's just to damn dangerous for all parties involved.

Polo
03-24-2009, 11:01 AM
I disagree with the part about using your helmet...

Every since you are in little leauge you are taught to put the two screws in the front of your helmet into the opponents chest. You are supposed to lead with your hat, but you are not supposed to have your head down.

bah007
03-24-2009, 11:03 AM
I disagree with the part about using your helmet...

Every since you are in little leauge you are taught to put the two screws in the front of your helmet into the opponents chest. You are supposed to lead with your hat, but you are not supposed to have your head down.

The reason for the rule changes is that players aren't aiming for the chest any more. They are aiming for the head and knees.

That crap needs to stop.

Polo
03-24-2009, 11:14 AM
The reason for the rule changes is that players aren't aiming for the chest any more. They are aiming for the head and knees.

That crap needs to stop.

I don't think you should be able to perform a 'blind cut block' on a player...Like what Trent did to TJ was not cool...Intentionally going for a players knees when he is moving fast and not looking is dangerous...You can tell when a player is intentionally going for another guys' knees.

Getting hit in the head IMO is completely different though. First of all, it's not like it's this super common occurnce where a player gets blind side hit in the head causing serious injury. Second, the player that is about to do the hitting cant control how the other player moves. You could be aiming for the chest, but if that other player makes a move you could wind up hitting them anywhere.

That's why even though these rules get implemented you still have about the same amount of players every year commiting these infractions. Some of the most major injuries that occur while the games are being played happen due to other factors beyond maliciousness.

bah007
03-24-2009, 11:18 AM
I don't think you should be able to perform a 'blind cut block' on a player...Like what Trent did to TJ was not cool...Intentionally going for a players knees when he is moving fast and not looking is dangerous...You can tell when a player is intentionally going for another guys' knees.

Getting hit in the head IMO is completely different though. First of all, it's not like it's this super common occurnce where a player gets blind side hit in the head causing serious injury. Second, the player that is about to do the hitting cant control how the other player moves. You could be aiming for the chest, but if that other player makes a move you could wind up hitting them anywhere.

That's why even though these rules get implemented you still have about the same amount of players every year commiting these infractions. Some of the most major injuries that occur while the games are being played happen due to other factors beyond maliciousness.

I agree with that entire post. I think they passed the new rules just to make sure that nobody was gonna go out there and intentionally go for head to head hits. The accidental stuff is still going to happen.

I agree with the intentions of the league, but they are going a little bit overboard.

A good case of what you are talking about is the Eric Smith hit on Anquan Boldin last year. That was a completely unintentional hit as he was aiming for Boldin's chest and then Boldin lowered his head. There was no penalty on the play because it was obviously an accident.

But then the league comes back later and suspends and fines Smith for something he had no control over. How was he supposed to know that Boldin was going to move his head there?

BigBull17
03-24-2009, 11:21 AM
The reason for the rule changes is that players aren't aiming for the chest any more. They are aiming for the head and knees.

That crap needs to stop.

Helmet to helmet is illegal anyway. They should drop suspensions for it. Thats the only way to hit these guys where it hurts.

bah007
03-24-2009, 11:27 AM
Helmet to helmet is illegal anyway. They should drop suspensions for it. Thats the only way to hit these guys where it hurts.

They already fine and suspend players who hit helmet to helmet.

The problem is that most of those situations are uncontrollable so a guy ends up getting suspended when all he was trying to do was make a play, not injure someone.

Specnatz
03-24-2009, 11:44 AM
Actually, what bugs me even more is that they won't change the overtime rules. When you know that the team winning the coin toss scores on the first drive in OT 43% of the time, you change the overtime system OR YOU JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE COMPETITION and trying to have the best team win. :foottap:

I got an idea. How about the defense stop them or win the game in regulation.

Vinny
03-24-2009, 12:42 PM
excellent rule changes...if anyone watched Coach Fisher talk about them on the NFL network I'm not sure how they could be against these rule tweaks.

Vinny
03-24-2009, 12:44 PM
Actually, what bugs me even more is that they won't change the overtime rules. When you know that the team winning the coin toss scores on the first drive in OT 43% of the time, you change the overtime system OR YOU JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE COMPETITION and trying to have the best team win. :foottap:
I love the NFL OT set up. NCAA has a joke of an overtime and it totally deletes the special teams play outside of kicking FG's. OT is just an extension of the final clock wind down. It's not like extra innings baseball...a game without a clock. If you can't win it when within the clock then you go to first one scores. play some d if you don't get the ball.

eriadoc
03-24-2009, 12:46 PM
Actually, what bugs me even more is that they won't change the overtime rules. When you know that the team winning the coin toss scores on the first drive in OT 43% of the time, you change the overtime system OR YOU JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE COMPETITION and trying to have the best team win. :foottap:

Hold up, so you're telling me that the team that wins a 50% proposition doesn't win the game over 50% of the time?

BigBull17
03-24-2009, 12:48 PM
They already fine and suspend players who hit helmet to helmet.

The problem is that most of those situations are uncontrollable so a guy ends up getting suspended when all he was trying to do was make a play, not injure someone.

They dont suspend people enough for chicken shit hits enough. See Jared Allen.

Texecutioner
03-24-2009, 01:06 PM
Take off the pads and pull out the flags. That is what this league is turning into more and more every season.

Vinny
03-24-2009, 01:09 PM
Take off the pads and pull out the flags. That is what this league is turning into more and more every season.
So, you think concussions are good for the game?

Polo
03-24-2009, 01:16 PM
Hold up, so you're telling me that the team that wins a 50% proposition doesn't win the game over 50% of the time?

He said score on the first possesion.

I think that the team that wins the overtime flip wins it over 50% of the time.

Vinny
03-24-2009, 01:20 PM
He said score on the first possesion.

I think that the team that wins the overtime flip wins it over 50% of the time.
One team HAS to win 50% of the time. I'd bet the team that wins the pre-game coin toss wins at around 50% of the time too! Do we get rid of that one also? The OT isn't an extra period like "extra innings"...it's just an extension of the final gun.

TimeKiller
03-24-2009, 01:27 PM
I agree with the intentions of the league, but they are going a little bit overboard.
That's my thought right there.

For OT I thought it would be funny to set the ball on the 50, have both teams start in their respective endzones, blow the whistle and the first guy with the ball gets possession for his team or a TD. Kind of like a double kickoff.

swtbound07
03-24-2009, 01:28 PM
I'd also be interested in the splits of the home team winning overtime

Polo
03-24-2009, 01:29 PM
One team HAS to win 50% of the time. I'd bet the team that wins the pre-game coin toss wins at around 50% of the time too! Do we get rid of that one also? The OT isn't an extra period like "extra innings"...it's just an extension of the final gun.

I don't understand what you're saying.

From what I've read the team that wins the toss wins the game around 70% of the time.

I'm not even arguing for the system to go away because I like it. I just think it's silly to act like one team isn't getting an advantage over the other, when clearly they are.

The whole game is supposed to give both teams equal opprotunities. I don't get your coin toss at the beggining of the game analogy either because the team that loses that gets it at the half. On top of that, the visiting team gets to call it.

I can't think of another sport where both teams don't get qual shots to win the game when regulation ends and it's all knotted up.

swtbound07
03-24-2009, 01:34 PM
I don't understand what you're saying.

From what I've read the team that wins the toss wins the game around 70% of the time.

I'm not even arguing for the system to go away because I like it. I just think it's silly to act like one team isn't getting an advantage over the other, when clearly they are.

The whole game is supposed to give both teams equal opprotunities. I don't get your coin toss at the beggining of the game analogy either because the team that loses that gets it at the half. On top of that, the visiting team gets to call it.

I can't think of another sport where both teams don't get qual shots to win the game when regulation ends and it's all knotted up.

Hockey is sudden death

Vinny
03-24-2009, 02:09 PM
He said score on the first possesion.

I think that the team that wins the overtime flip wins it over 50% of the time.One team HAS to win 50% of the time. I'd bet the team that wins the pre-game coin toss wins at around 50% of the time too! Do we get rid of that one also? The OT isn't an extra period like "extra innings"...it's just an extension of the final gun.

I don't understand what you're saying.

From what I've read the team that wins the toss wins the game around 70% of the time.

I'm not even arguing for the system to go away because I like it. I just think it's silly to act like one team isn't getting an advantage over the other, when clearly they are.

The whole game is supposed to give both teams equal opprotunities. I don't get your coin toss at the beggining of the game analogy either because the team that loses that gets it at the half. On top of that, the visiting team gets to call it.

I can't think of another sport where both teams don't get qual shots to win the game when regulation ends and it's all knotted up.
It's hard to have any conversation with you since you just change your stats as if 50% and 70% are the same number. First you start with 50 then you jump to 70.

This isn't baseball where you are guaranteed equal possessions. If you can hog the ball and not give it up there is nothing that says the other team has any equal rights to the ball. I've seen teams keep the ball entire quarters.

The OT is just the extension of the game clock winding down. If you can score late in the game as the clock runs out in the 4th quarter, the other team doesn't get a shot to tie. Game over. No bottom half of the inning and no crying in football. Play some defense if you want to win.

Polo
03-24-2009, 02:18 PM
Hockey is sudden death

Don't they still have a face-off though ?

I don't watch hockey a lot, so I don't know...

I thought that both teams still had an equal shot at winning...

Polo
03-24-2009, 02:25 PM
It's hard to have any conversation with you since you just change your stats as if 50% and 70% are the same number. First you start with 50 then you jump to 70.

This isn't baseball where you are guaranteed equal possessions. If you can hog the ball and not give it up there is nothing that says you have any rights to the ball. I've seen teams keep the ball entire quarters.

The OT is just the extension of the game clock winding down. If you can score late in the game as the clock runs out in the 4th quarter, the other team doesn't get a shot to tie. Game over. No bottom half of the inning and no crying in football. Play some defense if you want to win.


The 50% number was in relation to the team that wins the toss scoring on the 1st drive. The 70% was in relation to the team winning the toss, winning period.

So the team that wins the toss usually wins the game around 70% of the time. Around 50% of the time they win it on the first drive.

And in football both teams are guaranteed to have atleast one possesion each. You can hog it for the whole half, but after that the other team gets the ball.

And if we are truly to look at it as an expansion of the regular game, then that means the team that had the ball last should just keep it and stay where they are and just keep on playing.

Overtime in the NFL makes no logical sense as far as fairness of the game goes. It makes sense from other angles though.

But again, I like the overtime rules in the NFL. Even though its quirky, I like it because I just think that it adds character to the game. At the same time, I wouldn't be upset if they changed them. Technically though, both teams have an equal shot at winning the coin toss. Andeven if you don't win it all hope is not loss. Man up and play ball.

HoustonFrog
03-24-2009, 03:08 PM
When I played in high school my coach called this "catching a cruiser" and it was some of the best stuff in the game and in film the next day. Always have your head on a swivel. Are you supposed to let the guy catch him?

bah007
03-24-2009, 03:10 PM
When I played in high school my coach called this "catching a cruiser" and it was some of the best stuff in the game and in film the next day. Always have your head on a swivel. Are you supposed to let the guy catch him?

In high school one of our guys go lit up on one of these blocks. He got hit square in the chest though, not the head.

Next day, we are watching the film and the play comes up. Our coach must have replayed it close to ten times and gave commentary the whole time. It was great.

HoustonFrog
03-24-2009, 03:36 PM
In high school one of our guys go lit up on one of these blocks. He got hit square in the chest though, not the head.

Next day, we are watching the film and the play comes up. Our coach must have replayed it close to ten times and gave commentary the whole time. It was great.

Exactly!!. If one of our guys did the lighting up or vice versa the clicker in the coaches hand would be going haywire to get over and over again.

Specnatz
03-24-2009, 03:43 PM
Don't they still have a face-off though ?

I don't watch hockey a lot, so I don't know...

I thought that both teams still had an equal shot at winning...

They have several faceoffs throughout the game in hockey.

eriadoc
03-25-2009, 12:54 AM
FWIW, this piece says the coin flip winner wins 60% of the time. I'm OK with that number, personally, For anyone who isn't OK with it, what are you looking for? 50/50? I'm pretty sure no significant cross-section of games are decided at a 50/50 rate. So I'm OK with 60%, personally. JMO.

Link (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html)

HJam72
03-25-2009, 08:40 AM
I got an idea. How about the defense stop them or win the game in regulation.

Ya, say that when the Colts win the toss against us and it's been a shoot-out all day.

Polo
03-25-2009, 09:39 AM
FWIW, this piece says the coin flip winner wins 60% of the time. I'm OK with that number, personally, For anyone who isn't OK with it, what are you looking for? 50/50? I'm pretty sure no significant cross-section of games are decided at a 50/50 rate. So I'm OK with 60%, personally. JMO.

Link (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html)


From your link:

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

Home teams have only won 51% of OT games. The weakness of HFA isn't too surprising given the way it diminishes throughout a game. It's strongest in the 1st quarter and then diminishes through subsequent quarters until it's almost non-existent in OT. Fans are presumably at their most involved at this point in a game, which suggests crowd involvement is not the primary source of HFA.

The dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games. That's too often in my opinion. The NFL's current sudden death format can be exciting and lead to quick resolutions. But if almost 1 out of 3 games is over before the unlucky coin toss loser even touches the ball, a lot of teams and fans are going to be left with a bitter and empty feeling.


That's using a seven year time span. Not exactly what I'd call the most accurate number. I've seen it as high as 67%.

But I think that is besides the point. I'm o.k with the overtime format as is, but I just don't see how you can argue that NFL overtime puts two teams in an evenly matched situation.

Can you really argue that the coin flip doesn't have atleast some weight in the decision of a game that many feel should be decided strictly by the play on the field?

bah007
03-25-2009, 11:08 AM
FWIW, this piece says the coin flip winner wins 60% of the time. I'm OK with that number, personally, For anyone who isn't OK with it, what are you looking for? 50/50? I'm pretty sure no significant cross-section of games are decided at a 50/50 rate. So I'm OK with 60%, personally. JMO.

Link (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html)

I'm going out on a limb here because I have no clue what the numbers look like...

But I bet that in college OTs the team that starts on defense first ends up winning the game about 60% of the time.

Just a guess.

60% is an okay number for me.

eriadoc
03-25-2009, 11:38 AM
Can you really argue that the coin flip doesn't have atleast some weight in the decision of a game that many feel should be decided strictly by the play on the field?

I can argue that the coin flip doesn't have any more impact on the game than nay number of other random events that occur in the game, and far less impact than many factors that the players and coaches control. The game can turn on any given play, just as it can on a coin flip. The players and coaches control 95% of the outcome of a game (78% of all stats are made up on the spot). If the players and coaches have demonstrated that they can't outduel one another in regulation, then it's time to introduce some randomness into the process. They had their 60 minutes, now we force the issue.

The coin flip has far less impact on the game than anything the players/coaches did during the first 60 minutes.

Polo
03-25-2009, 11:50 AM
The game can turn on any given play, just as it can on a coin flip.

Listen to yourself and repeat the question that I asked in your head.

The difference between the coin flip and a play that occurs in the game is that one was a direct result of the players on the field, and the other one is random chance. Not sure how you can't understand the fact that some fans are upset that any wieght is put on random chance.

They had their 60 minutes, now we force the issue.

This pretty much negates anything you said previous to this point. Basically you said that they had their 60 mins. of fair on field play, but now it is time to add randomness to the equation. So you indeed are admitting that the coin toss randomly gives another team an advantage...AKA "forcing the issue"...Unless you are a subscriber to the 'tails never fails' theory.

Once again, I have no problem with the overtime system, but my point is that you cannot argue "that the coin flip doesn't have atleast some weight in the decision of a game that many feel should be decided strictly by the play on the field"...Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

The coin flip has far less impact on the game than anything the players/coaches did during the first 60 minutes.

I don't see how thats relevant at all. The point is that the teams start off the game playing under equal conditions. You flip sides each quater, and the team that recieves it to start the game kicks off at the half. If the teams are evenly matched through 60 mins of play then yes, a coin flip has a lot of bearing on who most likely wins that game and no matter how well both teams played up until that point. Their play up until that point has little bearing because the most important thing at that moment becomes winning the toss.

Don't see how you can argue that a rule that says the first team to score wins, but doesn't give both teams an equal opprotunity to score based on their abilities on the field is fair. It's not.

If we were playing a game of basketball and I said that the first person to score wins, but I get the ball first, would you think that was fair? Even if we flipped a coin, after I scored the basket, would you feel like you were given a fair chance to show that you could beat me with your actual on court play? No, you wouldn't and please don't lie and say you would. You'd feel like I got a leg up by winning the toss.

Wolf
03-25-2009, 12:02 PM
I wouldn't mind if this scenario happened in OT

Team A wins the coin toss and receives.. they go down and score
Team B gets ONE shot after Team A to tie or win ..

If a both teams tie after one possession each then it is sudden death, first team scores, wins


or Team A wins the toss and receives and doesn't score ... it is sudden death after that .. first team scores wins

Polo
03-25-2009, 12:10 PM
I wouldn't mind if this scenario happened in OT

Team A wins the coin toss and receives.. they go down and score
Team B gets ONE shot after Team A to tie or win ..

If a both teams tie after one possession each then it is sudden death, first team scores, wins


or Team A wins the toss and receives and doesn't score ... it is sudden death after that .. first team scores wins


Maybe they could have the kickers play a game of horse...

They'd kill two birds with one stone...

Instantly kickers become more important and also less chance of injury...:tease:

eriadoc
03-25-2009, 03:11 PM
Listen to yourself and repeat the question that I asked in your head.

The difference between the coin flip and a play that occurs in the game is that one was a direct result of the players on the field, and the other one is random chance. Not sure how you can't understand the fact that some fans are upset that any wieght is put on random chance.



This pretty much negates anything you said previous to this point. Basically you said that they had their 60 mins. of fair on field play, but now it is time to add randomness to the equation. So you indeed are admitting that the coin toss randomly gives another team an advantage...AKA "forcing the issue"...Unless you are a subscriber to the 'tails never fails' theory.

Once again, I have no problem with the overtime system, but my point is that you cannot argue "that the coin flip doesn't have atleast some weight in the decision of a game that many feel should be decided strictly by the play on the field"...Wash. Rinse. Repeat.



I don't see how thats relevant at all. The point is that the teams start off the game playing under equal conditions. You flip sides each quater, and the team that recieves it to start the game kicks off at the half. If the teams are evenly matched through 60 mins of play then yes, a coin flip has a lot of bearing on who most likely wins that game and no matter how well both teams played up until that point. Their play up until that point has little bearing because the most important thing at that moment becomes winning the toss.

Don't see how you can argue that a rule that says the first team to score wins, but doesn't give both teams an equal opprotunity to score based on their abilities on the field is fair. It's not.

You're either completely missing, or deliberately misstating, my argument. I never said that the coin toss didn't offer up random choice. I simply said that the coin toss has no more impact (and considerably less, in my estimation) than any number of events that happen during the course of the game. If the players/coaches can't settle it after 60 minutes, then yes, the coin flip injects randomness into the situation. And that's a good thing, IMO, because they sure weren't settling it on their own.

Furthermore, as to the premise of "he who gets the ball first wins" - it's not true. It's true about 60% of the time.

Furthermore, when people make the following type of argument:

If we were playing a game of basketball and I said that the first person to score wins, but I get the ball first, would you think that was fair? Even if we flipped a coin, after I scored the basket, would you feel like you were given a fair chance to show that you could beat me with your actual on court play? No, you wouldn't and please don't lie and say you would. You'd feel like I got a leg up by winning the toss.

.... it ignores the fact that the team that didn't win the flip actually does get to take the field. And they get to try and win the game. And they have 11 players on the field as well. For some teams, that's a bigger advantage than for other teams, but every team gets to build the way they want.

So yes, the coin flip has at least some weight in the decision of the game. But the players and coaches had 60 minutes to avoid that factor, and on top of that, there are numerous other factors that weigh into games much more heavily.

Polo
03-25-2009, 03:39 PM
You're either completely missing, or deliberately misstating, my argument. I never said that the coin toss didn't offer up random choice. I simply said that the coin toss has no more impact (and considerably less, in my estimation) than any number of events that happen during the course of the game. If the players/coaches can't settle it after 60 minutes, then yes, the coin flip injects randomness into the situation. And that's a good thing, IMO, because they sure weren't settling it on their own.

Furthermore, as to the premise of "he who gets the ball first wins" - it's not true. It's true about 60% of the time.

Furthermore, when people make the following type of argument:



.... it ignores the fact that the team that didn't win the flip actually does get to take the field. And they get to try and win the game. And they have 11 players on the field as well. For some teams, that's a bigger advantage than for other teams, but every team gets to build the way they want.

So yes, the coin flip has at least some weight in the decision of the game. But the players and coaches had 60 minutes to avoid that factor, and on top of that, there are numerous other factors that weigh into games much more heavily.


Wow...

Not sure what you are talking about at all...

This was the initial question of mine that you quoted:

Can you really argue that the coin flip doesn't have atleast some weight in the decision of a game that many feel should be decided strictly by the play on the field?

You already pretty much admitted that it does indeed have some weight on the outcome of a game that many feel should be decided strictly by the players on the field....How much weight is completely debatable and frankly not relevant...

Not sure about whatever else you are talking about.

And P.S...In my basketball scenario you still get to take the court and play defense....When one team is given a random chance advantage, no matter how minute of an advantage YOU deem it to be, doesn't mean that people will see everything the way YOU do. Folks will still be a little ticked that the game wasn't completely decided by the play on the field. That's all.