New England wins the toss and the guy they send out tells the ref that NE will kick! DUUUUUH...how stupid can you be...
Coin toss jets game
- Thread starter bkmtnittany1
- Start date
Just saw the replay of that on nfl.com. Wow. The ref led in with, "You want to kick?" Mind trick? Strange stuff.
LINK: You want to kick?
Here is the official transcript:
With the way the rules are set up in the NFL for overtime....why not make it an automatic...if you win the toss you get the ball? Seems like it would make it a no brainer....
LOL, yeah, exactly. When does the team winning the overtime toss ever elect to kick? Just ask the player what he wants to do, for God's sake. The player got fooled but the refs gotta be more on the mark, too. Cousin's mistake yesterday was much dumber but he can laugh about it now.
Some idiot coaches choose to make decisions which lead to them getting fired. It's survival of the fittest, gotta let these things happen. This is the second time I can swear to you that a team elected to kick off to start overtime.
Pitt fans are having a scary backflash. Must have been around 1982. Pitt won the toss and Penn State got the ball and the wind.
I was thinking Blakeman was going to say You want to kick or receive but the Patriots player (slayer) cut him off saying we wont to kick that way before Blakeman finished. Again it was odd but this was the only way any of this could make sense.Just saw the replay of that on nfl.com. Wow. The ref led in with, "You want to kick?" Mind trick? Strange stuff.
LINK: You want to kick?
Here is the official transcript:
Well he was supposed to take a direction, not make a choice to kick or receive. But because he said kick first he didn't get the direction Belliache wanted.
Yes, except for the fact Slater failed to "defer" and selected "to kick" thereby giving the Jets both the ball first and the direction they preferred (once Slater choose "to kick" rather than "defer" the choice, it is the other team's choice as to direction they will go. Had Slater deferred and the Jets selected "to receive" then it would have been NE's choice as to which direction they wanted to kick.). As it was, NE did not "defer", they choose to kick rather than receive thereby surrendering the right to choose direction to the Jets. The wind must have been playing a significant factor in the game as Bellicheat was prioritizing "direction" over receiving, but Slater, his ST's Captain, screwed up his instructions royally.
In this case it was a team's ST's Captain making a call that shot themselves in the foot and surrendered the "choice" on direction along with giving the other team the ball first - do self-inflicted wounds "all even out as well"?
Actually, he was supposed to "defer" because you only have the choice of picking kick/receive OR deferring when you win the coin flip (you can't choose direction first). Had Slater properly deferred the kick/receive choice, NE would have choice of direction regardless of whether the Jets choose to kick or receive. Given that this would have meant that NE could set themselves up downwind even if the Jets choose to kick, the Jets would have almost certainly choose to receive given the NFL's 1st possession OT TD rule thereby allowing NE the choice of forcing them to go into the wind. But Slater screwed it up and not only gave the Jets the ball first, but choice of direction as well!
ACTUALLY YOU ARE WRONG: when you win the coin toss, you may 1) elect to receive or kick off OR 2) elect to defend either goal. You may also defer and let the other team choose first.
Last edited:
Well, Bellicheat says he told him to "defer" and that is not what he did - he said NE "wanted to kick that way". He only gets the first choice named - NE choose "to kick", not to defer. As a practical matter, most would "defer" in this situation if they were prioritizing direction over possession due to wind, because this preserves the chance of both getting the ball first and the better direction if the opposing team is stupid enough to say that they elect to kick rather than receive.
The Pats shouldn't have put themselves in the position to allow the game to go to overtime.
The only thing that makes sense is that the wind was playing a major role. However, even then you would elect to defer probably, not choose to kick which then would give the other team the right to choose direction.
Dislike Belicheat as much as the next guy, but I don't think this was stupid since they changed the rules so that you can only win if you get the ball is if you score a TD. If you score a FG, the other team still gets the ball with a chance to tie with a FG or win with a TD. If you get the ball and don't score, the other team can win with a FG. The other two teams who both made this same choice won by the way.
You are exactly right. It does appear there was some confusion with the player based upon the words the ref chose to explain the options and I think the player may have intended to receive rather than kick. If that is the situation, I have respect for the way Belichek handled the discussion by taking complete responsibility and saying that the choice was exactly what he wanted. Many other coached probably would have "blamed" the player.
Regardless, it could be a very solid strategy to kick rather than receive the OT KO for the exact reasons you mentioned - OT is not the same as sudden death.
What does defer mean in overtime? Defer until when? It does not make sense that that would be an option.
I can't recall the opponent, but I remember Michigan losing a game where they won the opening coin toss and Gary Moeller opted to kickoff instead of deferring. Thus, opponent received opening kickoff of both halves.
Third time since the new OT rules went into effect. Hoodie has done it twice and is 1-1.
Minnesota, I believe also won the coin toss and kicked off in an OT game. I believe they lost the game.
It means you "defer" the choice of kicking or receiving to the loser of the coin flip.
Believe it was 1979. Matt Millan was on crutches as captain. The Pitt player, " Rooster " Jones, when Pitt won the toss, said to the ref, we'll
defend the goal and we'll kick. The ref replied you can kick ,receive, or defend a goal. This actually happened twice, before a confused Jones
said we'll kick, so State got the ball and the wind. Matt Millan lost it in the background.
What would be the benefit of that? I cannot think of an instance in which any team would choose that.
because if you take the ball and score a TD the other team doesn't even get a chance.
no it doesn't, defer means, you defer your choice to the second half.
Just saw the replay of that on nfl.com. Wow. The ref led in with, "You want to kick?" Mind trick? Strange stuff.
LINK: You want to kick?
Here is the official transcript:
What you don't hear is after the ref says it is heads, Slater says we want to kick it. Blakeman's next statement is a question as in "You want to kick, really?", although he doesn't actually say really. That part is lost because the mike is on the ref. Slater should have deferred or chose which side of the field they wanted to defend and then the Jets could elect to get the ball. As it was the Jets got the ball AND the end of the field they wanted.
that aint a choice in OT. he should have said which goal they wanted to defend (and by default, which way to kick)
Thanks. It was an odd exchange, even with the explanation that Belichick instructed Slater to kick if they won the toss. Slater obviously wasn't sure.
Belickick only said that so not to throw his player under the bus. Most guys after busting their ass for 3 hrs forget there are 3 options and not 2. Besides 99% of the time if you win, you either defer your choice to the second half, or take the ball.
sluggo...you made my point. its stupid to not take the ball first. Score a TD and you don't have to go on defense. So why not make it a rule and take all the guess work out of it..
That is what Bellichik meant by "defer" (e.g., pick the goal they wished to defend and to "defer" the choice of kick or receive to the Jets). I don't believe you are correct, even if NE picks the end they wish to defend, the Jets still would have had the choice as to whether they wished to kick or receive. Bellichik wanted Slater to pick the endzone they wished to defend and to "defer" (Bellichik's words, not mine) the choice to the Jets as to whether they would kick or receive.
No that's true If the pats said which goal they will defend, the jets could have said okay we will kick but that would be really really stupid as most likely you would have kicked into the wind.
Some Steeler fans, not myself, but a few, have thrown around the idea that Belichick threw the game. Makes zero sense, why in the world would the Patriots be afraid of playing the Steelers?
Of course, it is all irrelevant now, unless Rex works some kind of magic act, and he won't. Marshall and Decker are too much right now for just about anyone in the AFC. I must admit that my Steelers played horrifically in Baltimore, and really don't deserve a spot, with that secondary that they have failed to address for ten consecutive years, but at the same time, I am happy for the J E T S JetsJetsJets, who have been the whipping boy in the conference for too long. Good luck Jets in the playoffs.
Of course, it is all irrelevant now, unless Rex works some kind of magic act, and he won't. Marshall and Decker are too much right now for just about anyone in the AFC. I must admit that my Steelers played horrifically in Baltimore, and really don't deserve a spot, with that secondary that they have failed to address for ten consecutive years, but at the same time, I am happy for the J E T S JetsJetsJets, who have been the whipping boy in the conference for too long. Good luck Jets in the playoffs.
Similar threads
