Exactly. Why should this decision be any different from any other decision a player makes during the game that could be wrong? Why is knowing how to make such a choice different from every other skill in the game? Why don't you point out the ballcarrier so a player won't make a mistake and tackle the wrong guy?

I always ask the coach in the pre-game what he wants to do. At the sideline, I confirm that with the speaking captain, as does the umpire with the opposing captain.

I never offer "kick" as an option. In fact, I usually tell the winning captain "You want to receive/defer, right?"

Nothing good can come from making a team kick off twice in a game, unless that's what the coach really wants to do.

As someone else said, kick is simply the wrong option. Defer will mean that you will, 99.9% of the time, kick the first half and you can *always* choose to kick the second half.

I don't get the option from the coaches. But just as I won't let the captain make an obvious mistake during penalty enforcement, I won't let the captain (or even coach) make a mistake at the *coin toss*.

It isn't really.

Would you let someone accept a penalty that would result in them losing a turnover without confirming? Do you ask if the defense wants to accept the false start penalty? Shouldn't you give them the chance to mess that up as well?

Heck, the rules actually make this accommodation, in that you automatically decline some penalties when accepting would result in losing a score, for example.

But you're making a judgment here that the choice of which team to have kick off is obvious like the choice of having an extra touchdown, and I'm saying it's not. That choice is there for a reason. Originally there was no such choice in the rules, and if you didn't get or want the choice of ends to defend, you would automatically kick off, because the rules makers thought it obvious that kicking off was better than having the other team kick off! It was only later that they saw that a team might prefer to receive, so they added that choice.

If they want to take out that choice, they can do so as the NFL did ~30 yrs. ago. I'll tell you that with very young players, if they allow kickoffs at all, that's about a 50-50 ball and the choice of kicking or receiving may favor kicking because a scramble for the ball on the other team's side of midfield is better than a scramble on your team's side. And I've written here that even in the pros within the past 25 yrs. I've seen the choice made to kick off taken, and that it proved to be the better choice.

I'll tell you what distorts judgments here: the use of the presumptuous term "receiving team" in the rules. There's no guarantee they actually will receive the ball! At a kickoff it's easy enough to ask which team a captain wants to kick off, but unfortunately I can't think of a better short term for "opponents of the kicking team" to use in the rules for free & scrimmage kicks, so until someone does, we're stuck with "team R". I'd like to call them "team L", because that's the letter after K (analogous to teams A & B), but there's no good word to go with that.

Yes, that is the correct mechanic in Georgia. The LJ and HL walk out to the hashes, release the captains to midfield, turn and then face their sideline at parade rest.

__

As has otherwise been noted, there's quite a bit of a backstory here between these two teams. I'm sure the Referee had other things on his mind and didn't want to be bothered with the nuances of Kick v. Defer. :)

I'll tell you my unwashed opinion:

Your knowledge of the history of the rules always interests me, but is really not important in how we administer the game today and sometimes gets in the way, IMO, of practical officiating.

The choice to defer gives the team *today* the chance to kick to begin the game as well as the choice to do whatever they want in the second half. In 15 years of being a white hat, I've *never* had the opponents of the team that deferred its choice say anything but "receive." Of course, maybe that's because after I signal the press box, I look at the other team and simply say, "Receive?"

No good can come from letting kids make mistakes that are easily preventable. It is similar to the kickoff. How many guys have ever let a kickoff take place without the correct number of players on the field for each team? We just don't do it. We tell them to count their players and give them the few sexconds it takes to do that before we let the RFP be blown. Common sense is one of the greatest attributes an official can have. Unfortunately, it is not something that can be taught

I'm confused. The NFL removed the option to kick about 30 years ago, yet the choice to kick has been taken in "the pros" (what, USFL?) within the past 25 years? These can't both be true.

PS - I remember a pro team choosing to kick exactly once - ever. Detroit about 3 years ago. It failed, the other team scored, and they were crucified on ESPN and everywhere else.

+1 ... and +1 more for the final sentence.

I do not think this has anything to do with common sense. The choice is there for a reason and if the kid cannot decide what they want to do properly, it is not our job to make the decision for them. There are also coaches that make bad choices all the time, are we going to make them call the right play because we are using common sense? The common sense we should use is to make sure that is what they want to do, not to make the decision for them. I had a team this week that ran a reverse on the 1 yard line and lost 4 yards to take an early lead. Coaches sometimes want silly things, like the Lions coach wanted to kick on an overtime decision and never got the ball back. If it is clear they want to defer we should give that to them that choice but if they insist on kicking the ball, they will learn the next time.

You are harming the other team as they can hear what choice you did not grant. We are accused of our integrity all the time; I do not think we should just ignore their request even if it is not what is ultimately wanted. I have no problem with asking or clarifying, I often have done the same on all choices, but not to just ignore what they say and do what I feel is best.

Peace

It was CFL.

And in these cases I meant the options after being scored on via TD or FG. NFL still has the options to start each half. What's interesting is that the NFL first took away the option to kick off after having a TD (and try attempt) scored against you, then a few years later made the scoring team's kickoff following a FG automatic too.

What's the real problem here? Apparently it's a misunderstanding that a team's captain or coach might have about how the choices are determined at each half -- as if the choice given to one team was not simply about the 1st half, but choosing the order of who would kick off for both halves in advance. This is something simple that doesn't even require practice -- that they can learn while sitting in a chair. When you present the choices, the clock isn't running, nobody's tired yet, they haven't taken shots in the head. If it's your job to straighten them out on that, then why wouldn't you confer with them about the consequences of 1 or 2 point tries when that comes up? Sure, it's something simple and you might prevent an error, but it's only one of a great many things like that in the game, and there doesn't seem to be any reason that you should be allowed, let alone expected, to give them advice on this one and not all those others, especially when this one is easier than the others.

Now that I've read the background, what would you do as WH in this sit?

WH: Visitors, you have won the toss.
Vis: We want to kick.
WH: You are deferring, then.
Vis: No, we want to kick.
WH: That means you're deferring.
Vis: Whatever.
WH: Home, you wish to receive?
Home: Since he wanted to kick and we hate him, we want to kick just out of spite!

No surprise there.