The botched coin toss thread

[jazzcat22]

So since there’ll be like 8 of these same threads on this topic before they get merged, let me post what of course no one else is going to: the actual rule in place

ARTICLE 2. TOSS OF COIN. Not more than three minutes before the kickoff of the first half, the Referee, in the presence of both team’s captains (limit of six per team, active, inactive or honorary) shall toss a coin at the center of the field. Prior to the Referee’s toss, the call of “heads” or “tails” must be made by the captain of the visiting team, or by the captain designated by the Referee if there is no home team. Unless the winner of the toss defers his choice to the second half, he must choose one of two privileges, and the loser is given the other. The two privileges are:

(a) The opportunity to receive the kickoff, or to kick off; or
(b) The choice of goal his team will defend.

If the coin does not turn over in the air or the toss is compromised in any way, the Referee shall toss it again. The captain’s original call may not be changed.

Penalty: For failure to comply: Loss of coin-toss option for both halves and overtime, and loss of 15 yards from the spot of the kickoff for the first half only.

For the second half, the captain who lost the pregame toss is to have the first choice of the two privileges listed in (a) or (b), unless one of the teams lost its first and second half options, or unless the winner of the pregame toss deferred his choice to the second half, in which case he must choose (a) or (b) above. Immediately prior to the start of the second half, the captains of both teams must inform the Referee of their respective choices. A captain’s first choice from any alternative privileges listed above is final and not subject to change.​

So the actual exchange between Dak and the referee was:

Dak: “Go defense, defense. We want to kick it. Kicking it that way.”
Referee: “You want to kick?”
Dak: “We defer to the second half, yes.”
Referee: “Okay, you’re going to kick?”
Dak: “Yeah.”



Looking at the rule, when Dak said, “Kick it,” that should have done it because it’s one of the choices in (a) when you win the toss. To be fair to the ref though, Dak did give him 2 different choices. "Kicking it" and "deferring to the second half" are separate things. By the rule, you only defer your choice to the second half, not getting the ball.

Sounds like you are unhappy about it.

The right decision was made to correct the situation.

 

[jazzcat22]

The NFL in New York disagrees. End of story.

it’s hard for people to say, because you don’t dictate their opinion on how things are.

And it doesn't meet their agenda.
Because, if we would have lost, they would pounce on ragging on Dak and the team. That is what they live for.

 

[jazzcat22]

What it comes down to is...WE WON...and some are not happy, because they can't whine about Dak or something else. So they whine about this.

 

[BoysForLife]

Actually this situation reminds me a lot of that Brice Butler penalty in the Packers 2016 playoff game.

By rule, technically a penalty. But something that happens from time to time and the referees usually give the player a warning first before throwing a flag.

This situation is similar in that, the ref could have gotten the cowboys by a technicality. But the NFL officials decided to use a little common sense instead.

That’s actually a pretty interesting comparison and I vividly remember that play. I think they are not quite apples to apples because there is some ambiguity with the Butler play

This is going back a few years but if I remember right the determining factor is whether or not he “joined the huddle“ or not

The officials determined that by crossing inside the numbers he was legally in the huddle, even though he never actually went in the huddle if my memory serves correctly

So while I see the point of your comparison and it is an interesting one to consider, it is not quite as black-and-white as “we’ll kick off“

Butler may have thought he was in the personnel package and then quickly realized it and ran back off the field without getting close to the huddle. Prescott may have wanted to defer but instead chose a poor way to express it

Both mistakes and both “unintentional” But there is a lot less ambiguity in making a clear-cut statement to kick off to open the game

 

[BoysForLife]

And it doesn't meet their agenda.
Because, if we would have lost, they would pounce on ragging on Dak and the team. That is what they live for.

Or there is the other side of that story that says some people have an agenda that the league is always out to get us no matter what, and so when the league steps in and gives the Cowboys the benefit of the doubt on something people can’t admit that we got a break because that then goes against their agenda of how the league is “always out to get us”

 

[HungryLion]

That’s actually a pretty interesting comparison and I vividly remember that play. I think they are not quite apples to apples because there is some ambiguity with the Butler play

This is going back a few years but if I remember right the determining factor is whether or not he “joined the huddle“ or not

The officials determined that by crossing inside the numbers he was legally in the huddle, even though he never actually went in the huddle if my memory serves correctly

So while I see the point of your comparison and it is an interesting one to consider, it is not quite as black-and-white as “we’ll kick off“

Butler may have thought he was in the personnel package and then quickly realized it and ran back off the field without getting close to the huddle. Prescott may have wanted to defer but instead chose a poor way to express it

Both mistakes and both “unintentional” But there is a lot less ambiguity in making a clear-cut statement to kick off to open the game

I am more than willing to admit that the cowboys caught a break with the coin flip thing. Lol believe me man. I was SHOCKED when the NFL did allow the cowboys to get the ball in the second half. I never expected it. Thankfully, I didn’t particularly care either way considering the lead the cowboys had at halftime either.

But yeah. Teams catch breaks or get screwed by the zebras every week. It’s a sad, sick part of the game at this point that I’m used to now. Lol

we all know that they don’t throw flags on every offensive holding or defensive illegal contact. A lot of it comes down to timing.

it’s just part of the game lol. I hate that it is. But I know that it is.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

And I would 100% agree with you if Prescotts original words had been “We defer” instead of “we want to kick”

It means the same thing. Only the NFL would make this so complicated.

 

[BoysForLife]

I am more than willing to admit that the cowboys caught a break with the coin flip thing. Lol believe me man. I was SHOCKED when the NFL did allow the cowboys to get the ball in the second half. I never expected it. Thankfully, I didn’t particularly care either way considering the lead the cowboys had at halftime either.

But yeah. Teams catch breaks or get screwed by the zebras every week. It’s a sad, sick part of the game at this point that I’m used to now. Lol

we all know that they don’t throw flags on every offensive holding or defensive illegal contact. A lot of it comes down to timing.

it’s just part of the game lol. I hate that it is. But I know that it is.

That’s a pretty honest and accurate assessment. And like you said at the end of the day it didn’t matter because thankfully our guys beat the holy crap out of the Rams which candidly I didn’t see coming either but I was glad to see it

Full disclosure I still think the Butler call was a nitpicky call that they were looking for a reason to screw us on, but the one that really upsets me from that game and still does is the one where Witten got pretty much tackled by the goal line While trying to catch a pass and they never even thought about throwing the flag. Still blows my mind that that was not called

 

[iceberg]

The first thing Dak said that was a legitimate choice was "defer". First Dak said defense, which isn't an option. Then Dak said we'll kick this way (while pointing in a direction) which isn't legitimate either because you can't pick kick and direction.

yea, it was all stupid. almost as stupid as getting this worked up over it.

 

[BoysForLife]

It means the same thing. Only the NFL would make this so complicated.

But it clearly does not mean the same thing. It may have the same “intent” but those are two very independent and unique statements

 

[HungryLion]

That’s a pretty honest and accurate assessment. And like you said at the end of the day it didn’t matter because thankfully our guys beat the holy crap out of the Rams which candidly I didn’t see coming either but I was glad to see it

Full disclosure I still think the Butler call was a nitpicky call that they were looking for a reason to screw us on, but the one that really upsets me from that game and still does is the one where Witten got pretty much tackled by the goal line While trying to catch a pass and they never even thought about throwing the flag. Still blows my mind that that was not called

I forgot about that Witten play. But yes I agree with you. I actually think gets overturned if Garrett could challenge like with the current rules.

That and the no call on David Irving being tackled on the essential game winning play. Irving being tackled was clear as day. I saw it when it first happened and was waiting for the flag icon to pop up. It never did.

But then again, if the roles were reversed and the cowboys won. I would still take the W. Lol

 

[MikeB80]

lol why are you so aggressive and salty about it/him? weird, man.

Im not I just can't remember a time when the fans of this team were happy about the NY offices over ruling the officials on the field incorrectly. Seems odd to me, I certainly do not want ny overturning the correct calls on the field.

also, Garrett told them to take the ball to start the game and when they won the toss Demarcus Lawrence said no I want to play defense first today and he was the first one to say kick which caused the confusion. Once he said kick then dak said kick it that way...then he said defer.

It should have been the rams ball....Lawrence and Dak screwed up and Lawrence laughed about it after the game and admitted it was his fault because he wanted to play defense first and just ignored Garrett.

 

[BoysForLife]

I forgot about that Witten play. But yes I agree with you. I actually think gets overturned if Garrett could challenge like with the current rules.

That and the no call on David Irving being tackled on the essential game winning play. Irving being tackled was clear as day. I saw it when it first happened and was waiting for the flag icon to pop up. It never did.

But then again, if the roles were reversed and the cowboys won. I would still take the W. Lol

Both valid points. There is little doubt in my mind that with today’s rules Garrett could’ve challenge that and gotten a pass interference call. You are absolutely correct

Kind of forgot about Irving getting mugged like he did but that is another accurate point

I can’t remember if it was Bahktiari or someone else but he pretty much had him in a straight up choke hold. Wasn’t even remotely debatable

 

[lurkercowboy]

Im not I just can't remember a time when the fans of this team were happy about the NY offices over ruling the officials on the field incorrectly. Seems odd to me, I certainly do not want ny overturning the correct calls on the field.

also, Garrett told them to take the ball to start the game and when they won the toss Demarcus Lawrence said no I want to play defense first today and he was the first one to say kick which caused the confusion. Once he said kick then dak said kick it that way...then he said defer.

It should have been the rams ball....Lawrence and Dak screwed up and Lawrence laughed about it after the game and admitted it was his fault because he wanted to play defense first and just ignored Garrett.

So the players made the call basically overruling the coach? That sounds like a pretty big detail.

 

[MikeB80]

So the players made the call basically overruling the coach? That sounds like a pretty big detail.

Yes. Lawrence on his own said we are playing defense when they were told by Garrett to take the ball.

I am glad. You should always defer and play defense first, especially at home in that building.

 

[MarcusRock]

Of course the rulebook doesn’t say In black and white that a player can clarify. But there is such a thing as common sense.

it’s no different of a concept, than referees turning a blind eye to offensive or defensive pass interference on say a Hail Mary pass. We all know that by the letter of the rulebook, pass interference occurs in those situations, but the referees use their judgment in those circumstances.

The NFL office in New York used their judgement and determined that they were willing to accept the clarification. Which is just a common sense decision to make.

I'm sorry but I disagree. That opens up quite a slippery slope. Lots of folks on here complain that the officials selectively enforce the rules to "cheat" and now you suggest that they should selectively accept words from players that are in black and white in the rulebook? If this had been the other way around and we lost, can you imagine the tide of confirmation bias that would have ensued with the aforementioned conspiracy theory? In the Dez no catch game, I can clearly see that Dez intended to perform a lunge that would have gotten him out of the going to the ground rule. But you can't award points for intent when rules lay out what should happen.

Many complain that seldom used rules always seem to affect the Cowboys (again as part of some "theory"), but the same folks will complain about the coaching. Maybe the two are related and our coaching doesn't properly prepare players so they aren't in situations where actual existing rules become a problem for them. With this coin toss, there is absolutely no way a player should be screwing that up. It falls under the category of "you had one job" but they went out there not even knowing what they were going to choose if they won the toss. To me, that's basic enough that it should not be allowed to slide.

 

[pugilist]

Our two big wins, vs iggles and rams, we deferred.

One of the smartest coaches in league history does this all the time (ie, the cheater). There are reasons...

always defer..ALWAYS

it's the only opportunity you have in an NFL football game to get a 2 for 1

 

[Scotman]

This isn't Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and you get one chance to say your final answer. The refs job is to make sure he understands what Dallas wants to do. It's no more complicated than that. Regardless of what words were used in what order, it wasn't unclear what Dallas wanted to do. Any other opinion is just confirmation bias for people who are looking for flaws in someone.

 

[HungryLion]

I'm sorry but I disagree. That opens up quite a slippery slope. Lots of folks on here complain that the officials selectively enforce the rules to "cheat" and now you suggest that they should selectively accept words from players that are in black and white in the rulebook? If this had been the other way around and we lost, can you imagine the tide of confirmation bias that would have ensued with the aforementioned conspiracy theory? In the Dez no catch game, I can clearly see that Dez intended to perform a lunge that would have gotten him out of the going to the ground rule. But you can't award points for intent when rules lay out what should happen.

Many complain that seldom used rules always seem to affect the Cowboys (again as part of some "theory"), but the same folks will complain about the coaching. Maybe the two are related and our coaching doesn't properly prepare players so they aren't in situations where actual existing rules become a problem for them. With this coin toss, there is absolutely no way a player should be screwing that up. It falls under the category of "you had one job" but they went out there not even knowing what they were going to choose if they won the toss. To me, that's basic enough that it should not be allowed to slide.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28308689/nfl-office-steps-amid-confusion-rams-cowboys-coin-toss


that’s fine if you disagree. But the NFL office says the rules allow them to use replay, to address issues of game administration.

so according to them, the rules allow them to use replay to make the right call.

The rules you posted about coin flips. State that the team that wins the flip has choices they can make. It DOES NOT state anywhere in that rule, that the “first words uttered” are what their decision is.

so the nfl, by rule, used replay, to determine that the cowboys in fact did choose to defer. And not to kick.

The rule you posted says the team has the right to choose. It doesn’t say that whatever the first word they say, is what has to happen. You’re assuming that part. The nfl replay officials disagree with your assumption. The replay officials say that Dak’s clarification indicates what he CHOSE. Which is what the rule is. What the team CHOOSES.

A person can misspeak and not be purposefully choosing something.

 

[Dallasfann]

Yes we did. Yes it was wrong but it is the rule. The rule state the first choice is final. No where in the rule state you can go back and review it. Replay cannot be use for coin toss. That the rules, right or wrong, that is the rules. I don't care if it right, the tuck rule was BS but it was in the rules.

If your team is relying on the guys at the coin toss at the beginning of the game to botch their words, then your team is absolute dog ****.