RefSix

law 8 toss of coin

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#21
Crikey, how can something so simple be made out to be so complicated. My head hurts!!! In over 400 games i have not once had a captain say id like to kick off the second half. If he/she does win the toss then they would simply stay as they are therefore handing first half kick off to the other team and guess what? They will kick off the second half...voila!!!! You win the toss you pick, you lose you dont. Again in over 400 games i have never had anyone complain about a coin toss. The captains dont really care, unless the sun is out.
I've never had a captain say they want to kick off the second half either, but that's because the choice of kick off wasn't on the table and everyone knew it. Let's not forget, under the old system the coin toss loser kicks off first - which if anything, implies that kicking off first is a disadvantage. So I don't think it's entirely impossible that captains exist who would prefer to start the 2nd half in possession.

As I think my previous post shows, I have a pretty good understanding of the new law. However, as you'll see in the post I quoted, Peter explicitly asked why people were finding it difficult and why people were unhappy with it. I would argue that the first question can be answered by the fact that counter-intuitively only 3 of the 4 options are on the table, and the second question is answered by the discussion around what happens when someone asks to kick off in the second half. Your mileage may vary on how big a deal you think these issue are, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Feel free to not engage with the conversation if you think it's so straightforward that you don't need to, but questions were asked and I attempted to answer them. I don't see why that's been met with such apparent irritation?
 
#22
1. Winning captain says "I'd like to kick off in the second half please". You're then forced to make him pick an end instead, and the angry losing captain feels like his opponent has been given both choices
2. Winning captain picks an end and losing captain wants the 2nd half kick off - again, you must now explain to him that he's obliged to kick off and doesn't get a choice, where the previous time he lost the toss he may then have been asked to make a decision.
These are not viable scenarios. When you toss the coin, who gets to kick off second half is not an option. They can't choose it and they don't. The possibility isn't there, it just doesn't arise.

I've never had a captain say they want to kick off the second half either, but that's because the choice of kick off wasn't on the table and everyone knew it.
It still isn't on the table. You say you understand the new law but (unless you're being deliberately obtuse) that doesn't seem to be the case. A captain can't choose an option that isn't there. Their only choices relate to what happens at the start of the first half.

It's like saying that when a goal is scored, the captain of the team conceding the goal might say, "I don't want the kick-off, I want the other team to kick off." As a totally hypothetical scenario, they could theoretically say that. But they don't because the actual possibility of doing so doesn't exist. Similarly, when you do a coin toss using the current (and pre-1997) method, the question of choosing what will happen in the second half isn't available and so it doesn't happen.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#23
Blimey, I have never seen such a simple thing over-complicated.

It was like this for many years until changed in the 90s, you'll just need to explain it to the players. Winner of the toss gets to choose kick off or choice of ends, the loser doesn't get any choice (just as he hasn't until now), he does the opposite to what the winning captain does. How is that even vaguely confusing?
 

The Referee

Well-Known Member
#24
These are not viable scenarios. When you toss the coin, who gets to kick off second half is not an option. They can't choose it and they don't. The possibility isn't there, it just doesn't arise.



It still isn't on the table. You say you understand the new law but (unless you're being deliberately obtuse) that doesn't seem to be the case. A captain can't choose an option that isn't there. Their only choices relate to what happens at the start of the first half.

It's like saying that when a goal is scored, the captain of the team conceding the goal might say, "I don't want the kick-off, I want the other team to kick off." As a totally hypothetical scenario, they could theoretically say that. But they don't because the actual possibility of doing so doesn't exist. Similarly, when you do a coin toss using the current (and pre-1997) method, the question of choosing what will happen in the second half isn't available and so it doesn't happen.
The winner of the coin toss can choose to kick off in the second half by choosing which end to attack. The captain may not explicitly say that he is choosing to kick off in the second half but by choosing which end to attack, the captain is also choosing to kick off in the second half.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#25
These are not viable scenarios. When you toss the coin, who gets to kick off second half is not an option. They can't choose it and they don't. The possibility isn't there, it just doesn't arise.



It still isn't on the table. You say you understand the new law but (unless you're being deliberately obtuse) that doesn't seem to be the case. A captain can't choose an option that isn't there. Their only choices relate to what happens at the start of the first half.

It's like saying that when a goal is scored, the captain of the team conceding the goal might say, "I don't want the kick-off, I want the other team to kick off." As a totally hypothetical scenario, they could theoretically say that. But they don't because the actual possibility of doing so doesn't exist. Similarly, when you do a coin toss using the current (and pre-1997) method, the question of choosing what will happen in the second half isn't available and so it doesn't happen.
Hmmm. In a round about way if you choose which end to attack, as the winner of the toss, you are also choosing to kick off the second half, albeit indirectly.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#26
I've never had a captain say they want to kick off the second half either, but that's because the choice of kick off wasn't on the table and everyone knew it. Let's not forget, under the old system the coin toss loser kicks off first - which if anything, implies that kicking off first is a disadvantage. So I don't think it's entirely impossible that captains exist who would prefer to start the 2nd half in possession.
I would say it was just more advantageous to choose and end to attack than kicking off either half being more advantageous than kicking off the other half.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#27
I would say it was just more advantageous to choose and end to attack than kicking off either half being more advantageous than kicking off the other half.
Personally I agree. But I don't know if it's our place as referees to make sweeping tactical decisions on the behalf of every manager in the country!
Blimey, I have never seen such a simple thing over-complicated.

It was like this for many years until changed in the 90s, you'll just need to explain it to the players. Winner of the toss gets to choose kick off or choice of ends, the loser doesn't get any choice (just as he hasn't until now), he does the opposite to what the winning captain does. How is that even vaguely confusing?
As someone who qualified around 6 years ago, I have to admit to having a pretty poor understanding of what was done back then. I appreciate there are a subset of referees for who this can be explained simply by saying "We're back to doing what we did 25 years ago lads", but I'd suggest the vast majority of referees don't fit that description and so will need to be introduced to this procedure from scratch?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#28
Personally I agree. But I don't know if it's our place as referees to make sweeping tactical decisions on the behalf of every manager in the country!

As someone who qualified around 6 years ago, I have to admit to having a pretty poor understanding of what was done back then. I appreciate there are a subset of referees for who this can be explained simply by saying "We're back to doing what we did 25 years ago lads", but I'd suggest the vast majority of referees don't fit that description and so will need to be introduced to this procedure from scratch?
I remember fifa 96 on the game boy. That used to give you a choice of both if you won the toss.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#29
These are not viable scenarios. When you toss the coin, who gets to kick off second half is not an option. They can't choose it and they don't. The possibility isn't there, it just doesn't arise.
I can't control what comes out of the captain's mouth or how well they understand the law. I'm a long way away from the "all players are idiots" school of thought, but I really don't think it's much of a logical leap to see how this could be misinterpreted as "one side chooses ends, the other chooses kick off"?

It still isn't on the table. You say you understand the new law but (unless you're being deliberately obtuse) that doesn't seem to be the case. A captain can't choose an option that isn't there. Their only choices relate to what happens at the start of the first half.
But not if what happens at the start of the first half is "opponents kick off"...?

It's like saying that when a goal is scored, the captain of the team conceding the goal might say, "I don't want the kick-off, I want the other team to kick off." As a totally hypothetical scenario, they could theoretically say that. But they don't because the actual possibility of doing so doesn't exist. Similarly, when you do a coin toss using the current (and pre-1997) method, the question of choosing what will happen in the second half isn't available and so it doesn't happen.
A captain could want to choose the second half kick off. That doesn't mean I just accept that answer, but that also doesn't rule out the possibility of a captain asking for it. And it introduces the potential for an unnecessary debate that makes you look fussy (or worse, biased) before the match has even kicked off - as outlined in my previous two points.

Previously, the KO was decided by chance, not choice. Now, it's a choice, but only some of the time. I just find this interpretation very inconsistent - a captain could lose the toss two weeks in a row, and be given no say in what happens one week because the opponent has chosen a end, but a choice of ends the next week because the winner has chosen to kick off. I absolutely understand the law, I just don't understand why it's been implemented in this weird half-arsed way.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#31
Personally I agree. But I don't know if it's our place as referees to make sweeping tactical decisions on the behalf of every manager in the country!

As someone who qualified around 6 years ago, I have to admit to having a pretty poor understanding of what was done back then. I appreciate there are a subset of referees for who this can be explained simply by saying "We're back to doing what we did 25 years ago lads", but I'd suggest the vast majority of referees don't fit that description and so will need to be introduced to this procedure from scratch?
Nor was I, or at least barely as I'd just qualified, and what I know comes more from being the captain of a team than a referee. I must have been captain in at least 100 games (although I'm not sure which were pre and post law change) and I don't ever recall either captain complaining about the outcome of the toss.

I still stand by the fact that it ain't complicated and way more is being made of this than it should be.
 

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
#32
Just re visited this BECAUSE, I was AR to a level 4 the other day and after capt A chose ends, he gave capt B CHOICE of kick off or not!

Having reread this, if it happens again, I will tell ref he is wrong!
 

Tino Best

RefChat Addict
#33
I understand this law easily
The U14s team I reffed on Sunday understood this.
Even my x wife who likes to argue about everything wouldnt be able to find fault in this
I think my cat could comprehend this.
 
#34
I remember fifa 96 on the game boy. That used to give you a choice of both if you won the toss.
I think I was giving Fifa 96 a proper bending with some regular mates on PS1. Was that the comedy of manual goalkeepers and arguments over not taking control...? Heady days!
 
#35
A very minor detail but what method does everyone use for choosing who gets “the call” for the toss? Personally I’ve always given it to the home captain. Right or wrong I’ve no idea 🤷‍♂️
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#38
Hmmm. In a round about way if you choose which end to attack, as the winner of the toss, you are also choosing to kick off the second half, albeit indirectly.
An astute observation James and there's no "round about way" about it. If you choose ends (having won the toss) then that's exactly what you're doing. ;)
 
Top