Last week, when the Als played the Bombers, Montreal received the opening kickoff. And when the second half begun... Montreal received the kickoff again.
At first, I wasn't certain I really witnessed that.
But then last night, Montreal received the opening kickoff against the Cats... and also received the kickoff in the second half.
What's with that?
With the wind at the start of the game, the Ti-Cats probably chose which side of the field they wanted for their half, which left the Als to choose ball both halves.
Whoever wins the coin toss gets the choice of whether to defer to the second half or choose in the first half.
They can choose whether to kick-off, receive, or choose a side.
So, for example if the Bombers win the coin toss they choose to receive in the first half giving Montreal the choice of sides and the choice in the second half. Montreal then chooses their side in the second half and the Bombers then elect to receive is a scenario where Montreal kicks off twice.
Seems to me going with the wind is not worth losing a possession on offence. There would have to be one hell of a windstorm before I'd let go ball possession on purpose.
Think of it this way... had Calvillo not hit Cahoon in hte last minute, Duval would have been looking at a 45+ yard field goal into the wind (although the wind had died down by the end of the game). Had he missed, the Ham returner would have been going against the field goal team, and Ham would have had a chance to kick the winning field goal with the wind.
...i agree totally with you on that one third....the wind can change in a big hurry....taking possession would be paramount to me....but i guess that's why guys are paid to make those decisions behind the bench...and we're not...they have to live with them ... :?
It depends on the wind. Having the wind in the fourth quarter, especially when play slows down in the final 3 minutes can be a very big advantage.
What you are doing is essentially trading one posession for fourth quarter field position. In the CFL, one posession isn't that much to give up, especially if it can give your team a 20-25 yard advantage in field position in a close game.
I had trouble with this rule too, but it's all good.
Although if I made a coin toss, I let the away team have possession at the first half, and the home team have possession in the 2nd half, and have the toss just decide which goal to defend.
Guess I have to give that one to the NFL, but I believe that happens in Madden if you let the Com play both sides.
It's simple. When a team wins the toss, they have 4 options, kick, receive, choose a side, or defer their choice to the 2nd half. But it always breaks down that one team has first pick in one half, and the other team has first pick in the other half.
In cases like this, what normally happens, is something like this, Winnipeg wins the toss, then elects to defer their choice for the 2nd half. In the first half Montreal selects first and takes the ball. Winnipeg chooses a side. In the 2nd half when Winnipeg gets first choice, they choose to have the wind at their backs in the 4th quarter, and Montreal takes the ball to start the 2nd half.
Pretty good logic devastator...
Third I agree with you. Two weeks ago in Saskatchewan didn't all but one touchdown go against the wind? (Roughy, you were at the game, can you confirm, or were the TV guys wrong?)
think of it at Commonwealth, which ever end of the field you choose to scrimmage from first, is the one they start the sprinklers on....