Heads or tails? Doesn’t matter. There was confusion at Pitt/PSU coin toss |

Heads or tails? Doesn’t matter. There was confusion at Pitt/PSU coin toss

Jerry DiPaola

Winning the coin toss doesn’t always work to a team’s advantage.

Pitt’s captains guessed right at the start of the Penn State game Saturday night, but somehow coach Pat Narduzzi’s wishes to defer and play defense first got turned around and Pitt went on offense.

“There was confusion,” Narduzzi said.

But Narduzzi said it didn’t need to be that way.

“I don’t know what it was,” he said. “The head linesman asked me (before the coin toss), ‘What do you want to do?’ ”

Narduzzi told him he planned to defer. But, amidst the noise of a sellout crowd at Heinz Field, the message never got relayed to the officials at midfield. and Pitt ended up with the ball

“At halftime, he comes up to me and says, ‘What end do you want to kick from (to start the second half)?’ And I said, ‘What does it matter? I told you we wanted to defer and you didn’t help our guys, so why am I telling you?’ ”

Narduzzi said he blamed himself, but he also mentioned his “new, young captains,” even though senior safety Dennis Briggs is a two-year captain. The other three — Quintin Wirginis, Alex Bookser and game-day captain George Aston — also are seniors.

“Part of growing up,” he said. “I said, ‘Do you guys know what defer means?’ Just say you want to play offense or defense. They’ll figure it out from there.

“It was just an error out there. Went the way the day did, I guess. When it rains, it pours.”

As it turned out, Pitt got the ball, went three-and-out and punted to Penn State. The Nittany Lions scored in three plays to take a 7-0 lead.

Jerry DiPaola is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jerry at [email protected] or via Twitter @JDiPaola_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.