|
|
#51
10-09-2007, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yep this is exactly how I feel. I think its awesome and I love that coaches do it, but it should definitely be banned because it sucks for the game overall and I'm even more worried about the future ridiculous crap that this could lead to. What happens when the coach has all 3 timeouts left? [/ QUOTE ] You can't call two timeouts in a row. [/ QUOTE ] Really? It always amazes me all the stupid, trivial rules I know and then I dont even know relatively major ones like this. I could have sworn I've seen them call consecutive TOs before. 
|
|
#52
10-09-2007, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't think it's unethical, cheap, douchey or effective. However, it should still be banned. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand how giving the kicker a practice shot would hurt him in any way, but results-oriented geniuses have decided that it's good strategy because it worked twice. I can't wait until it backfires on someone, I bet some moran in the media will say that that coach isn't as smart as Mike Shanahan because he called the timeout at the wrong time. [/ QUOTE ] Lots of kickers are somewhat mentally fragile. Not that that's a good thing, but they are. Also, changes in wind, a better jump for the defense, and (if you're on a natural field) minor changes in field condition can happen. Also, obviously, the possibility of a fumbled snap, bad hold, or just general stuff that happens when Tony Romo is your holder could happen too. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah but the stuff that is equally likely to happen on Try 1 as Try 2 cant be counted.
|
|
#53
10-09-2007, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Exactly. Of course, the thing is, I don't think it confers an advantage, and it's just stupid to watch. [/ QUOTE ] Ask Lane Kiffin, Mike Shanahan, Romeo Crennel, Sebastian Janikowski, Jason Elam, and Phil Dawson about that. [/ QUOTE ] Your sample size astounds me. [/ QUOTE ] You said you don't think it confers an advantage. That's THIS YEAR. Do you really want me to go research how many times someone has called a time out before a FG and on the next attempt, the kick failed? Christ. By your argument, then, what sample size do you want to show that it can work? Is there one? [/ QUOTE ] People already have, and no, there isn't a significant advantage. At least to the old method of 'icing' the kicker - but usually there wasn't a kick already made as in these examples. [/ QUOTE ] I don't believe there is a "significant" advantage either. But on that same note, if there is any chance it will work, a coach should definitely do it. I said it before, the only way to change this is to take away the coach's TO. And if that happens, fine. But it has worked, and there's any number of things that can change when you call that time out. That's all. LOL @ "your sample size is astounding" though when someone says they don't think it confers an advantage and I show 3 times its worked this year. [/ QUOTE ] You are completely dismissing the possibility that icing them could HELP the other team. Of course, the data shows that it doesn't significantly help OR hurt them, but hey if there is any chance it helps the other team you can't do it, right? It cuts both ways.
|
|
#54
10-09-2007, 01:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
The defense getting 2 shots at a block is better than one, obviously. Same for a fumbled snap, or even a simple shank. They're not that common on any one given play, but you get two shots at it, and who knows what can happen? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] From your posts in this thread it seems like you don't realize that if the first FG goes wide but timeout was called, they get to try again. [/ QUOTE ] I totally realize that. [/ QUOTE ] ...
|
|
#55
10-09-2007, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
vhawk,
See my last post mentioning that I understand it could help the other team if the guy misses the first and makes the second. That's the gamble. Also, you said the stuff that can still happen on try 1 can't be counted? Why not? In a situation like tonight, had they had a bad snap on what happened to be the game winner, that didn't happen the first time. If nothing else, this argument shows why I think it shouldn't be banned. It can't be that douchey and certainly isn't "unethical" if there's this much debate over whether it actually works. I understand that there are fans that think its lame, but its 30 seconds of drama, and I like it.
|
|
#56
10-09-2007, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The defense getting 2 shots at a block is better than one, obviously. Same for a fumbled snap, or even a simple shank. They're not that common on any one given play, but you get two shots at it, and who knows what can happen? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] From your posts in this thread it seems like you don't realize that if the first FG goes wide but timeout was called, they get to try again. [/ QUOTE ] I totally realize that. [/ QUOTE ] ... [/ QUOTE ] The two posts are not mutually exclusive. I'm going to hate myself for asking this, but do you see why? EDIT: I'm going to bed, I'll check back on this thread in the morning...I'm sure it will have died by then.
|
|
#57
10-09-2007, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, See my last post mentioning that I understand it could help the other team if the guy misses the first and makes the second. That's the gamble. Also, you said the stuff that can still happen on try 1 can't be counted? Why not? In a situation like tonight, had they had a bad snap on what happened to be the game winner, that didn't happen the first time. If nothing else, this argument shows why I think it shouldn't be banned. It can't be that douchey and certainly isn't "unethical" if there's this much debate over whether it actually works. I understand that there are fans that think its lame, but its 30 seconds of drama, and I like it. [/ QUOTE ] Because sometimes he is going to miss the snap on the first one and make it on the second one, and now your timeout trick just lost you the game? See the other recent post, but you keep saying you understand that they don't get to keep the better of the two outcomes and then you keep making posts that make it seem like you really do not understand that at all.
|
|
#58
10-09-2007, 01:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
could a team do this 3 times in a row with their 3 timeouts?
that would be ridiculous... EDIT: ok, they can't. good
|
|
#59
10-09-2007, 01:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
vhawk,
As far as I can tell, he's trying to say that if the first kick gets botched or shanked or blocked then the kicker will become an emotional wreck and his feewings will prevent him from having any chance at making the second one.
|
|
#60
10-09-2007, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
It should be noted there are two varities of icing the kicker.
The old school, call time out a good 10-15 seconds before the kick type and the new call it right before the snap (1-3 sec) type. It's the new way that is rubbing some people wrong.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
