Should icing the kicker be banned?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got that he was saying that ALSO but it seemed like he was saying a bunch of other stuff too. That was the part of his post that actually made sense [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] and since I've never been a kicker I have no idea if its really true or not. Although like Triumph said I think there has been some evidence that the traditional form of icing does not work. This wouldn't be exactly the same as that kind of icing, obv, so it is possible it would have some effect.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I was going to go to bed, but I have to ask.

Are you actually a retard, or do you just play one on the internet?

Scenario tonight - rookie kicker, high pressure. He's relaxed, warmed up, prepared for the kick he knows he has to win the game. Its long, but he's kicked this long in practice before. He's good.

Snap is good, kick is good, but the TO got called. There is a nonzero chance that in the next minute or so he has to think about it, he thinks about it too much, gets a little tight, and pulls it a little, or doesn't get quite enough on it, or whatever. The defense might get a better jump and block it, or the snap might be bad, or the holder might not get it down right.

Now, is this THAT likely? No. But there is a chance. Now, the gamble is that if the guy missed the first one he focuses more, or he just locks it in more because he's pissed you're making him do it twice. But still, it might work in your favor. In most cases, you're no worse off after you try to "ice" the guy than you would be if you hadn't.

Jesus H. Christ, you're dense.

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe if an offense lined up with more than a few seconds left on the play clock they could either

a) get the snap off before the timeout was called
b) get the coach to call a timeout without snapping the ball by the center lifting his head like he normally would

[/ QUOTE ]

Coaches usually tell the refs that they want a TO before the ball is snapped.
I agree it's so bad for the game but I just don't see the NFL implementing a rule for next year.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a coach can say "I want a timeout, but I want to wait for the ball to be snapped and then have it retroactively applied to the second before the snap" ?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I was going to go to bed, but I have to ask.

Are you actually a retard, or do you just play one on the internet?

Scenario tonight - rookie kicker, high pressure. He's relaxed, warmed up, prepared for the kick he knows he has to win the game. Its long, but he's kicked this long in practice before. He's good.

Snap is good, kick is good, but the TO got called. There is a nonzero chance that in the next minute or so he has to think about it, he thinks about it too much, gets a little tight, and pulls it a little, or doesn't get quite enough on it, or whatever. The defense might get a better jump and block it, or the snap might be bad, or the holder might not get it down right.

Now, is this THAT likely? No. But there is a chance. Now, the gamble is that if the guy missed the first one he focuses more, or he just locks it in more because he's pissed you're making him do it twice. But still, it might work in your favor. In most cases, you're no worse off after you try to "ice" the guy than you would be if you hadn't.

Jesus H. Christ, you're dense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, except you can make this exact same argument for the traditional icing situation and all the data shows that it DOES NOT impact the kicker in any meaningful way. Why do you think you get to dismiss this?

I think part of the problem is that you don't know what "significant" impact means. If there is no significant impact that means there is NO impact, not that there is a small but real impact. It means any observed impact is likely due to chance.

But really this seems like a pretty silly post coming from a poker player. Sure it wont work but hey it might work this time! I'll raise up that 7-4o!

[damaniac]

I got the answers I expected to my question. The thing for me has been hearing people say "That's a [censored] move," which implicates not so much it being legal as the idea that a coach just shouldn't do that. And it seems to me that any outrage ought to be directed at the rule, not coaches for using it. So it just seemed silly for people (not so much here) to be annoyed at the coach for (as he believed it) maximizing his team's chances of winning.

[vixticator]

[ QUOTE ]
So a coach can say "I want a timeout, but I want to wait for the ball to be snapped and then have it retroactively applied to the second before the snap" ?

[/ QUOTE ]It seems like it... that's really the dumb part.

[shipitkthx]

Icing the kicker in its pure form, "making him think about his big kick" is perfectly fine and I don't think anyone would ever disagree with that. The problem here is that the current tactic we are seeing has the INTENT of making the kicker actually make the kick twice. In this sense, although completely within the current rules, I do believe this is unethical. My reasoning for this is based on the fact of a coach (and the sideline ref basically agreeing to do this) are intentionally causing a meaningless play to happen. Just wait until a lineman slips, smashes his head the wrong way, and is paralyzed for life in a play he thought was real and important, only to find out that he was laying his life on the line for his team in a play that wasn't even real. This is football, these injuries do happen. And I think that every player who takes the field has the right to know that when he takes the risk, the play matters.

The fix for this is simple. A player on the field needs to call the timeout. Either take coaches' timeouts out completely or simply say a coach can't call timeout during a field goal attempt. For whatever reason the coach's option was added recently and as we have seen the privilege has been ABUSED. Out of respect for the players and the fans this rule needs to be changed.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]


A lot of it is strictly in chance too. 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 ]


WTF? How on earth do they get two shots at blocking it or at a botched-snap?
You sound like a block on the first one means that somehow the timeout won't be enforced but if he makes the FG then the timeout will be enforced.

This thread has taken a turn for the ridiculous.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


A lot of it is strictly in chance too. 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 ]


WTF? How on earth do they get two shots at blocking it or at a botched-snap?
You sound like a block on the first one means that somehow the timeout won't be enforced but if he makes the FG then the timeout will be enforced.

This thread has taken a turn for the ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah its like Edge has a borderline good argument but he has a couple major misunderstandings and they are making it really hard to understand wtf he is talking about.

[UATrewqaz]

As others have pointed out, calling time out has absolutely no impact on anybody getting 2 chances at anything or the kicker having to make it twice

The timeout makes the 1st play a non-play, completely null and void. The kicker could miss it then line up and make the 2nd one.

The only "advantage" the defense is trying to get is hoping that the stress of the situation will build up making it more likely the kicker will miss the 2nd kick, the one that will count.