|
|
#111
10-09-2007, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Basically, there's lots of things that can go wrong, and you improve you chances of some of them when you let the kicker think about the entire situation for a minute. [/ QUOTE ] This line of thinking has always bothered me about icing the kicker. It's completely illogical. You're giving a professional athlete extra time to prepare to do an act that he is paid to do. Why would that hurt him? If Phil Dawson is kicking from the Oakland dirt, why would he do worse on the second attempt? If anything he should do better, having had a practice shot at kicking from the dirt. [/ QUOTE ] And as far as I know the data backs you up. 
|
|
#112
10-09-2007, 03:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] No he can't, a coach (or player for that matter, watch the QB as the clock nears the 2 min. warning) has to say "timeout" or something else to notify the official of exactly when he wants the timeout to be taken. Cody [/ QUOTE ] Yep. If you watch the replays of the Denver/OAK game or BUF/DAL games in question, you'll see that the coach goes to the lineman and says that he will call a timeout. But the actual timeout isn't called until the coach says so. Basically, the coach knows the kicker's pre-snap routine and knows approximately when the snap will happen. (If you watch your team's kicker and you'll see the kicker does the same thing every kick. It's easy to guess when the snap will occur. E.g., Neil Rackers will take his steps back. Then to the side, do a small step with his left foot, then move his arms out, then back in. Then he will nod his head to the holder. Call a timeout then.)
|
|
#115
10-09-2007, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The old way was fine. It was never debated. I bet they just go back to the way it was. [/ QUOTE ]Yep. It's only an issue because coming from the sideline. Just go back to old way. Makes no difference. If you can't communicate to players to call timeout for you, you suck. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see how having a player do it is any diff? So a player stands right next tio the ref and does the same thing... same results. What's next? Linebackers not allowed to move up to the line of scrimmage to fake blitz? "I'm sorry, you can not do that because we feel it gets into the QBs head to much"..LOL BTW, the whole icing the kicker thing is WAY over-rated. These guys are pros, making them wait another 20 seconds is typically not going to do anything. To the people who REALLY think these guys are mentally/emotionally fragile..LMAO!
|
|
#116
10-09-2007, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
Should the rules with this issue be altered instead of banned?
For example, should coaches be limited to one timeout in these "icing" situation? Should they be unable to call timeout after the kicking is fully set (all players down, holder set, kicker all the way back in formation)? Any other changes?
|
|
#117
10-09-2007, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
the new rule yes. the old rule was fine when the defense had to call it. It's pure chickensh*t to let the coach wait until 2 seconds before the ball is snapped. The is no debate on this. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think calling timeouts "2 seconds before the ball is snapped" should be disallowed? How would that be enforced? If a center hears a ref blow the whistle, he just snaps the ball and claims "illegal timeout" or whatever.
|
|
#118
10-09-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] You dont' get "two shots at a block" or two shots at a fumbled snap or a shank. DUCY?
|
|
#119
10-09-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
Don't worry about removing the powers of the coaches to call timeouts. One simple way to put an end to this and not mentioned. $$$$$$$ Fine the teams/coaches who do call a timeout that is extremely obvious in those situations. [/ QUOTE ] Considering how much team owners pay for atheletes in the hopes of winning more games, and considering that the intent of this tactic is to win more games (regardless of effectiveness), how big do you think the fine would have to be in order to actually put a stop to this?
|
|
#120
10-09-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
Should the rules with this issue be altered instead of banned? For example, should coaches be limited to one timeout in these "icing" situation? Should they be unable to call timeout after the kicking is fully set (all players down, holder set, kicker all the way back in formation)? Any other changes? [/ QUOTE ] I favor the defense is NOT allowed to call timeout once the offense is fully set. This is for all plays, not just kicking plays.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
