Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

That is the question.

Andy Reid iced the kicker at the end of tonight's Sunday Night Football game. The kick was a clear wide left. Reid got over because the re-try was dead on, but well short.

"I don't believe in icing the kicker." -- Michael Vick during the post-game interview.

You think this gets him a private lecture tomorrow?

SuperHornet wrote:That is the question.

Andy Reid iced the kicker at the end of tonight's Sunday Night Football game. The kick was a clear wide left. Reid got over because the re-try was dead on, but well short.

"I don't believe in icing the kicker." -- Michael Vick during the post-game interview.

You think this gets him a private lecture tomorrow?

They were both right. He missed it before the icing and after.

SuperHornet wrote:That is the question.

Andy Reid iced the kicker at the end of tonight's Sunday Night Football game. The kick was a clear wide left. Reid got over because the re-try was dead on, but well short.

"I don't believe in icing the kicker." -- Michael Vick during the post-game interview.

You think this gets him a private lecture tomorrow?

There was a study last year that looked into it. It found that kickers have the same percentage whether they have been iced or not. It doesn't really do any good. Sure they might miss after being iced but no more often than normal.

Vick is right, icing the kicker is dumb. All it does is give the kicker a practice shot. It burned Miami against the Jets where Philbin called a timeout and we blocked the FG in OT. It almost burned Philly last night.

It happens so much now that I think that coaches should stop doing it and throw the player for a loop.

"They're gonna call timeout, they're gonna call timeout, they're gonna call timeout, they're gonna call timeout, they're gonna call timeout, they're gonna call timeout...they didn't call timeout...O SHI-!"

It's like hitting a 16 in blackjack. You either always do it or never do it.

SDHornet wrote:It's like hitting a 16 in blackjack. You either always do it or never do it.

Or you do it sometimes and other times don't. It really pisses off people at the table.

grizzaholic wrote:

SDHornet wrote:It's like hitting a 16 in blackjack. You either always do it or never do it.

Or you do it sometimes and other times don't. It really pisses off people at the table.

grizzaholic wrote:

SDHornet wrote:It's like hitting a 16 in blackjack. You either always do it or never do it.

Or you do it sometimes and other times don't. It really pisses off people at the table.

I have seen fights break out over hitting on 16

AZGrizFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Or you do it sometimes and other times don't. It really pisses off people at the table.

If they don't like it, move. I enjoy playing cards and I will do my thing..you do yours.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Or you do it sometimes and other times don't. It really pisses off people at the table.

I have seen fights break out over hitting on 16

Depends. If the dealer has a 7, 8, 9 or face you'd better hit, or I'm gonna hit YOU.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Or you do it sometimes and other times don't. It really pisses off people at the table.

I have seen fights break out over hitting on 16

It is a fucking game. They need to grow up.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

I have seen fights break out over hitting on 16

Depends. If the dealer has a 7, 8, 9 or face you'd better hit, or I'm gonna hit YOU.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

I have seen fights break out over hitting on 16

Depends. If the dealer has a 7, 8, 9 or face you'd better hit, or I'm gonna hit YOU.

When you are hitting on 16 and the dealer is showing a three...

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Depends. If the dealer has a 7, 8, 9 or face you'd better hit, or I'm gonna hit YOU.

When you are hitting on 16 and the dealer is showing a three...

That is when the fun begins.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Depends. If the dealer has a 7, 8, 9 or face you'd better hit, or I'm gonna hit YOU.

When you are hitting on 16 and the dealer is showing a three...

It'll only happen once at any table I'm sitting at.

Cincinnati just lost to Louisville in OT because the coach decided to ice the kicker.

The snap was over the holders head. The game would have gone to another OT - assuming that Cincinnati doesn't pick up the ball a run for a TD.

Instead, the kicker nails the second try for a 43-31 Louisville win.

Icing the kicker is one of the dumbest things in sports.

BlueHen86 wrote:Cincinnati just lost to Louisville in OT because the coach decided to ice the kicker.

The snap was over the holders head. The game would have gone to another OT - assuming that Cincinnati doesn't pick up the ball a run for a TD.

Instead, the kicker nails the second try for a 43-31 Louisville win.

Icing the kicker is one of the dumbest things in sports.

Did the coach own up to it?

SuperHornet wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Cincinnati just lost to Louisville in OT because the coach decided to ice the kicker.

The snap was over the holders head. The game would have gone to another OT - assuming that Cincinnati doesn't pick up the ball a run for a TD.

Instead, the kicker nails the second try for a 43-31 Louisville win.

Icing the kicker is one of the dumbest things in sports.

Did the coach own up to it?

I didn't see or hear a post game interview with him, so I don;t know.

The TV guys were saying how icing the kicker gives you a slight edge as opposed to not icing him. I don't know where they got that stat from.

If I were a coach I would never ice the kicker. Kickers spend most of their time on the sideline anyway, if they aren't iced already I don't see how a time out is going to help. Besides, I'd rather lose on the first kick going through than lose when the second kick is good.

BlueHen86 wrote:Cincinnati just lost to Louisville in OT because the coach decided to ice the kicker.

The snap was over the holders head. The game would have gone to another OT - assuming that Cincinnati doesn't pick up the ball a run for a TD.

Instead, the kicker nails the second try for a 43-31 Louisville win.

Icing the kicker is one of the dumbest things in sports.

http://deadspin.com/5955430/cincinnati- ... socialflow

^^with video clip of the play

DSUrocks07 wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Cincinnati just lost to Louisville in OT because the coach decided to ice the kicker.

The snap was over the holders head. The game would have gone to another OT - assuming that Cincinnati doesn't pick up the ball a run for a TD.

Instead, the kicker nails the second try for a 43-31 Louisville win.

Icing the kicker is one of the dumbest things in sports.

http://deadspin.com/5955430/cincinnati- ... socialflow

^^with video clip of the play

I think if you are going to ice the kicker you should just call the time out and not play games with the play clock. No team should ever lose the way Cincinnati lost last night.

BlueHen86 wrote:If I were a coach I would never ice the kicker. Kickers spend most of their time on the sideline anyway, if they aren't iced already I don't see how a time out is going to help. Besides, I'd rather lose on the first kick going through than lose when the second kick is good.

There's a second school of thought on that. If your kicker plays another position (see Bob Waterfield/George Blanda), he's "in the game," not stewing about the kick on the sidelines, and then all of a sudden, "it's time to kick." No going stircrazy about it on the sidelines. Just "it's time, let's do this." They did a pretty good job of it, too. Lou Groza was another example, but coming back to kick from the line messes with your blocking, so I'm not a fan of that so much.

SuperHornet wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:If I were a coach I would never ice the kicker. Kickers spend most of their time on the sideline anyway, if they aren't iced already I don't see how a time out is going to help. Besides, I'd rather lose on the first kick going through than lose when the second kick is good.

There's a second school of thought on that. If your kicker plays another position (see Bob Waterfield/George Blanda), he's "in the game," not stewing about the kick on the sidelines, and then all of a sudden, "it's time to kick." No going stircrazy about it on the sidelines. Just "it's time, let's do this." They did a pretty good job of it, too. Lou Groza was another example, but coming back to kick from the line messes with your blocking, so I'm not a fan of that so much.

That's so rare these days it's not worth planning for.

And besides, why call a time out and give the guy a chance to mentally and physically prepare for the kick. His bloods pumping and adreneline is rushing from playing his position, now he has to calm down and make a FG, I'd rather he kick it before he calms down.

You make a VERY good point, 86.

Having the kicker already in the game (from an offensive perspective), though, makes setting up for lightning field goal much easier, as rare as that actually is these days. Either you only have to substitute one guy (the holder), or you take a chance on a running back not fumbling the snap. Again, you work on it in practice every week, but it's rare because you not only generally have time outs, but you also have the sidelines and the kill play to stop the clock if you're out of TOs. I think the best guess for pulling off lightning field goal is something like 20-25 seconds on the clock, and most coaches would rather use that time to take a shot at the end zone, hoping for either the TD or an incompletion to stop the clock, making the substitutions required for the FG a no-brainer.

SuperHornet wrote:You make a VERY good point, 86.

Having the kicker already in the game (from an offensive perspective), though, makes setting up for lightning field goal much easier, as rare as that actually is these days. Either you only have to substitute one guy (the holder), or you take a chance on a running back not fumbling the snap. Again, you work on it in practice every week, but it's rare because you not only generally have time outs, but you also have the sidelines and the kill play to stop the clock if you're out of TOs. I think the best guess for pulling off lightning field goal is something like 20-25 seconds on the clock, and most coaches would rather use that time to take a shot at the end zone, hoping for either the TD or an incompletion to stop the clock, making the substitutions required for the FG a no-brainer.

We're not talking about rushing the FG team on for a "lightning" FG. We're talking about defensive coaches that wait for the FG team to get set up and then wait to call the FG as a distraction for the kicker. I'm saying that they should either let the guy kick or call the TO well before there is any chance that the ball is snapped. I'd much rather lose a game because my coach didn't call a TO than lose one because my coach got cute and gave the kicker a second chance after missing the first kick.