Is there any proof icing a kicker works?

guffus

guffus

Well-Known Member
Is then any statistical proof that kickers overall do worse after an opposing coach calls timeout to "ice" the kicker?

If not, why are they wasting everybody's time? Just get it over with!

Today it did not work for Ferentz in the first half and did not work for Frost in the 2nd half. All they did was drag the game out 5 minutes longer.
 
I've read once that icing the kicker has a higher percentage of misses, but not statistically significant.
 
guffus said:
Is then any statistical proof that kickers overall do worse after an opposing coach calls timeout to "ice" the kicker?

If not, why are they wasting everybody's time? Just get it over with!

Today it did not work for Ferentz in the first half and did not work for Frost in the 2nd half. All they did was drag the game out 5 minutes longer.
Click to expand...
Actually it did, Riley Moss just decided to be stupid.
 
One study found this:

Opponents iced the kicker 50 times. The ensuing field goal went through 72 percent of the time.

Opponents left the kicker alone 60 times. The conversion rate was 73.3 percent.
 
guffus said:
Is then any statistical proof that kickers overall do worse after an opposing coach calls timeout to "ice" the kicker?

If not, why are they wasting everybody's time? Just get it over with!

Today it did not work for Ferentz in the first half and did not work for Frost in the 2nd half. All they did was drag the game out 5 minutes longer.
Click to expand...

?????

LMAO It did actually work for us in the 1st half because he missed. Lol. What game were you watching, Iowa unfortunately lined up offsides, giving him another attempt. Do people even think before typing?
 
I just looked this up. Bottom line, it makes no real difference. But overall:

Game on the line, kickers slightly better when iced.

Game not on the line and they’re slightly worse when iced.
 
guffus said:
Is then any statistical proof that kickers overall do worse after an opposing coach calls timeout to "ice" the kicker?

If not, why are they wasting everybody's time? Just get it over with!

Today it did not work for Ferentz in the first half and did not work for Frost in the 2nd half. All they did was drag the game out 5 minutes longer.
Click to expand...

No. It's one of the tiredest cliches in sports.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
?????

LMAO It did actually work for us in the 1st half because he missed. Lol. What game were you watching, Iowa unfortunately lined up offsides, giving him another attempt. Do people even think before typing?
Click to expand...

Did icing the kicker work in the first half? No, in my opinion, it backfired big time. If Iowa would never have call time out, the kicker probably would have missed anyway. Calling the timeout is why Iowa ended up offsides.
 
Last edited:
I just watched the Moss “off sides” a few more times in slow motion. I will further explain how the refs got that call wrong. He lined up on sides with hand position in line with the rest of the defensive front. Right before the snap part of his body moved up, but not forward. His hand stayed on the ground. No parts of his body went off sides. The refs saw the upward movement and somehow mistaked it for forward movement. Such a mistake is inexcusable. Off sides calls should be reviewable.

If Iowa had not won they would have had a much more serious complaint to make about this. The only thing is, much like the bogus out of bounds call against Michigan in 85, without the terrible officiating Iowa would not have had a dramatic walk off field goal.
 
guffus said:
Did icing the kicker work in the first half? No, in my opinion, it backfired big time. If Iowa would never have call time out, the kicker probably would have missed anyway. Calling the timeout is why Iowa ended up offsides.
Click to expand...


LMAO!! I think I’m dumber for even spending the time to read that. hahahahaha... Wow! some strange cats post on this site.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
LMAO!! I think I’m dumber for even spending the time to read that. hahahahaha... Wow! some strange cats post on this site.
Click to expand...

To each their own. Everybody else who replied to this thread understand my question and why I was asking it. There is no proof that i know of that icing a kicker works. There is no reason to do it. It just wastes time.

And I am sorry, Kirk's attempt to ice the kicker in the first half did backfire big time. Just because the kicker missed the kick on the offsides does not mean he would have made it without the timeout. But taking the timeout resulted in a play where Iowa was offsides and Nebraska got to kick from 5 yards closer, which it made. Final result, the decision to ice the kicker did not work out for Iowa. I am not sure why that is hard for you to understand.

I would appreciate it if you are going to call people dumb and accuse them of not thinking before they post, that you try to do the same yourself before you post. After you have taken the time to think about my point, and still think it was wrong, you could have politely disagreed and left it that.
 
99topdawg said:
One study found this:

Opponents iced the kicker 50 times. The ensuing field goal went through 72 percent of the time.

Opponents left the kicker alone 60 times. The conversion rate was 73.3 percent.
Click to expand...


How do they define "icing" a kicker? What is their cut-off for time remaining in a game when it would be considered icing the kicker? Less than 1 minute in a half? Less than 2 minutes? Less than 5 minutes? If you call a timeout on a kick attempt in the first quarter of a game is that considered icing a kicker? What is the criteria used in this study?
 
trakker said:
How do they define "icing" a kicker? What is their cut-off for time remaining in a game when it would be considered icing the kicker? Less than 1 minute in a half? Less than 2 minutes? Less than 5 minutes? If you call a timeout on a kick attempt in the first quarter of a game is that considered icing a kicker? What is the criteria used in this study?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. I would guess any time a coach intentionally calls a Time out for the sole purpose of making a kicker think about a FG.

Since coaches don't like to waste time outs, I have only seen coaches do it at the end of a half or end of a game. I guess if you were doing a study it would be hard to know for sure unless you watch the game.
 
I just remember Kirk trying to ice the ISU kicker in 2014. The kicker missed his kick but since Kirk tried to ice him he got another shot, then converted and we lost. It seems like it doesn't work more often than it does.
 
trakker said:
How do they define "icing" a kicker? What is their cut-off for time remaining in a game when it would be considered icing the kicker? Less than 1 minute in a half? Less than 2 minutes? Less than 5 minutes? If you call a timeout on a kick attempt in the first quarter of a game is that considered icing a kicker? What is the criteria used in this study?
Click to expand...
Here's what the article says. Sorry I didn't post it originally. It would have made more sense!

Since 2012, there have been 110 instances in the Bowl Subdivision where a team attempted a field goal in the final 2 minutes of the fourth quarter either trailing by 3 or tied, according to research by STATS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top