Is there any proof icing a kicker works?

[Ree4]

?????

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?

The question is would he have missed if we didn't call time out. There's no way you can say that calling a time out caused him to miss, simply because he missed. Do you think before typing?

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.

This is the type of thing that you should look at to determine whether it works or not, but it appears to leave out a lot of other variables that may play a role as well.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

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.

This is as close as you're gonna get to a statistical analysis (because you can't measure what "might" have happened)...and it shows there's basically no effect. A good kicker is more likely to make it, a bad one will get nervous time out or not.

Bottom line, icing the kicker is bullshit.

 

[Ree4]

This is as close as you're gonna get to a statistical analysis (because you can't measure what "might" have happened)...and it shows there's basically no effect. A good kicker is more likely to make it, a bad one will get nervous time out or not.

Bottom line, icing the kicker is bullshit.

Can look at other variables like wind, home vs away, distance, indoor, outdoor, team W/L records, time of day, basically anything you can think of to determine if it's significant. It might not be during day games but might be at night!

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Can look at other variables like wind, home vs away, distance, indoor, outdoor, team W/L records, time of day, basically anything you can think of to determine if it's significant. It might not be during day games but might be at night!

Overthinking it. Those variables affect every kick. No reason to think they magically affect a kick differently when a timeout is involved. The previously sited numbers would seem to back that up. I'm sure those are take over a variety of conditions

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

The question is would he have missed if we didn't call time out. There's no way you can say that calling a time out caused him to miss, simply because he missed. Do you think before typing? well.

Actually that wasn’t the question at debate. So Are You now posing another question? Do you think before you type whatever you what to deflect from the topic at discussion?

But your right there is no way to know if Kicker was iced unless he were to say he was. But guffus is adamantly stating Kicker wasn’t iced hence why he created the thread. I simply stated he missed so IMO it may have worked.

I will now leave this debate as winner because I feel I won this debate. Carry on!

 

[PCHawk]

So I'm confused. Calling a timeout is what caused Moss to be offsides? How does that work?

 

[guffus]

So I'm confused. Calling a timeout is what caused Moss to be offsides? How does that work?

I guess a better way to word it, is that calling the time out started a chain reaction that resulted in a play where Iowa was offsides. The kicker then had a chance to kick from 5 yards closer and made it. So the whole purpose of calling timeout, which was to make the kicker miss the FG, did not work out because Iowa was offisides. Normally it does not work out because the kicker simply makes the kick without a penalty. This time there was a twist but the final result was that Nebraska made the FG.

Which leads to the whole question of is there any proof that calling timeout hurts the kicker's chance at making a field goal.

By the way, I appreciate the polite way you stated your question. It's a legitimate question that needed some clarification.

 

[Ree4]

Overthinking it. Those variables affect every kick. No reason to think they magically affect a kick differently when a timeout is involved. The previously sited numbers would seem to back that up. I'm sure those are take over a variety of conditions

It's possible that other variables may contribute additionally to the emotional stress of kicking a game winner when compared to non game-winners; I'm not saying it's likely that they would have an effect but it isn't impossible. The previously sited numbers mentioned nothing of any variables (other than icing), only the result.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

It's possible that other variables may contribute additionally to the emotional stress of kicking a game winner when compared to non game-winners; I'm not saying it's likely that they would have an effect but it isn't impossible. The previously sited numbers mentioned nothing of any variables (other than icing), only the result.

You're inferring that the "time out freeze" somehow acts as a magnifying effect on other significant variables. Good luck proving that. A windy day doesn't get any windier, a cold day doesn't get any colder, etc etc. There's no reason to think a guy's sphincter suddenly tightens up just because he's standing on the field for a minute longer. Maybe...if you're dealing with a young inexperienced kicker who's never been on the field. But if a player is gonna get nervous, he's probably already done that on the sidelines anticipating what's coming. Once on the field, the game face usually takes over.

Again... whole lotta speculation about something fairly simple. There's no evidence that it makes any difference. It's an urban sports myth that won't die.

 

[Ree4]

You're inferring that the "time out freeze" somehow acts as a magnifying effect on other significant variables.

If you actually read my post, you'd understand that I'm not inferring that. I'm just saying that it isn't impossible. I will not be wasting time to prove it, the burden of proof is on you for claiming that other variables have no effect with no data to support it besides field goal percentages before and after time outs.




You're likely right that they do have no effect but as a statistician I hate when people make unfounded claims based on almost zero data and use it as truth, which is exactly what you did. Carry on...

 

[4thngoal]

If you actually read my post, you'd understand that I'm not inferring that. I'm just saying that it isn't impossible. I will not be wasting time to prove it, the burden of proof is on you for claiming that other variables have no effect with no data to support it besides field goal percentages before and after time outs.




You're likely right that they do have no effect but as a statistician I hate when people make unfounded claims based on almost zero data and use it as truth, which is exactly what you did. Carry on...

He likes to argue.
I say, yup, say the wind is fluctuating (it is constantly), say when you iced the kicker it was blowing 12 mph, directly east. But the second time it was blowing 14.43 mph and a few degrees off of directly east. Would it matter?
How about the cold? Been on the side lines warming up, kicking the ball, now he gets to stand around in the cold (no heat or jacket like on the side lines). Does it matter?
What about the Horton hears a who effect? They may not of heard hadn't they been iced.
The crowd noise or they hear something, from a fan, team mate or coach and it sets off a chain reaction in their head?

I don't know, but if you don't think I would be using my timeouts (when I know I won't be needing them) you would be wrong.

 

[homes]

Not sure about icing a kicker, but this is how you de-ice a kicker.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

If you actually read my post, you'd understand that I'm not inferring that. I'm just saying that it isn't impossible. I will not be wasting time to prove it, the burden of proof is on you for claiming that other variables have no effect with no data to support it besides field goal percentages before and after time outs.


You're likely right that they do have no effect but as a statistician I hate when people make unfounded claims based on almost zero data and use it as truth, which is exactly what you did. Carry on...

OK, you're "suggesting", "postulating", "wondering"...JFC, picky picky picky. Pretty clear that you were bring that into the discussion as a possibility. What's with all the anger? ...seemed like we were having a good exchange.

You're right, there isn't much data.(as previously mentioned) The numbers 99Dawg sited are the only example I've seen. That's entirely the point. There's no proof that it works.

For a statistician, you apparently you don't understand scientific method (or similar logical and legal constructs). Proving something "didn't" happen is not where the burden lies...one has to prove that it "did" or "does" consistently happen to establish causal effect. Surely you know that.

 

[westender]

Actually it did, Riley Moss just decided to be stupid.

Riley must have lined up offside because he did not jump on that play.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Not sure about icing a kicker, but this is how you de-ice a kicker.

Patriots would never cheat, let alone have a groundskeeper on a weekend prison furlough clear a path for their kicker for a game winning field goal.

C'mon, this is the Patriots we're talking about!

Their head coach at the time was Ron Meyer, who managed to get a step ahead of the SMU mess, much of which happened on his watch, and leave Bobby Collins holding the bag.