vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Sept 20, 2010 13:21:41 GMT -5
I'd like to see it eliminated. It's stupid. At least the refs shouldn't cater to it -- get in position on the field. The only problem is that creating a rule saying the defense can't call a timeout with under x amount of seconds left on the play clock would lead to far worse situations
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,712
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 20, 2010 13:26:34 GMT -5
I'd like to see it eliminated. It's stupid. At least the refs shouldn't cater to it -- get in position on the field. The only problem is that creating a rule saying the defense can't call a timeout with under x amount of seconds left on the play clock would lead to far worse situations Agree. Though you could just do it on FG attempts, perhaps. Or you could make the refs get into real position rather than standing next to the coach -- so he risks the ref not hearing it. It's bad for the entertainment value, frankly.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Sept 20, 2010 13:46:21 GMT -5
The only problem is that creating a rule saying the defense can't call a timeout with under x amount of seconds left on the play clock would lead to far worse situations Agree. Though you could just do it on FG attempts, perhaps. Or you could make the refs get into real position rather than standing next to the coach -- so he risks the ref not hearing it. It's bad for the entertainment value, frankly. True but Gano's kick was the first time in a while where I've seen the kicker hit the first and miss the second so in most situations the icing is a mildly annoying thing that is forgotten soon after the game (for example, barely anyone brings up or cares that Shannahan didn't ice Rackers on the last drive) On a sorta related note the entire NFC East looks mediocre at best. It will be interesting what 6-7 loss team ends up winning the division
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,712
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 20, 2010 15:16:30 GMT -5
I find it annoying in game. Extra commericals. Wasted play. As a consumer of their product, I think it sucks.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 20, 2010 15:30:27 GMT -5
I'd like to see it eliminated. It's stupid. At least the refs shouldn't cater to it -- get in position on the field. The only problem is that creating a rule saying the defense can't call a timeout with under x amount of seconds left on the play clock would lead to far worse situations Unless you made it specific to FG attempts. There's a way to write a rule to eliminate it.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 20, 2010 15:35:38 GMT -5
How about forbidding defensive timeouts on field goals after the holder starts the play count, or after the center touches the ball?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 20, 2010 16:10:06 GMT -5
Maybe that's the answer.
After all, in basketball, people ice the shooter all the time at the end of games.
But I'm fairly sure the opposing coach/team can't call timeout after the FT shooter has gone into his shooting motion. I'm not even sure you can call timeout after the shooter has begin his pre-shot dribble or stepped to the line and been handed the ball by the refs. (someone can correct me on this, I'm not certain about the rule).
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,473
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 20, 2010 16:38:08 GMT -5
While I am never in a bad mood when the Skins go down in flames (even more so when they blow a 17-point lead to do so), I am really continuing to have a tough time with this ice the kicker strategy. Yes, it is perfectly legal. And yes, I appreciate gamesmanship. Moreover, I don't know that there is a fair way to stop this strategy by rule. Teams have to have the ability to call a timeout right up until the ball is snapped. At any point in the game, on offense or on defense. It's just something about seems so damn bush league. I really don't know why I feel that way. It's not like someone cheated -- or faked an injury, like getting hit by a pitch -- to gain an advantage. It just seems skeezy. On the other hand, coaches have been doing this for a few years now. By this time, kickers really need to be prepared for the fact that they may have to kick twice. Even if I don't like it, it's legal and within the rules, so adapt. It was positively Jeterish.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 20, 2010 16:44:44 GMT -5
While I am never in a bad mood when the Skins go down in flames (even more so when they blow a 17-point lead to do so), I am really continuing to have a tough time with this ice the kicker strategy. Yes, it is perfectly legal. And yes, I appreciate gamesmanship. Moreover, I don't know that there is a fair way to stop this strategy by rule. Teams have to have the ability to call a timeout right up until the ball is snapped. At any point in the game, on offense or on defense. It's just something about seems so damn bush league. I really don't know why I feel that way. It's not like someone cheated -- or faked an injury, like getting hit by a pitch -- to gain an advantage. It just seems skeezy. On the other hand, coaches have been doing this for a few years now. By this time, kickers really need to be prepared for the fact that they may have to kick twice. Even if I don't like it, it's legal and within the rules, so adapt. It was positively Jeterish. Written by a man whose cross-thread posting reveals his desperation to keep the NFL thread from looking too closely at the strafing of the Patriots by those big talking, big city JETS from NY.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 20, 2010 16:48:38 GMT -5
How about forbidding defensive timeouts on field goals after the holder starts the play count, or after the center touches the ball? So what if the Defense realizes they don't have enough players on the field, or that they have too many? Should they just be screwed? Or, what if the defense realizes a fake FG is going to be attempted, and they want to take a TO to adjust? I don't think you can write the rule in a way that doesn't also prevent "legitimate" timeouts.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 20, 2010 16:50:50 GMT -5
The only problem is that creating a rule saying the defense can't call a timeout with under x amount of seconds left on the play clock would lead to far worse situations Agree. Though you could just do it on FG attempts, perhaps. Or you could make the refs get into real position rather than standing next to the coach -- so he risks the ref not hearing it. It's bad for the entertainment value, frankly. I fail to see how the official is not in the "real" position. The head linesman (or line judge depending on the sideline) has to be on the sideline at the line of scrimmage. That's next to where the head coach is.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 20, 2010 17:22:03 GMT -5
How about forbidding defensive timeouts on field goals after the holder starts the play count, or after the center touches the ball? So what if the Defense realizes they don't have enough players on the field, or that they have too many? Should they just be screwed? Or, what if the defense realizes a fake FG is going to be attempted, and they want to take a TO to adjust? Then they deal with it just like they would if they didn't have any timeouts left. Or they could take a 5 yard delay of game penalty.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,712
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 20, 2010 17:41:04 GMT -5
How about forbidding defensive timeouts on field goals after the holder starts the play count, or after the center touches the ball? So what if the Defense realizes they don't have enough players on the field, or that they have too many? Should they just be screwed? Or, what if the defense realizes a fake FG is going to be attempted, and they want to take a TO to adjust? I don't think you can write the rule in a way that doesn't also prevent "legitimate" timeouts. They just have to figure it out five seconds earlier, that's all.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 20, 2010 17:53:13 GMT -5
So what if the Defense realizes they don't have enough players on the field, or that they have too many? Should they just be screwed? Or, what if the defense realizes a fake FG is going to be attempted, and they want to take a TO to adjust? I don't think you can write the rule in a way that doesn't also prevent "legitimate" timeouts. They just have to figure it out five seconds earlier, that's all. Well, if you want to over-legislate the game to fix a minor, minor [alleged] problem, I guess you can do so.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Sept 20, 2010 18:30:12 GMT -5
I still don't understand why there's some sort of advantage. I find it difficult to believe an NFL kicker should not be able to execute a kick twice.
Are there any stats on FGAs before and after the timeout? I'd like to see if they're any different than actual FGs from the respective distances. I'd actually guess not. That's a 52-yarder. He easily could have missed then made.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 20, 2010 18:33:44 GMT -5
I'm sure the lawyers on this board can write a rule to handle this.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 20, 2010 18:50:40 GMT -5
I still don't understand why there's some sort of advantage. I find it difficult to believe an NFL kicker should not be able to execute a kick twice. Are there any stats on FGAs before and after the timeout? I'd like to see if they're any different than actual FGs from the respective distances. I'd actually guess not. That's a 52-yarder. He easily could have missed then made. A study by the University of San Diego says that icing the kicker, the NFL's most irritating strategy, is actually pretty effective. They found that non-iced kickers converted their field goals 80.4 percent of the time, while iced kickers were successful on just 66.4 percent of kicks. The study will appear in the September issue of the journal The Sport Psychologist. www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2010/study-says-icing-causes-nfl-kickers-choke
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,473
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 20, 2010 19:29:31 GMT -5
Written by a man whose cross-thread posting reveals his desperation to keep the NFL thread from looking too closely at the strafing of the Patriots by those big talking, big city JETS from NY. Yawn. You NY front runners need to come up with something original, like this: Tom BradyYour desperation to validate New York knows no bounds, now you're even claiming ownership of the New Jersey Jets!
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 20, 2010 21:09:39 GMT -5
Yawn. You NY front runners need to come up with something original, like this: Tom BradyYour desperation to validate New York knows no bounds, now you're even claiming ownership of the New Jersey Jets! That all you got Dan? Talk about tired..... "Gee, the G-Men AND the JETS both play 3 miles from Manhattan". That must have made you feel a lot better after the helmet catch in Superbowl XLIV!
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Sept 20, 2010 21:50:12 GMT -5
Well, if you want to over-legislate the game to fix a minor, minor [alleged] problem, I guess you can do so. Most sports rules are fundamentally arbitrary designed to make the game more enjoyable to watch; "over-legislating" is an interesting choice of words. It's a question of whether enough fans dislike the last-second icing the kicker (i.e. waiting until right before the snap so you have situations last night like the kick happening but not counting). I personally don't, some may consider it an interesting wrinkle. One easy rule change would be that once the offense has ten guys set for three seconds, the defense can't call a timeout. If the offense has any indications that they're trying a fake (alignment, substitutions) or the defense is running guys on and off, the ball is going to get snapped quicker than three seconds anyway. This way, the field goal team can come on, and the opposing coach has until roughly when the kicker has lined himself up and taken his steps off to call a timeout.
|
|