I just don't see it being "cheap or chick-****" at all. It rarely works, and it gets blown out of proportion when it does. Imagine if it would have backfired and Gano made the 2nd attempt after missing the 1st. Kubiak would be getting roasted right now. How is it a do-over when the first play never happened?
How is it "forcing do-overs" when that play never happened? It's like when a team calls time out right before a snap because the don't like the defensive set up. It's part of the game. It rarely works when it comes to kicking. Good call last night.
Stupid poll for sure. If anything coaches should get timeouts set aside specifically for icing the kicker. Like swoly said these are kickers dammit. That is their only job to kick that dumb ball. If they can't kick it reliably not knowing if a TO is coming then they fail as kickers.
Why not make another rule so that centers can hear the QB calling audibles, too? LOOK AT THE REF (I am playing the DVD of the game on my PC's Media Center here): He whistled three or four times before GANO kicked it... the ball hadn't even been snapped before he started whistling TIME OUT...
Why do you keep ignoring the reality, as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, that the strategy can and has also worked against coaches? I'd guess probably about as frequently as it works for coaches - which in both cases, is not very frequently. We already have in this thread recall of: 1. Yesterday, Kubiak successfully icing the kicker 2. Utah-Pitt game, icing the kicker backfiring 3. Houston-Titans game, fake-icing the kicker working Meaning, basically, there are so many ways a coach can play it, that making any call, for a coach, is "manning up" - because if their way doesn't work, they will get roasted for it on the airwaves afterwards. Kubiak manned up a BUNCH of times in yesterday's game, and for whatever reason (luck), for once, all the decisions he made worked out. As for the players, there is only one way they can man up - execute. Make the plays. Kick the kick successfully - once if necessary, more than once otherwise. Yesterday's kicker already got a fg blocked. There's no telling if maybe the Texans defenders pulled up once they heard the timeout, etc, etc. What about trying to draw the defense off-sides when it's forth and short by pretending to go for it and then just taking a delay of game if they don't jump. Is that chicken-****, too? Of course not. It's strategy. And it'd be the dumb-ass defenders fault for jumping off-side if he does so.
I honestly really don't know or care what affect it has on a kicker. Though, I will say there have been some studies done suggesting that icing the kicker did work on average, and I'm sure most NFL coaches with all of their resources have thoroughly vetted this "trick" (please don't refer to this as a "strategy") and determined that it is worth it. Seriously, why do you think it's done if not to gain an advantage? I think in terms of the fan experience, this detracts from it somewhat. There was a time when we as fans could be on the edge of our seats and simply watch to see if a kick goes through the uprights and make the outlandish assumption that the field goal we were watching was actually real. But now, before we react we have to wait and see whether a time-out was or wasn't called. Did they or didn't they? THEY DIDN'T? YESSSSS! They did? CRAP! Talk about anti-climactic.
Great, so now you want a kicker who's success is pretty much completely dependent on their focus and ability to block out everything to now listen for a whistle up to a split second before they kick the ball. Right.
for those who think the timeout shouldn't be allowed before a FG should also feel that a timeout shouldn't be allowed before an onside kick, right? because Kubiak did that too...and it saved the Texans' ass. AND it was the right thing to do.
I voted no, but I would only have it not allowed when the kicker is set or 10 seconds left on the play clock or something like that. I don't have a problem with coaches icing the kicker, but icing the kicker and making him kick the ball multiple times aren't the same thing. For me, it takes away any drama from the kicks because I couldn't care less where the ball ends up or anything like that, Im just waiting for 10 seconds afterwards when the announcers and crowd can finally figure out if the kick was legit or not.
It makes a difference: Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...g-causes-nfl-kicks-miss-field-goals/?sciquest That being said,it is part of the game and I have no problem with it. I think kickers should be expecting it and they have to be mentally prepared for it. Their job is to make every kick so whether you have to kick 1 time or 10 times they should be prepared to make it however many times.
But as some already correctly mentioned this could allow teams to wait until 10 seconds are left on the play clock, and then change their formation. The opposing team wouldn't be able to call a timeout to react, so this still has problems. I don't think there's any solution.
I love this forum, flip what happened around and I bet most of these responses would be the other way around b****ing about it.
i dont think so. People may be upset, but there is still no good argument for not allowing a timeout before the ball is hiked...which is basically what's happening.
I didn't read the link....because I'm lazy. But are the non-iced kickers just kicking FG's at any time in the game? Or are they potential game winning field goals in higher pressure situations? Just curious?
no, i would still feel the same way. honestly, it's hard to believe that people are against it. that's why i'd want a discussion on it. i still haven't read/heard a legitimate reason not to allow it.
