Icing the kicker

[VJCPatriot]

Going into halftime - the Jets felt pretty good about themselves being down only 14-10 after being thoroughly outplayed by the Pats in the first half. The difference - icing the kicker. The Pats would have had 17 points, since Gostkowski made the first kick. But he was iced by the Jets' coach alert use of a timeout. He missed the second attempt much to tubby Rex' pleasure.

Near the end of the second half, the Jets kicker was about to kick the ball with 5 seconds left on the clock. You've got to wonder why the Pats didn't ice the Jets kicker at that point since that had happened to their own kicker. The Jets iced Gostkowski and it worked to make him miss the kick. Being up 17-7 is a big difference mentally between only being ahead 14-10. Even if the score is 14-7, at least the Jets don't feel good about scoring two drives in a row to end the half. That built up their confidence.

Although the tactic of icing the kicker is purely mental it seems to work. For example in the Texans game in overtime, the coach, Kubiak, iced the Redskins kicker. The guy made the first kick and missed the second one. Texans went on to win that game. So were our coaches asleep at the switch? Why didn't you ice their kicker, BB?

 

[letekro]

Please God.......




















.....make it stop.

 

[aluminum seats]

Going into halftime - the Jets felt pretty good about themselves being down only 14-10 after being thoroughly outplayed by the Pats in the first half. The difference - icing the kicker. The Pats would have had 17 points, since Gostkowski made the first kick. But he was iced by the Jets' coach alert use of a timeout. He missed the second attempt much to tubby Rex' pleasure.

Near the end of the second half, the Jets kicker was about to kick the ball with 5 seconds left on the clock. You've got to wonder why the Pats didn't ice the Jets kicker at that point since that had happened to their own kicker. The Jets iced Gostkowski and it worked to make him miss the kick. Being up 17-7 is a big difference mentally between only being ahead 14-10. Even if the score is 14-7, at least the Jets don't feel good about scoring two drives in a row to end the half. That built up their confidence.

Although the tactic of icing the kicker is purely mental it seems to work. For example in the Texans game in overtime, the coach, Kubiak, iced the Redskins kicker. The guy made the first kick and missed the second one. Texans went on to win that game. So were our coaches asleep at the switch? Why didn't you ice their kicker, BB?

If I remember correctly, the Pats had a delay of game penalty--the Jets didn't call a TO.

 

[VJCPatriot]

If I remember correctly, the Pats had a delay of game penalty--the Jets didn't call a TO.

I think you're right. Ok I remembered that part wrong. Gost had to kick a 5 yard longer field goal. We should have used a timeout to prevent the penalty from happening then. Who's watching the play clock? And the Pats still could have iced the Jets kicker before the end of the half.

 

[Wolfpack]

Although the tactic of icing the kicker is purely mental it seems to work. For example in the Texans game in overtime, the coach, Kubiak, iced the Redskins kicker. The guy made the first kick and missed the second one. Texans went on to win that game. So were our coaches asleep at the switch? Why didn't you ice their kicker, BB?

I've seen the tactic of icing the kicker fail just as many times as it has succeeded. The Raiders tried to ice Vinatieri in January, 2002. How'd that work out for them?

 

[lostjumper]

What are you talking about? The patriots got a delay of game penalty because their special teams are unable to get on the field and get a kick off in 40 seconds. They iced themselves. The Jets and Ryan had nothing to do with it.

 

[emoney_33]

Aside from the fact that there were no actual "icing the kicker" timeouts, I just want to point out that I doubt "icing the kicker" has any factual evidence as being useful. In order for "icing the kicker" to be useful you have to assume that the probability of success on the 2nd kick is drastically lower than the 1st kick, which I don't think it is.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Why would the kicker feel any pressure? The Patriots already blew a field goal from a shorter distance, the Jets were badly outplayed and this was just a few bonus points, and it was a long field goal that not many expected him to make. This wasn't a 38-yard to send the game into OT.

 

[aluminum seats]

I think a little clarification is needed here. "Icing the kicker" has been around forever--taking a timeout so the kicker has to "think" about the kick. Any decent kicker should welcome the time on the field to gauge the wind or whatever.

The last couple of years there's been this new thing of a TO right before the ball is snapped so the kicker kicks the ball, then has to do it again. It works sometimes, and sometimes it backfires (kicker misses the first, makes the second) and other times it makes no difference. So who knows.

For the record, I hate when those TOs are called, whichever way it goes. It's annoying.

 

[alamo]

Although the tactic of icing the kicker is purely mental it seems to work. For example in the Texans game in overtime, the coach, Kubiak, iced the Redskins kicker. The guy made the first kick and missed the second one. Texans went on to win that game. So were our coaches asleep at the switch? Why didn't you ice their kicker, BB?

Seems to me saying "icing the kicker seems to work" is wrong. It usually makes no difference and sometimes backfires. The fact that it "worked" for the Texans yesterday is anecdotal.

My guess is the statistics for a second kick would have about the same % as the first kick. So if a kick gets made 80% of the type typically, then 4 of 5 times the first kick gets made and then occasionally (1 of 5 times) the second doesn't. In the case where the first kick is missed (1 of 5) then the second usually gets made (4 of 5) and the tactic "backfires". Though it's mainly due to typical kicking odds rather than "icing the kicker".

Because noone tracks kicks which don't count, I doubt there has ever been a real study done though.

 

[WhiZa]

ITT Rex Ryan gets too much credit

 

[emoney_33]

Seems to me saying "icing the kicker seems to work" is wrong. It usually makes no difference and sometimes backfires. The fact that it "worked" for the Texans yesterday is anecdotal.

My guess is the statistics for a second kick would have about the same % as the first kick. So if a kick gets made 80% of the type typically, then 4 of 5 times the first kick gets made and then occasionally (1 of 5 times) the second doesn't. In the case where the first kick is missed (1 of 5) then the second usually gets made (4 of 5) and the tactic "backfires". Though it's mainly due to typical kicking odds rather than "icing the kicker".

Because noone tracks kicks which don't count, I doubt there has ever been a real study done though.

to expand...

20% of the time the 1st kick is missed, 16% of the time the 1st kick is hit and the 2nd kick is missed. Now the 2nd kick is going to miss 20% of the time so regardless your overall odds of a "missed" kick do not change, but the only outcome that makes sense for calling a timeout (hit 1st kick, miss 2nd kick) will happen less frequently than that 1st kick being missed.

 

[boston22407]

been around for awhile

 

[footballguy]

I think you're right. Ok I remembered that part wrong. Gost had to kick a 5 yard longer field goal. We should have used a timeout to prevent the penalty from happening then. Who's watching the play clock? And the Pats still could have iced the Jets kicker before the end of the half.

Right! This is correct.

 

[elnocho3]

Recent research suggests that 'icing the kicker' does work:

A 2010 scientifc study by Proffesor Goldschmied from USD looked at pressure kicks by NFL kickers in 6 seasons of the NFL (from 2002-2008). A pressure kick was defined as being performed one minute or less to the end of regulation, when the kicking team was behind by three points or less (ties included), and also overtime.

The results were:

• Non-iced kickers scored 80.4% of their attempts
• Iced kickers score only 64.4% of their attempts

These effects were found only when the opposition called the timeout and regardless of the age/experience of the kicker or home field advantage.

This supports and extends upon previous research into the 2001-2002 NFL season by Berry & Wood in 2004, who found similar findings.

So while it obviously doesnt work all the time, there is significant evidence to support its use. Coaches listen to stuff like this!!!

 

[Timbo717]

Recent research suggests that 'icing the kicker' does work:

A 2010 scientifc study by Proffesor Goldschmied from USD looked at pressure kicks by NFL kickers in 6 seasons of the NFL (from 2002-2008). A pressure kick was defined as being performed one minute or less to the end of regulation, when the kicking team was behind by three points or less (ties included), and also overtime.

The results were:

• Non-iced kickers scored 80.4% of their attempts
• Iced kickers score only 64.4% of their attempts

These effects were found only when the opposition called the timeout and regardless of the age/experience of the kicker or home field advantage.

This supports and extends upon previous research into the 2001-2002 NFL season by Berry & Wood in 2004, who found similar findings.

So while it obviously doesnt work all the time, there is significant evidence to support its use. Coaches listen to stuff like this!!!

Is there a link to the source for this? This doesn't prove icing the kicker works because there are too many other variables for this to be significant evidence of anything. This takes into account the time of the game, and the score from what you're saying.

- Was the length of the field goals for "being iced" vs. "non-iced" taken into account? I would imagine not and I suspect that a head coach is much more likely to waste a timeout on a 45-yard field goal than on a 30-yard field goal that is a much, much higher % kick...even with a minute left that timeout could be used on a final drive if the FG was good.
- Was the wind/weather conditions taken into account? A coach may try to ice a kicker in high wind, or snowy conditions but at the same length may NOT try to waste the timeout if the weather is a non-factor such as in a dome. Not only that, but if it's bad weather you're more than likely going to need that timeout on a final drive due to shorter passes.

Less than a minute in regulation is enough time for a team to give up a FG, get the ball back and drive down the field and thus worth saving the timeout depending on the conditions. And my overall point is that there are times when icing a kicker has a much higher risk for failure (short field goals, dome conditions, etc) and coaches will take those conditions into account before deciding to "ice" a kicker.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Is there a link to the source for this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/sports/football/26kicker.html


Very good points Timbo717! It appears that the distance was factored in, and only "pressure kicks" were considered, so gimmes where a team would not burn a timeout MAYBE didn't inflate the numbers. The primary article the NYT cites isn't free though (costs $25) so I don't know how they defined pressure kicks beyond the time factor.

Another factor to take into account is the loss of a timeout. If you gain, on average, a slight advantage form icing the kicker on a particular field goal attempt, the price is losing a timeout, which especially in the second half can also lessen your chances of a comeback win significantly.