Timeout before field goal (2 Viewers)

[Amused to Death]

Just what NFL games need, more dead time.

So...take away timeouts?  Each team still gets 6 per game.  Was this timeout any longer then the others?

 

[CalBear]

So...take away timeouts?  Each team still gets 6 per game.  Was this timeout any longer then the others?

It was more boring and pointless than the others.

 

[Amused to Death]

It was more boring and pointless than the others.

Not Eagles' fans!  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I'm all for icing the kicker, but they can do it before he actually kicks the ball.  It's having to watch him kick twice is the problem.

???....can you explain this a little more....how is it a problem for you....is it just that its an extra minute of your life that you can't get back so it ruins your whole weekend.... or do you have some condition where watching a guy take a practice kick makes you have seizures or something....?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

It was more boring and pointless than the others.

at the end of a 2.5 to 3 hour game that is a one point game in the final seconds....a one minute timeout really bores you that much?

 

[JohnnyU]

???....can you explain this a little more....how is it a problem for you....is it just that its an extra minute of your life that you can't get back so it ruins your whole weekend.... or do you have some condition where watching a guy take a practice kick makes you have seizures or something....?

I think it's ignorant and unnecessary to have the kicker kick it twice.  They can still call timeout to ice the kicker without having him kick it twice. 

 

[Amused to Death]

I think it's ignorant and unnecessary to have the kicker kick it twice.  They can still call timeout to ice the kicker without having him kick it twice. 

In this case, I believe the whistle had blown the play dead in plenty of time for Parkey to *not kick the ball.  He chose to kick it.  Did him kicking it impact the length of the timeout in anyway?

Oh, and:

Sometimes I think people like to complain for the sake of complaining.  It's strategy and it worked for the Eagles this time.  Next time maybe it backfires.  Each team has 3 and only 3 TOs per half; who cares when they choose to use them.  The game didn't get any longer.

 

[Rove!]

Anecdotal but I agree with you that it's not an effective strategy.  However as I was explaining to my family that its probably not going to work Parkey  DOIINKED  the field goal on the second attempt.  Giving further credence that it forces PK ro.make 2 kicks. 

I think it’s more effective if you have a kicker that is easily rattled.

Parkey  has shown that he can be rattled, plus he’s young, inexperienced and hasn’t faced this level of pressure.....the closer to the snap you call TO, the effectively you can rattle the guy

 

[JohnnyU]

In this case, I believe the whistle had blown the play dead in plenty of time for Parkey to *not kick the ball.  He chose to kick it.  Did him kicking it impact the length of the timeout in anyway?

Oh, and:

Sometimes I think people like to complain for the sake of complaining.  It's strategy and it worked for the Eagles this time.  Next time maybe it backfires.  Each team has 3 and only 3 TOs per half; who cares when they choose to use them.  The game didn't get any longer.

Simple, team's must call timeout before the offense is set.

 

[Amused to Death]

Simple, team's must call timeout before the offense is set.

Not seeing the logic here, is the timeout shorter then? And why do you want to add more rules?  Seems this could become quite controversial - was the offense set when the TO was called?  Can we review that?  Did the ref see the TO in time?

My point is, the game is no different - you're just being forced to watch a kicker take a practice kick.  Seems like an unimportant thing to complain about.

 

[CalBear]

at the end of a 2.5 to 3 hour game that is a one point game in the final seconds....a one minute timeout really bores you that much?

Yes, in fact this is exactly why it's a problem. It takes a moment of drama and turns it into "oh, look, the coach wants to mess around," for no reason.

 

[SwampDawg]

I don't have an issue with the practice of it, but I do have an issue that the head coach can stand right in a refs ear and tell him he is going to do it so that they can time it perfectly. Make a player on the field stand up and call it or don't let the head coach call a ref over and prepare for it.  I don't think I've ever seen the refs wave off the timeout and count the FG saying the coach didn't call it in time. By sheer chance when cutting it that close that has to happen 30% of the time anyway.

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't have an issue with the practice of it, but I do have an issue that the head coach can stand right in a refs ear and tell him he is going to do it so that they can time it perfectly. Make a player on the field stand up and call it or don't let the head coach call a ref over and prepare for it.  I don't think I've ever seen the refs wave off the timeout and count the FG saying the coach didn't call it in time. By sheer chance when cutting it that close that has to happen 30% of the time anyway.

How about when a coach stands right in the refs ear so he can call a time out any other time?  Like when they want to run the game clock down as far as possible before taking the TO?

 

[Titans_fan]

I'm moving away from the argument of "icing the kicker" and more to "make him make it twice to beat us."  You can ice the kicker with a TO at any point before the play happens.  You're still making him wait that extra time to think about making the kick.  Timing the TO just before the snap is more likely playing percentages of a successful kick on the first attempt.  You'll probably never see this strategy on a 55+ yard kick because the likelihood of making it on one try is considerably lower than one from 50 yards out or closer.

In the case of the Parkey kick, the odds of an NFL kicker successfully converting one 43-yard attempt is probably somewhere in the 80% range (no statistical evidence to back this up, mainly because I'm too lazy to look for it).  I'd assume the odds of converting two successive kicks drops some, so why not play the odds in that situation?  It might only work a miniscule amount of the time, but in a 16-game season (or a win-or-go-home scenario), every advantage you can squeeze out you have to exploit, IMO.

 

[Anarchy99]

I'm moving away from the argument of "icing the kicker" and more to "make him make it twice to beat us."  You can ice the kicker with a TO at any point before the play happens.  You're still making him wait that extra time to think about making the kick.  Timing the TO just before the snap is more likely playing percentages of a successful kick on the first attempt.  You'll probably never see this strategy on a 55+ yard kick because the likelihood of making it on one try is considerably lower than one from 50 yards out or closer.

In the case of the Parkey kick, the odds of an NFL kicker successfully converting one 43-yard attempt is probably somewhere in the 80% range (no statistical evidence to back this up, mainly because I'm too lazy to look for it).  I'd assume the odds of converting two successive kicks drops some, so why not play the odds in that situation?  It might only work a miniscule amount of the time, but in a 16-game season (or a win-or-go-home scenario), every advantage you can squeeze out you have to exploit, IMO.

Explain to me why the outcome of the second kick has anything at all to do with the first kick. People do realize that kickers miss kicks all the time, right? Yet people want to automatically project that the kicker has to make the same kick twice. On the first kick, there could be a bad snap, a blocked kick, a fumble, a missed kick, a holding call, etc. that would get wiped out by the timeout. I've seen times where those outcomes happened and it didn't count because of the timeout . . . and the kicker drilled the next kick.

Similarly, the defense could do something stupid on the second kick that they didn't do on the first one. Jump offsides early, hit a lineman in the head by accident, run into the kicker, etc. . . . which could lead to an easier kick and a greater probability of a successful FG. Not sure where to even look up the math, but I am not so sure making a kicker kick twice is an advantage.

 

[CalBear]

I'm moving away from the argument of "icing the kicker" and more to "make him make it twice to beat us."  You can ice the kicker with a TO at any point before the play happens.  You're still making him wait that extra time to think about making the kick.  Timing the TO just before the snap is more likely playing percentages of a successful kick on the first attempt.  You'll probably never see this strategy on a 55+ yard kick because the likelihood of making it on one try is considerably lower than one from 50 yards out or closer.

In the case of the Parkey kick, the odds of an NFL kicker successfully converting one 43-yard attempt is probably somewhere in the 80% range (no statistical evidence to back this up, mainly because I'm too lazy to look for it).  I'd assume the odds of converting two successive kicks drops some, so why not play the odds in that situation?  It might only work a miniscule amount of the time, but in a 16-game season (or a win-or-go-home scenario), every advantage you can squeeze out you have to exploit, IMO.

He doesn't have to convert two kicks; only one of them counts. Whether he converts the one that doesn't count or not has no bearing on whether he'll convert the next one. Rolling a 5 doesn't make it less likely you'll roll a 5 next time.

 

[PhantomJB]

He doesn't have to convert two kicks; only one of them counts. Whether he converts the one that doesn't count or not has no bearing on whether he'll convert the next one. Rolling a 5 doesn't make it less likely you'll roll a 5 next time.

This is absolutely not true...because the conditions are not exactly the same.

There's a human factor involved that needs to be taken into account. Maybe he gains confidence from making the first kick...maybe he loses it from missing. Maybe he adjusts for the wind. Maybe the snap and hold are different. 

 

[CalBear]

This is absolutely not true...because the conditions are not exactly the same.

There's a human factor involved that needs to be taken into account. Maybe he gains confidence from making the first kick...maybe he loses it from missing. Maybe he adjusts for the wind. Maybe the snap and hold are different. 

The null hypothesis is that the events are independent. You'd have to do a lot of work to convincingly demonstrate that there's a meaningful effect. Similar areas like free throw shooting have been extensively studied and they've been found to be independent events.

 

[SwampDawg]

How about when a coach stands right in the refs ear so he can call a time out any other time?  Like when they want to run the game clock down as far as possible before taking the TO?

Different because with running the clock down the other team if they still had timeouts could counter act it and also you are telling them a specific time, say when 5 seconds remain. With the kicker you are basically saying just before the snap which is an arbitrary time.

 

[JohnnyU]

Explain to me why the outcome of the second kick has anything at all to do with the first kick. People do realize that kickers miss kicks all the time, right? Yet people want to automatically project that the kicker has to make the same kick twice. On the first kick, there could be a bad snap, a blocked kick, a fumble, a missed kick, a holding call, etc. that would get wiped out by the timeout. I've seen times where those outcomes happened and it didn't count because of the timeout . . . and the kicker drilled the next kick.

Similarly, the defense could do something stupid on the second kick that they didn't do on the first one. Jump offsides early, hit a lineman in the head by accident, run into the kicker, etc. . . . which could lead to an easier kick and a greater probability of a successful FG. Not sure where to even look up the math, but I am not so sure making a kicker kick twice is an advantage.

Kicker could get injured on the timeout kick

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Weird thing to get upset about IMO.  If we're just taking an opinion poll, I'm in the camp that thinks (a) there's probably no conclusive evidence that it's the right strategy, (b) teams get 3 TOs per half, let them use them however they want, and (c) as someone with no rooting interest in the outcome of the game, I thought the TO at the end of Bears-Eagles made the ending even more thrilling.   

Also for everyone saying taking a TO to ice the kicker doesn’t work. Well obviously it did because the eagles won because of it. 

No.