Icing The Kicker Is Useless, So Why Do Coaches Do It?

Good post. And if you want any additional evidence that coaches serve their own long-term interests by making decisions that have good optics even if they are statistically unfavorable, how about Marty Mornhinweg’s coin-flip decision in Detroit?

That decision probably gave the Lions better odds of winning the game, but when Marty fell on the wrong side of the odds, he was forever (and unfairly) branded as a dumbass.

It seems like they’re just helping the kicker by giving them a practice shot. When you shoot a basketball at a hoop (or a ping pong ball at a cup), your first shot helps you judge the distance and angle. Your second shot is invariable better as a result.

What the coaches should really do is make a bunch of fanfare on the sideline like they’re going to ice the kicker, and then not do it. That way the kicker has it in his mind that he’s about to get iced, which could be distracting.

The reason soccer players don’t shoot down the middle every time is that if they became known for that, the goalie would anticipate it and it is an incredibly easy save if expected.

Icing the kicker is probably one of things that worked well in some situations but coaches lost perspective as to WHY. All the reasons why kickers are iced are good ones, I just think that it only applies to certain individuals whose jitters can be repeatedly exploited. The rest of them aren’t affected at all as the stats show. And just because a kick is missed after an icing doesn’t mean that it was directly related to it – he might’ve missed anyway for any number of reasons.

There is a confidence factor when a kicker is iced. Was the first FG good? Yes? That give any kicker such as Bailey confidence (or false competence) into believe that the effort he gave on the first kick is all that is required for the 2nd kick to be good. Think about it, as it definitely is the reason there is such a difference in the 50+ yard FGs. Most miss the first time (37.5% success) but if they are iced, it jumped to over 70%. Why? Because after the first kick which is most likely a miss, the kicker begins thinking, “I MUST GIVE A BETTER EFFORT THIS NEXT KICK” – concentrates more, more power and percision

if the game clock is winding down and the team with the ball has no timeouts as they rush the FG team on for a last second 50-yard FG, the chance of the snap being hurried and the kicker being more frazzled, is higher. the 37.5% to 77.8% stat is obviously skewed by these type of scenarios, before half or at the end of a game when the kicker and the FG unit are hurried, and when they go un-iced

I will now wait for the inevitable “To ice or not to ice” situation to come up for Andy Reid this weekend, nick folk bangs the game winner, and then we go on to destroy Big Red for either icing or not icing.

I can see it in High School, and maybe college, where giving the kicker time to think will make him more nervous, but these guys are pro’s, and the added time gives them more time to prepare. I’m glad to see the stats confirm what I’ve always felt.

Interesting data, I have a few questions on both data collection and definitions. Does “icing” include your own team calling timeout to allow for proper set up, or only when an opposing coach calls an “expected-unexpected” timeout. Knowing your coach is allowing you more time to properly set up for the kick on the field instead of running onto the field with only 15 seconds to prepare is very different to “being iced.”

Second, they need to parse it into another category – “effective icing.” In this situation, the kicker is forced to make a second attempt the first kick was nullified by a timeout. I feel like it is much more disruptive to have a kicker go through the motions twice, rather than calling timeouts with 5 seconds on the playclock and the ball not being snapped.