| Author |
Messages |
|
Crit40
Posts:2601
 |
| 10/11/2007 1:25 PM |
 Alert
|
So let me get this straight. It is likely to be less than 50% positive outcome for the team calling the timeout, but they are doing it because they "know" their chances are greater than 50% to win the game by doing so.
Thanks for clarifying. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5570
|
| 10/11/2007 1:30 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 10/11/2007 1:25 PM
So let me get this straight. It is likely to be less than 50% positive outcome for the team calling the timeout, but they are doing it because they "know" their chances are greater than 50% to win the game by doing so.
Thanks for clarifying.
I never contended that the opposing team calling the timeout would have more than a 50% success rate on average.
Do you read before you respond? I didn't think so. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2601
|
| 10/11/2007 1:37 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By egami on 10/11/2007 10:05 AM
Statistically it wouldn't favor the kicking team.
Oh, I misunderstood I guess.  |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5570
|
| 10/11/2007 1:50 PM |
Alert
|
I guess so since you stopped reading there and ignored my point.
Here are the potential outcomes in this scenario:
1. Timeout is called, kick is up and good and they have to re-kick, second attempt makes it. (no affect)
2. Timeout is called, kick is up and missed and they have to re-kick, second attemp makes it. (bad for defense)
3. Timeout is called, kick is up and good and they have to re-kick, second attempt misses (blocked, missed, whatever). (good for defense)
Now, if you as a coach believe you gain a psychological advantage by rattling the cage with a last second time out then only 1/3 of those outcomes is detrimental. It's too your advantage, statistically, to at least try it versus just letting it go.
The fact kickers make more than they miss means that unfavorable scenario (#2) is actually LESS likely for you to face that a straight 33% chance as well.
As I said before...statistically it's beneficial for the opposing team calling the time out in terms of psychological advantage. When you're the kicking team, and you just put one through, you don't want to be kicking the damn thing again. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2601
|
| 10/11/2007 2:28 PM |
Alert
|
Here is what I said in easy to understand language.........If Scotty Norwood would have gotten a 2nd chance on his botched Superbowl blunders, his life might be very different today. IMO, it may very well favor the kicker to have two shots at it, irregardless of whether the first goes through or not. Kicking into a net is very different than kicking it through the uprights, as the angle of the kick makes a difference and having one shot to line it up, quite possibly is a positive factor for the kicker.
Your response was that "statistically it would not favor the kicker" period.
My argument never stated anything about whether or not the opposing team should or shouldn't call the time-out. They definitely should. as "icing" is a psychological strategy. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't work. "Statistically", it's a crap shoot.
When you bring up statistics, it is not subjective anymore. It is factual. The question is, does icing the kicker "result" in more missed field goals than not. Your 2/3 scenario thus far, shows that it has this year, however for statistical analysis, there is not sufficient information to show one case for the other.
Since you brought up statistics, I assumed you had found some research that proves your contention. But what it boils down to is "your opinion", which I can respect, but it seems you are taking 2 sides on this issue.
Your prior post contradicts your stance on this issue. You state that it is likely to be less than 50% positive outcome for the team calling the timeout (in laymans terms, positive for the kicker), which contradicts your statement that "statistically, icing does not favor the kicker".
BTW, I can read just fine. I think you are having a problem communicating on this one.
|
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5570
|
| 10/11/2007 2:43 PM |
Alert
|
First things first...
vranged stated: Posted By vranged on 10/11/2007 9:54 AM
I don't think it benefits the kicking team when the kicker makes the long field goal, and has to do it again. That's gotta be a real deflating feeling.
To which I replied:
Posted By egami on 10/11/2007 10:05 AM
Statistically it wouldn't favor the kicking team.
Please, demonstrate to me how the kicking team is statistically favored by re-kicking. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2601
|
| 10/11/2007 2:54 PM |
Alert
|
I never contended that "statistically" it does! I stated IMO. YOU are the one that brought up "statistics".
So you are stating now, that your reply was in reference to "a long field goal" and not just any old field goal?
If that is truly the case, then I can accept that. But you have fought tooth and nail from that point on...which resulted in your contradicting statement, which leads me to believe that your initial reply wasn't to Vranged's comment, but to my assessment that kicking it twice might favor the kicker. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5570
|
| 10/11/2007 2:58 PM |
Alert
|
| Tell me again how that statement I made then was factually incorrect. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2601
|
| 10/11/2007 3:09 PM |
Alert
|
I don't have to. I didn't make the statement. YOU did! Prove it!
So what exactly is your contention?
Less than 50% success rate for the icer which favors the kicker, OR it doesn't favor the kicker. You've stated both are true, but how can that be? |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5570
|
| 10/11/2007 3:23 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 10/11/2007 3:09 PM
I don't have to. I didn't make the statement. YOU did! Prove it!
Easily done. Best case, a kicker makes 100% of his field goals. Therefore, it's impossible for a kicker to better his chances by being forced to kick again.
If he makes it the first time the best he can do is make it the second time.
It's not to his advantage to re-kick a kick no matter the distance.
|
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5570
|
| 10/11/2007 3:25 PM |
Alert
|
| That is the minor issue, however, if you'd like to talk on my other point we can discuss it...you keep bring up points I haven't made or stated though as if that's my contention. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
TheCrusher
Posts:127
|
| 10/11/2007 3:28 PM |
Alert
|
| I do not have great rationale for why I think it lacks class, which is why I am not calling for a rule change. It just doesn't sit right with me. |
|
|
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2601
|
| 10/11/2007 3:31 PM |
Alert
|
I'll help you out Midge. In 2002 - 2003, a study was done on "icing" kickers. It was determined that the psychological edge of making the kicker "think about it", reduced the probabilty of him making the kick from 75.9% to 65.9% with reference to a 40 yard FG. So, under the "old form of icing" it appeared to reduce the chances of the kicker making it by 10 basis points, although since there were some "adjustments" made to equate the results to a specific 40 yard FG, the evidence is inconclusive.
This however was a different form of "icing" that exists today...which essentially gives the kicker a "once at it" before the actual kick defines the outcome.
I will be the larger person here and suggest that the jury is still out on this new form of "icing". If I were a coach, I would think the traditional form of icing is better, as it does not give the kicker an opportunity to correct angle issues and length issues by giving him a practice go of it.
The fact remains Midge, that you tried to have your cake and eat it too on this issue. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5570
|
| 10/11/2007 3:32 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By TheCrusher on 10/11/2007 3:28 PM
I do not have great rationale for why I think it lacks class, which is why I am not calling for a rule change. It just doesn't sit right with me.
Yeah, I haven't heard anything better than that either.
I can respect that though...it's a fairly subjective issue. I can see where it appears underhanded versus having one of the players do it the old way. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2601
|
| 10/11/2007 3:34 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By egami on 10/11/2007 3:23 PM Posted By Crit40 on 10/11/2007 3:09 PM
I don't have to. I didn't make the statement. YOU did! Prove it! Easily done. Best case, a kicker makes 100% of his field goals. Therefore, it's impossible for a kicker to better his chances by being forced to kick again. If he makes it the first time the best he can do is make it the second time. It's not to his advantage to re-kick a kick no matter the distance.
The discussion wasn't about advantages. The discussion was about DOES IT WORK?
What's your position?
Icing as it stands today favor the kicker or the defender?
|
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5570
|
| 10/11/2007 3:40 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 10/11/2007 3:31 PM
I'll help you out Midge. In 2002 - 2003, a study was done on "icing" kickers. It was determined that the psychological edge of making the kicker "think about it", reduced the probabilty of him making the kick from 75.9% to 65.9%. So, under the "old form of icing" it appeared to reduce the chances of the kicker making it by 10 basis points.
This however was a different form of "icing" that exists today...which essentially gives the kicker a "once at it" before the actual kick defines the outcome.
I will be the larger person here and suggest that the jury is still out on this new form of "icing". If I were a coach, I would think the traditional form of icing is better, as it does not give the kicker an opportunity to correct angle issues and length issues by giving him a practice go of it.
The fact remains Midge, that you tried to have your cake and eat it too on this issue.
No I didn't the fact is you can read what I plainly wrote which was largely centered on two statements:
1. There is no statistical advantage to re-kicking for the kicker.
You can't do better than making it again, only worse. Pretty obvious...
2. And I'll break this up for you...
Statistically, they are more likely to make the first kick that to miss it.
See that, I very PLAINLY state kickers are more likely to make one that miss one on an across the board basis yet you questioned this later.
Statistically, kickers make more than they miss.
A bit repetative, but again acknowledging it.
While that sounds good on paper...that consequently means, statistically, calling the timeout will work in your favor more than it will bite you.
Again, as I CLEARLY demonstrated, WORST CASE you get bit 33% of the time.
THEREFORE, if you as a coach (and as I do, personally) believe you gain psychological advantage then it's a no-brainer to call it.
However, EVEN IF YOU INDEED DO NOT gain psychological advantage my point STILL REMAINS:
WORST CASE you get bit 33% of the time you do it.
The statistics create a psychological advantage for the opposing team.
My belief, obviously you disagree. It's not really proveable at this point.
That part is subjective, but we weren't even able to get that far with your deliberate incorrect assertions of what I stated.
|
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2601
|
| 10/11/2007 4:10 PM |
Alert
|
EDIT:
I have decided that calling timeout as the kicker is kicking the ball is a 50/50 proposition. In the 4 cases that have occurred this year in college and NFL, it worked 50% and it didn't work 50%
If the kicker kicks and misses, and gets a second chance - advantage kicker.
If the kicker kicks and makes it and has to re-kick - advantate timeout.
(Just as Midge suggests)
Of the 4 cases, 2 kicked and made it, then rekicked and missed. The other 2 kicked and made it both times.
It is definitely in the defender's best interest to call the timeout, as there is a 50% chance, thus far, that the strategy will work.
Obviously distance, weather and temperature are going to impact the results,as well as how good the kicker is.
So my original opinion that it was an advantage to the kicker has evolved somewhat. My original comment was that Scotty Norwood would have benefited by icing of this manner, which I still agree with however a kicker who made it and re-kicks would have a little more pressure.
But the "end result" is 50/50. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
|