In recent times opposing coaches have been trying to call timeout JUST before a kicker attempts the kick in an attempt to rattle them or make them think about more than just kicking.
I’m wondering if the offensive coach can use this same technique to give his kicker a practice shot. The coach tells the holder to give him a signal just before calling for the snap and the coach will call timeout. The kicker kicks anyway as if it were a practice kick, because he knows it will be.
Many times a team has called timeout just before the final attempt, so this wouldn’t work in those situations, but in situations where the team has spiked the ball to stop the clock this would apply.
The offense can’t take two consecutive time outs without a penalty. At least, not after getting set up for a play. So, they’d have to rush in for the field goal practice, then take a time out. If they have a TO available, their best bet is to take it right away, so they can be comfortably setup for the kick.
Adding that I really, really, really hate the whole “icing” the kicker thing that has become popular. I say, once the ball is set, the coach loses the right to call a TO, it has to be a player on the field, and they shouldn’t expect to get instant recognition of a time out, if the play starts before the officials can stop it, tough luck, you should have called your TO earlier.
There’s not much point in giving your guy a practice kick when he’s already tested the field conditions and warmed up on the sidelines. If you don’t trust the guy to make a field goal on the first try, you need a new kicker. And I agree that coaches shouldn’t be allowed to call these last-minute timeouts before field goal tries.
If it’s at the end of the game and you have a time-out remaining, why wouldn’t you just use that to stop the clock and try to get yourself better field position?
Right, which is why I indicated they couldn’t do this if they took a timeout just before the field goal unit took the field.
Field conditions can change dramatically in the intervening 3 hours. I’ve heard it said it takes 11 seconds for a field goal unit to take the field. With a 25 second clock, it seems like they would have at least 14 seconds to get comfortably on the field to setup for the practice kick. Imagine if a basketball player were allowed a practice foul shot before taking a real one. I’m sure just about EVERY player would want one. Golfers take practice swings before the real one. Baseball players, too. I can’t imagine a soccer player turning down an opportunity to take a practice PK before a real one.
Because it is 3rd and 25 from the 35 yard line with only 8 seconds left and you are down by 2. You spike the ball, stop the clock and let your field goal unit come take a practice shot.
When you’re trying a field goal that long, how is a practice kick worth more than the extra yards you could get from a pass along the sidelines? For that matter, what happens if you spike the ball, then call timeout with the clock already stopped, and the snap on the FG goes bad? Now you can’t stop the clock and you’ve lost the game because you wasted your last timeout to get your kicker more practice when he’s already been practicing on the sidelines and you don’t trust him to do his job.
I’ll start this by saying I realize there are a limited set of circumstances where this scenario might actually make sense, but I do think there are times when this might benefit a kicker. After all, I think for any technical athletic performance, one that isn’t endurance or strength based, the athlete would want a practice shot.
In answer to the points you raised, the danger of running another play with little time left is pretty high. If your quarterback gets sacked it is game over. While not uncommon, it isn’t unheard of for teams to attempt field goals on a down other than 4th to win the game with little time left on the clock. It can be less risky than a pass attempt. If 8 seconds seems like a long enough time to try a sideline pass, make the time left 4 seconds.
If the coach calls timeout just before the snap, a bad snap is harmless. If a bad snap happens during the real attempt, that can happen regardless of when you call timeout and this scenario is no more risky than anything else.
Faced with this situation, little time left on the clock and down by 2 and in long field goal range, many teams will call timeout and bring in the field goal unit so the clock is stopped regardless. If you get a bad snap with 8 seconds left the time will run out in either scenario because you are out of timeouts.
Munch - Why would the offense be charged with a delay of game penalty? Quarterbacks and coaches call timeout all the time just before a snap for a myriad of reasons. Again, this isn’t the situation where they are calling two timeouts in a row.
I remember a game last year between the Cowboys and the Cardinals where the offense called a time out right before a field goal. The first kick went through, but it didn’t count. The second kick didn’t, although I don’t think the team on the field knew it would be a “practice kick”
I heard someone ask this question on talk radio and one of the arguments was that you can’t disallow the defense from taking a time out in that situation in case they took it realizing they too many men on the field…in which case, they wouldn’t be trying to ice the kicker, they would be avoiding a penalty.
I’m not sure that’s the case. Either way I don’t think this increases the chances the kick will go in. It just introduces different elements of randomness. The kickers know how to line up a kick and if they are playing outdoors they know what the weather is like. If you give them two chances, maybe you work out the kinks the first time and maybe they screw up the second time. Maybe a gust of wind will happen the second time.
You still have a timeout.
Yes, attempts on third down are common because they give you a second chance in case something goes wrong with the snap. And while you would prefer to make your game-winning FG try the last play of the game, sometimes the timing does not quite work out.
Obviously, yes. But that doesn’t confer an advantage because it prevents something you can’t predict ahead of time.
A bad snap can happen anyway, yes. Your practice strategy makes it more likely the bad snap will screw you. If you kick with a timeout on the clock, you might recover the fumble and get a second chance. If you have no timeouts and that little time left, you’re screwed.
You proposed a scenario where it was third down and the team spiked the ball to stop the clock. If they don’t think they have time to get the FG unit onto the field, then yes, they’ll call timeout. But your scenario doesn’t apply there. You were asking about a scenario where they had a timeout to burn for a practice kick. And anyway if they call timeout to stop the clock, they can’t use another timeout for a practice FG.
This is tangential to the original argument, sort of. Are you advocating that athletes wouldn’t really care if they could take a practice “shot” or not? (I put shot in quotes since it isn’t really called a “shot” in all sports. It could be a swing, a throw, a toss or even literally a shot.)
Useless time has run out, which it likely will if your quarterback is getting sacked.
I’m confused. You had mentioned the bad snap first. I was pointing out that a bad snap isn’t an argument against the offense calling the timeout in this situation. In my scenario a bad snap is no worse or better than in what happens now. I never offered up this a protection against a bad snap. I’m merely pointing out that this scenario isn’t any more in danger from a bad snap than what already exists.
You’re equally screwed if you complete a pass down and call your final timeout. You’re also screwed if you attempt a pass and get sacked. Besides, why would you want to save a timeout for a guy who practices the same thing hundreds of times and has been accustomed to the conditions all day? (by your argument).
I never proposed they call timeout to stop the clock. I proposed they spike the ball to stop the clock and then save the timeout for a practice kick. Once the clock is stopped, they have 25 seconds to get the FG unit on the field to attempt the kick. Without a timeout, they have only as much time as is left on the game clock.
Let me try this again. A team is down by 2. They have the ball on the opposing team’s 25 yard line after a catch in which the receiver could not get out of bounds. The clock ticks down and the team is now at 3rd and 15. As they approach the line, there are only 4 seconds left. Or 8. Something small. They have a choice. Spike the ball, call timeout, or attempt another play.
My scenario:
In my scenario, they spike the ball and stop the clock with 6 seconds left. The FG unit sets up and the kicker gets a practice kick. He knows he will get a practice kick. He is prepared for it. After the practice shot, it is 4th down with 6 seconds on the clock and the team has no timeouts.
From this point forward, the situation is NO different than if the team had called timeout after the catch that got them to the 25 yard line, except that it is now 4th down instead of 3rd. If there were only 4 second left, having the extra down is meaningless. Even 8 seems borderline.
Other possibilities:
Call timeout:
As I mentioned, my scenario gets you to this very same point except in my scenario the kicker got a practice shot.
Spike the ball
This is how my scenario starts. The question from here is whether you now give your kicker a practice shot or use the timeout to give the FG unit extra time to take the field.
Attempt another play
If the team had decided to attempt a sideline pass to gain some extra yardage there are a multitude of possibilities. They could be closer but they risk disaster (interception, fumble, clock running out). I’m not sure most teams would risk that with 6 seconds left.
A player purposely tossing the ball away from the official for the purpose of delaying the game is subject to a penalty, but I think you’ll need to provide a cite that a player going through his kicking motion during a timeout is subject to a delay of game. If that were the case, all these kickers getting iced would be guilty of it. The kicker isn’t purposely trying to delay the restart of play.
In a lot of contexts, sure. In this one, I don’t see the advantage. And regardless of what the athlete thinks, I don’t see how this improves your chances of winning.
It might or it might not. That’s not necessarily going to take 8 seconds. This is getting difficult because you keep changing the scenario. First the team was on the 35 yard line with 8 seconds left, then it’s the 25 with 4 or 6 or some other amount. If you’re at the 25, that means a 42-yard field goal and the team might just kick it instead of taking on the risks of running another play. At the 52 that might be different because it could be a significantly tougher kick.
Yes, it is: if the offense spikes the ball, send in the field goal unit, and the snap is bad, they can fall on the ball and call timeout and have a chance to kick again. (This would apply on first and second down, but not third.) If they run the “practice play” and waste their timeout and then have a bad snap, they’re screwed and the game is over. My point was that the team is removing a tool from its arsenal. In one of these two situations, they can go through a bad snap and still have a chance to kick again. In the other, they don’t and the game is over. Does that clear things up?
Yes it is. See above.
How are you screwed in that case?
This doesn’t make any sense. You’re saying the team should use their last timeout on a practice field goal. I’m saying they should use the timeout to manage the clock and try to get more yards, leading to a chance at an easier field goal. Practice doesn’t enter into my scenario.
8 seconds is plenty of time to run a play, especially if you have a timeout.
At 6 seconds, maybe not. The specifics matter, which is why it’s a little difficult to discuss this hypothetical when you keep changing them. Here is what I think:
The kicker doesn’t need a practice kick, and the team is better served by keeping the timeout either as insurance (second try after a bad snap) or using it to move the ball closer (easier FG) then deliberately wasting it for practice. If neither of those apply - because it’s fourth down or there’s not enough time left or some other thing - then the timeout isn’t worth anything anyway, but I still don’t think you are improving your odds by giving the kicker practice. What I was saying earlier is that, contrary to your suggestion that the practice try will work out the kinks, it just introduces different possible ways for things to go wrong.
no, but the coach would be. Listen, it’s a subjective rule. If it happened often enough (and was annoying often enough), I have little doubt to commissioner’s office would have the refs start calling it.
Getting from the 25 to inside the 20 is worth like 15-20% in field goal accuracy. If you aren’t in chip shot range (where a practice kick shouldn’t matter much), and you have the time, you want those yards.
No, they’d be assessed an “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” penalty, as such actions clearly go against the spirit of the game. As opposed, say, to a kicker who was completing a legal act under momentum.
And you are aware that there are many, many balls used in a game, yes? And specialized personnel whose sole purpose is to provide one of those balls to the linesman? That the ball used in an incomplete pass is left spinning outside of bounds while the linesman races in (inside the last two minutes) to spot the ball just handed to him? In short, that putting any particular ball out of play has absolutely zero chance of delaying a game in any way?
Yes, I confused “delay of game” and “unsportsmanlike” and the actual penalty in play. I did not believe they’re operating with just one ball. You clearly understood my tack, so why say its a non sequitur? The defense can be charged with delay of game for such a stall tactic, so I assumed there’d be an offensive equivalent.