Icing the Shooter: "Good" play or "Bad"

Here is the case for bad, as in it should not be permitted:

1. Your guy just did a bad thing for which there is a penalty; the coach should not be able to lighten the penalty by calling a timeout to diminish the odds and making a free through less free.

2. The counterargument might be that there are other strategic reasons that a coach might want to call a timeout in the final few moments before the shot is taken as opposed to after--the shooter misses, the other teams is not given time to recover and reorganize; you don't have the issue of getting it inbounds. Very good benefits but see no. 1; you either have to be able to communicate with you boys on the floor during the time alotted before the free throw is taken, or wait until later because YOUR GUY committed the foul, perhaps even on purpose.

3. The kids, not the college or even high school players, but the young kids, who get iced by some adult.

What brought this to mind was a rerun last night of the Indiana/Syracuse Championship game. Knight iced the shooter with 20 seconds to go and Indiana down one; Coleman, a freshman, missed, and Indiana came down, worked it to Smart who caught in a great spot, took one dribble and scored I think it was his 17th point in the second half. Game, set and match.

I actually think that Knight might well have called the timeout before the shot because he wanted to be able to attack quickly off of a miss and that "icing" Coleman might just have been an added benefit.

Made me think. Interesting issue, it seems to me.

What the heck is a "free through"?;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greybeard

Here is the case for bad, as in it should not be permitted:

1. Your guy just did a bad thing for which there is a penalty; the coach should not be able to lighten the penalty by calling a timeout to diminish the odds and making a free through less free.

2. The counterargument might be that there are other strategic reasons that a coach might want to call a timeout in the final few moments before the shot is taken as opposed to after--the shooter misses, the other teams is not given time to recover and reorganize; you don't have the issue of getting it inbounds. Very good benefits but see no. 1; you either have to be able to communicate with you boys on the floor during the time alotted before the free throw is taken, or wait until later because YOUR GUY committed the foul, perhaps even on purpose.

3. The kids, not the college or even high school players, but the young kids, who get iced by some adult.

What brought this to mind was a rerun last night of the Indiana/Syracuse Championship game. Knight iced the shooter with 20 seconds to go and Indiana down one; Coleman, a freshman, missed, and Indiana came down, worked it to Smart who caught in a great spot, took one dribble and scored I think it was his 17th point in the second half. Game, set and match.

I actually think that Knight might well have called the timeout before the shot because he wanted to be able to attack quickly off of a miss and that "icing" Coleman might just have been an added benefit.

Made me think. Interesting issue, it seems to me.

---

Icing the shooter is an established part of the game, IMHO.

And I wouldn't say there's "no penalty." Any time you get your opponent to expend timeouts, you're doing yourself a favor. If you make the freethrows, they've spent it for nothing.

Icing the shooter or the kicker can have strange results. Earlier in the NFL season, Redskins' coach Joe Gibbs called a time out to ice the kicker for the other team. A field goal would have tied the game. Since he had already called one timeout to ice the kicker at this point in the game, the second one brought out the flag and the 'Skins were penalized 5 yards resulting in a 1st down for the other guys with only seconds to play. That lead to a touchdown, and the Redskins lost the game. Talk about your unintended consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead

Icing the shooter or the kicker can have strange results. Earlier in the NFL season, Redskins' coach Joe Gibbs called a time out to ice the kicker for the other team. A field goal would have tied the game. Since he had already called one timeout to ice the kicker at this point in the game, the second one brought out the flag and the 'Skins were penalized 5 yards resulting in a 1st down for the other guys with only seconds to play. That lead to a touchdown, and the Redskins lost the game. Talk about your unintended consequences.

---

Another irony about that Jarhead: the league apparently thinks it's okay to ice a guy in a game but not get them too cold; you get to ice them only so much. Talk about spliting hairs? I think it's because back-to-back time outs are bad TV; breaks that long only sell during the Superbowl.

I'm not sure I get the pyschology underlying icing in football. I mean, the kicker is already iced by definition. I think that coaches know that. Why do they do it? Hey, if the guy shanks one, who's the genuis? ;)

Does anyone know icing stats? Does the free throw or field goal percentages drop after a time out? Does it vary by the experience of the shooter? Similarly, do these percentages vary with the phase of the game (e.g., close at the end, blow out; big rivalry; beginning of game but likely blowout)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnb

Does anyone know icing stats? Does the free throw or field goal percentages drop after a time out? Does it vary by the experience of the shooter? Similarly, do these percentages vary with the phase of the game (e.g., close at the end, blow out; big rivalry; beginning of game but likely blowout)?

---

Well, I think years ago it might have had an effect. Nowadays, with the TV timeouts every four minutes, it's not unusual for the play stoppage for a TV timeout to happen before a player takes freethrows, so players get "iced" all the time now.

I imagine it has little to no effect, except for infrequent players, and they're dicey anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alteran

Well, I think years ago it might have had an effect. Nowadays, with the TV timeouts every four minutes, it's not unusual for the play stoppage for a TV timeout to happen before a player takes freethrows, so players get "iced" all the time now.

I imagine it has little to no effect, except for infrequent players, and they're dicey anyway.

---

Coaches do it though, like often, when the game is real tight at the end. Must figure it's like chicken soup, "Can't hurt."

In that Indiana game, it certainly seemed to have had an effect. Coleman, who had an outstanding game, barely grazed the rim after Knight called the timeout with the Cuse up one and 20 seconds to go. He makes two, and General Robert might only had been a corporal.

As it was, he got to intimidate a young kid--so what else is new--and win a championship as a result.

Please read: the last sentence is a cheap shot taken only for its joke value; see my earlier post regarding this time out, which I think was a great move, icing aside, and I do not fault RMK or anyone else for icing, as long as the rules permit it).