Calling a timeout immediately before a kick is held to disrupt the kicker's success rate.
The coach who ices and loses has done the accepted thing; the coach who declines and loses has to explain. That asymmetry keeps the tactic in use whatever the evidence says, which is a general feature of low-cost superstitions inside professional practice.
In practice
- A manager makes the conventional substitution because the unconventional one that fails will be the story.
- A practice with no measured benefit and no cost survives indefinitely, since nothing selects against it.
- Possible explanations
- One explanation is disruption of a practised routine and added time to dwell on the attempt. Another is that the tactic survives for reasons of blame rather than effect, since a coach who does the accepted thing and loses has less to explain.
- In its favour
- Some studies find a small effect on long or high-pressure attempts, which is where the tactic is used.
- Against it
- Others find no effect at all, the samples are small, and icing is chosen in exactly the situations where kicks are hardest, so the apparent effect may be selection.
- Standing
- Studies disagree: some find a small effect on long or high-pressure attempts, others none. The practice is near-universal regardless, which makes it a good example of a tactic sustained by the cost asymmetry of not trying it.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Sport & Performance
- Essay
- The best-measured contests there are