Sensor-laden footballs / gloves could run referees right out of work

Dr. Priya Narasimhan, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, doesn't intend to put a single NFL referee out of work, but there's no doubt that the technology she's tinkering with could indeed have that effect. The prof and her students are developing sensor-laden footballs and gloves, both of which could eventually tell in real-time whether a ball bounced off the ground before being caught or whether a player actually had possession of a ball whilst being piled upon after a fumble. Currently, she's had zero luck persuading a college or professional team to help her experiment further, and we can sort of see why. We mean, it's nice to get every call right in theory, but what fun would sport be without the all-important "Ref, you suck!" chant?

[Thanks, Freddy]

[John @ Dec 19th 2008 8:48AM]

Much like Engadget would be without the relentless "Engadget sucks" cheer..

Take it how you choose.

[TK101 @ Dec 19th 2008 8:51AM]

I'd much rather see this tech used to determine the spot of a ball. Accurate spots and definitive touchdowns sound like a good idea to me :)

TK

[Barbaric @ Dec 19th 2008 12:03PM]

I have always thought the same... I think the tech exists right now to at least judge touchdowns. No more guessing if the ball "broke the plane" or not. Same with hockey, a sensor in the puck to determine if it crossed the goal line.

[sandmanfvrga @ Dec 19th 2008 8:55AM]

This is good, and shouldn't replace refs. Used to make sure refs are legit and if they call it bad, the data in the ball (for football) rules and then refs can be wrote up, fired etc. I don't like humans that call things dirty.

[(01) @ Dec 19th 2008 9:04AM]

Unlike when someone figures out how to hack these things... Well, actually, that still would be humans calling things dirty, nm :-)

[sandmanfvrga @ Dec 19th 2008 9:21AM]

Good point! But you can have it to where they can flash the devices fresh every game.

[Tarnation @ Dec 19th 2008 12:07PM]

I have another use for this. You can polish it up real nice, turn it sideways, and shove it up your candy ass. Without human error why even play the game. Take the humanity out and it will be about as exciting as watching the little vibrating football table.

[AMiSH PiRATE @ Dec 19th 2008 9:00AM]

Half the drama of watching a game is waiting for the review on tight calls. I vote nay.

[Matt Rejak @ Dec 19th 2008 9:13AM]

It will probably be turned down like adidas and their ball with a microchip in it. http://www.engadget.com/2005/02/28/soccer-ball-microchip-helps-inattentive-refs/

[dj moon @ Dec 19th 2008 9:12AM]

This should insteadbe focused on super/ultra/mega ball-hand-and-foot following macro-cams,
so everyone sees the play(s) in detail (to further thwart cheating/bad calls), and keep the tech *away* from the players.
This type of tech will just lead to a lot of hacks (sudden rash of nerds sitting on the sideline, hanging with the cheerleaders;),
and (still) a WHOLE lot of steroids....

Maybe this will make football LESS than 4 hours long, and actually be interesting again.
Right now, it's a whole day of beer commercials & standing around, maybe 15 minutes of action.

[AMiSH PiRATE @ Dec 19th 2008 9:23AM]

and what, may I ask dj moon, is wrong with a whole day of beer commercials?

[dj moon @ Dec 19th 2008 9:42AM]

@AMiSH PiRATE
To each their own, my friend.
To each... their own! ;@b

(And where's the cheerleader cam, eh?!?;)

[Frankfurter @ Dec 19th 2008 9:43AM]

It's not the beer commercials that kill me, it's the car commercials and local spots they stick in. For a group of manufacturers that are supposedly going bankrupt, they sure have the coin to advertise. Man, if only they could show the Toyotathon spot more than once a break........

[John @ Dec 19th 2008 9:56AM]

Pretty sure Toyota isn't one of the American big three....

[dj moon @ Dec 19th 2008 10:01AM]

Exactly my point.
I used to enjoy (some) sports.
But they have become so bloated & underwhelming, due in part to the commercialization.
I couldn't believe baseball fans complaining years ago about the "Spider-man" bases (Oakland A's, I think?),
when the spectacle itself is laden with ****GIANT**** ads, as far as the eye could see.
There's nary a camera shot without some company logo in the background.
(Think decal covered race cars... no longer cool, sorry!)

Even the formerly "cool" names of stadiums have been bastardized.
From the formidable "Oakland Coliseum" to the corny "Oracle Coliseum".
The classic "Candlestick Park" to "McAfee Park".
What's next?
"Depends Arena", "Vagiclean Coliseum"?!?
hehehe
*ahem*
;@b

[dj moon @ Dec 19th 2008 10:09AM]

A guy I work with said:
"Viagra Park"!
hahahaha...
(Hey, wait.... that's not funny!;)

[T Hom @ Dec 19th 2008 9:05AM]

I personally don't recall the "Ref, you suck!" chant.

Maybe "Bullllll-shittt"? (but I guess I can respect Darren Murph for not choosing to use this more common/illicit chant).

Oh and anything to make the calls more accurate is a-okay in my book.

[CVMagic @ Dec 19th 2008 9:07AM]

I say it's worth while, it definitely shouldnt be used in place of the human element but rather when a situation comes up that there is a need for an additional tool for the Ref. to use to make a call this technology would be perfect for that. Secondly aside from validity of a play this also could be used further enhance playback analysis in the future and even further determine how superior the players are to your average joe.

[ty @ Dec 19th 2008 9:22AM]

I don't believe this would cause the need to get rid of any refs. I think the best implementation I can think of right now is goal line situations.

Go Cowboys!

[Frogboy @ Dec 19th 2008 9:29AM]

If the NFL wanted to use technology to make sure that the game was called fairly then they could easily do it. Place the refs in a room with video feed and have them watch everything that is going on from various cameras and angles. Leave one on the field to announce the penalties and first downs and such. It'd be a piece of cake especially since they could watch a quick instant replay a couple of times before making the official call. It'd speed the game up and they wouldn't have very many bad calls. Obviously, they don't want to do that for some reason. [sarcasm]Gee, I wonder what reason that could be?[/sarcasm]

[dj moon @ Dec 19th 2008 9:37AM]

Exactly my point above. :@)

[Joe @ Dec 19th 2008 2:15PM]

@Frogboy

There's so much wrong with what you said, I don't even know where to begin. If they did it like this, every play (and every aspect of every play) would be as if it was under instant replay review. This would slow down the game immensly.

With instant replay, there are VERY few bad calls. Most of the bad calls are judgement calls, which I think should be reviewable like other calls.

[jared @ Dec 19th 2008 9:31AM]

They are putting these in gloves because that's where they'll break the most often, more broken gloves means more sensor-glove sales.

[palehorse @ Dec 19th 2008 9:32AM]

Fumbles and the ball hitting the ground are all fine and dandy, but I've been wondering, for years now, why can't they just install sensors meant to determine the spot of the ball?! Too many TD's and 1st downs are challenged or missed when the forward progress of the ball itself is inaccurate.

How about we take baby steps here and just figure out whether or not the ball really crossed the goalline!?

[Frankfurter @ Dec 19th 2008 9:45AM]

Wouldn't matter, you'd still have to deal with whether or not the knee of arm was down before the ball crossed the line.....

[Vcize @ Dec 19th 2008 10:11AM]

Officiating has gotten especially horrific lately, I'm not sure why. I think it has to do with instant replay. It's one thing to see a ref miss something in real time, but it's entirely another form of frustration when the entire country can watch an instant replay and determine one very clear outcome, while the bonehead under the hood somehow sees it differently on his 7" monitor.

[dj moon @ Dec 19th 2008 10:18AM]

Same idea (see above).
As long as they don't start allowing "America to vote" for the outcome!
"I'm your host, Ryan Seacrest, and THIS is 'American Football'!"
"Hasselhoff, what did you think?"

[Kourosh @ Dec 19th 2008 10:59AM]

"Whilst"? What are you, writing a Renaissance Faire pamphlet? "While"!

[Zac @ Dec 19th 2008 5:24PM]

It's still English. Why discourage variation?

[ran @ Dec 19th 2008 1:16PM]

I'm all for advancements in technology, but I thought the fun in sports was to watch the bad calls, failed referees and players, and the works?

[Nick8708 @ Dec 19th 2008 1:22PM]

Better yet, let's just get rid of all the players, coaches, and staff, and instead watch gamers play Madden against one another every week.

[vudean @ Dec 19th 2008 1:37PM]

too bad Carnegie Mellon doesn't have a football team

[Dave @ Dec 19th 2008 4:39PM]

Carnegie Mellon absolutely does have a football team.

http://www.cmu.edu/athletics/intercollegiate-sports/mens-teams/football/index.html

Go Tartans!

[BigD145 @ Dec 19th 2008 1:49PM]

Eliminating jobs, one sector at a time.

[Colin @ Dec 19th 2008 2:13PM]

This has already been studied somewhat at the University at Buffalo.

http://mechatronics.eng.buffalo.edu/research/football/index.html

Unfortunately, I don't think this one got out of the first iteration of development.

[McLovinPart2 @ Dec 19th 2008 2:26PM]

Go Dolphins!!!!!!!

[Kyle H @ Dec 19th 2008 2:32PM]

As much as I know everyone is always looking for a technological solution, I honestly must question this considerably. Think about the very implementation of this and how the sensors would be feeding the information to the referees. It is hard enough focusing on getting the call right without the adding distraction of buzzers or alarms going off.
Second, as much as we bemoan officials, they are right 95% of the time or more. I don't think there are players with that degree of accuracy in any sport. While this would be an interesting experiment to see, I just really think it is attempting to solve a perceived rather than a real problem.Yeah the other 5% of the time sucks, particularly if you are on the wrong side of things, but given the pace of play being right with that level of accuracy is incredible.
Finally, as important as getting the call right is, ensuring a smooth and enjoyable game with considerable flow is just as important. You could get every call 100% right, but a game of football would end up being as long as a cricket match (and amazingly less interesting than the same cricket match simply because it takes 10 minutes between plays). This would also ruin the flow, hell quarterbacks are creatures of habit and need to get into a rhythm, this would greatly degrade offensive football. Plus if it takes three different angles and slow motion to disagree with a call, I am inclined to give the official the benefit of the doubt. The game is played in real time by humans, it should be officiated in real time by humans. The system of replay in existence today I think is about as far as we really should go, with only marginal tweaks.

[Ogo @ Dec 19th 2008 3:32PM]

The refs making the wrong call is sometimes the most interesting part of sports. Sports are about human error, that is what makes them great! The quarterback makes the wrong call, a receiver looks over the wrong shoulder and the ref makes the wrong call. I don't watch baseball but can you imagine how shitty it would be if a computer umpire watches the plate and calls balls and strikes. What about having computer chips on basketball players calling travelling or 3 in the key... that would eat a c*ck.

This is the same bullshit as a glowing puck in hockey. boooooooooooooooooo

[teafortwo @ Dec 20th 2008 4:53AM]

"The refs making the wrong call is sometimes the most interesting part of sports" not when you got money on the game

[Zac @ Dec 19th 2008 5:16PM]

"RUN" referees out of work? Ironic heading.