The
NFL is serious business. So serious, in fact, that the idea of refs getting decisions wrong sends chills up and down Roger Goodell's spine. Yeah, we all know they do it habitually, but the League seems to be considering improving accuracy just a little bit with the help of some tech. Cairos Technologies, a German outfit that's been trying to sell its goal line technology to
football (as in soccer) bigwigs for a while, has told
Reuters that it's in discussions with the NFL about bringing its magnetic field hocus pocus to the gridiron. The idea would be for the ref to be alerted, via a message to his watch, any time the ball does something notable like crossing the goal line or first down marker. It should be a great aid for making difficult calls like whether a touchdown has happened at the bottom of a scrum, and might even help cut down on the number of frightfully dull replay challenges. Win-win, no?
[Original image courtesy of NFL.com]
posted August 6th 2010 6:09AM
Ok that settles that, now on to the off side rule then..
@doomolit
That is where the anal probes come in to play... (i know there's puns there... but no pun intended)
@pickleJar Chips in the helmets would probably be sufficient for this. Worse case the shoes/feet area since this could then be used for in-bounds/out of bounds calls. I'm for any solution that is more accurate and doesn't require KY.
@doomolit
But what about the anticipation and the anxiety of a ref reviewing the play for 5 minutes, calling up to the replay box for a final hand-down decision, which is against the home team so the crowd roars and it gets in the front page of the paper that Ref. X is a douche bag? What would American football be without that!?
Plus, the ball is an ellipsoid, and if any part of the ball passes the plane of the end-zone it's considered a touchdown. A single, or even several, microchips would not be definitive about the shape of the ball.
@doomolit
This reminds me of the Harlem Globetrotters trick with the ball that can be controlled with a remote control. This will likely result in a Belichick Remote-Controlgate.
@doomolit about damn time
@James Sonne
A football is a prolate spheroid, but in the end you make it calculate as if the ball is round at the long circumference and at the most it's possible for it to be less than 2 inches off which is no question more accurate than eyeballing it from up to 70' away or by examining a single set camera angle with uncertain perspectives.
@Magetf So... who exactly has possession at the bottom of that scrum? Is it a touchdown or a fumble recovery? I think this will create more problems than it solves.
@Samurai Jack
They have no choice but to resort to instant replay, just like they do now, and I don't see how the chip changes anything in regards to that.
They need this, or at least replays with decisions based on them, in football (soccer).
Sounds like a good idea- there's so much money riding in the sport today
@jk000
But what if it hits the ground then crosses the line? They'd need some kind of sensing tech to see if it hit the ground first you know?
@Teerim That's why you'd still need refs. This is to assist, not take over.
@jk000
I just hope this is as successful as the addition of instant replay was in removing the controversy from the game. :-P
@Teerim Maybe they'll put an accelerometer in the ball with the microchip. That would actually be pretty cool because then we could have a readout on the TV screen that shows how many G's a ball carrier just got hit with. I wonder if they wouldn't have to put more than 1 chip in the oddly shaped football to account for the actual position of the ball. 6 maybe? 1 in each end and then 1 in the middle of each of the 4 seams?
If only they'd do this in proper football.
@Gordonator They're most likely going to put another ref behind the goal line - I'd rather have than than a 100% accurate, computer driven system. Sport isn't meant to be perfect, just human.
@wozburger Yea right. Tell that to the people who work hard for weeks and loose everything in 1sec because of the referees.
@wozburger Any sport worth playing is worth playing right. If you're not willing to do what you can to play by the rules and get the calls right, then don't call it a sport. It becomes theater.
@Gordonator
They are.
@wozburger Yes. Sports are meant to be played perfectly. AKA by the rules.
That's why when a ref blows a major call the NFL's head of officiating acknowledges it, and typically the ref apologizes.
Of course that's the difference between football and soccer. One has accountability.
@Gordonator
Proper football? Just call it soccer if you live in the US...please don't try and belittle American Football...
It great that American Football is actually embracing technology. Unlike International football where they are still debating on whether to use replay.
@k2001 there are always two sides.
i think its a terrible idea to put technology in to sport decisions, but it was pretty clear that the US would be the first to do this. it just fits in to your way of life. i dont mean this in a negative way, but you guys seem to make life as easy and as precise as possible, which is not a bad thing. but as it turns out sports is all about false decisions, thats what gives the game emotions. if a bad call is made, you can blame somebody else for losing the match and dont have to accept that your team sucks.
if every action is defined in what it is or means, then the game will lose its tension, because every decision is just and nothing can be argued against it.
@pietz
No. Sports is about humans competing against one another and being the best they can be. The game itself has rules which are supposed to be followed to ensure a certain amount of fairness. All this does is try to remove the element which sometimes makes plays/calls unfair (a ref making a bad call).
I'm glad to see the US leading in this area. It's pretty embarrassing that the "other" football doesn't even have instant replay ability. It's 2010, for crying out loud!
@paul34 ok first of all. its NOT the "other" football. its the only sport existing on this planet for which it makes sense to call it "football".
second. thats exactly what i said in my text, that you wouldnt understand because your views ar clearly different. unfairness means that one of the two teams has an advantage over the other from the start on, which is not the case. by random events one of the teams might get a bad call, which is UNFAIR for a single action but FAIR in the average of games.
sports were never about the players or the game itself, but about the viewers as entertainment. if it would be about the players, there wouldnt be stadiums and tv broadcast, so others can watch.
instead of putting a chip in the football, id love to see 2 more refs on the field only concentrating on the goal line. it should stay in human hands and not technology.
@k2001 :
And what will happen when this technology reports false positives (or negatives) ?
That's OK in American football where interruptions are part of the game. In soccer, the game cannot stop for a wrong reason. You just can't stop the game whenever the ball comes close to the goal line, you could stop a real goal action, a counter-attack, etc...
@everybody :
And please, stop downranking comments that just don't match your opinion !
Downrank insulting or out of topic (etc..) comments you see, but don't downrank comments with which you simply disagree !
Disagreement is an important part of a discussion, so please allow people to have another opinion.
@pietz You gave absolutely no rational reasons for why "technology" should stay out of sports.
"but as it turns out sports is all about false decisions, thats what gives the game emotions. if a bad call is made, you can blame somebody else for losing the match and dont have to accept that your team sucks." Really? Reading that back, does that even make sense to YOU? Sports is about athletes competing to the best of their ability. It's not about getting your righteous indignation fix from bad calls. What gives the game emotions is seeing your underdog team win against a superior trained team, or win a match against a rival. I can understand being a diehard fan of a team, but purposely condoning bad decisions so that you can shift blame for a loss away from the team to a third party? Have you heard the word "denial?"
"by random events one of the teams might get a bad call, which is UNFAIR for a single action but FAIR in the average of games." And putting everyone on the same level playing field by minimizing the possibilities of bad calls is...? You're basically saying, well, Team A has a disadvantage b/c their goalie was shot in the foot. So let's even it out by shooting Team B's goalie in the foot. Or wait, maybe we could try to prevent shootings altogether...nah.
I apologize if I'm coming off harshly, but I tend to get upset about inequities. Why people would purposely keep the possibility of bad calls affecting game outcomes when it could be easily solved and minimally affect the game (no replays? Seriously?) is beyond me. I'd rather me/my team lose to a superior team/athlete and be honest about it than be able to use the excuse of bad calls.
@thewild
"but it was pretty clear that the US would be the first to do this. it just fits in to your way of life. i dont mean this in a negative way, but you guys seem to make life as easy and as precise as possible, which is not a bad thing."
Condescension and backhanded complements about an entire country and her people aren't exactly the way to generally endear yourself. I'd also like to argue that the ranking system in place is there for the sole reason of saying if you agree or disagree with someone.
More on point; if the tech is there, why not use it? It's not like calls won't get blown, PED's won't be used, NFL players won't go to jail, et al.
But why stop at just the ball? Put microchips in their gloves, shoes, helmets, jerseys, and pants. I mean, you might as well get the MoCap data for the next Madden iteration while you're at it...
@wildkarrde21
1. actually that makes perfect sense for me. its much easier for a football fan to say we lost because of the ref, instead of seeing the mistakes in his own team. and thats good. that makes us bond together as a team and strengthens the will to win next time. i dont mind you discussing this topic with me. thats what its all about ;) but this is how i meant my comment.
2. i didnt say (or at least mean) that either. i just said that the chances of getting a bad call are equally splitted amongst both team...
a chip in the ball is just a small step, but its a step in the direction of computer judgement over the game rules. and by that we will learn to accept decisions, because the computer sees/knows better than we do. all the emotions that go into being mad at the ref will eventually die out entirely and without these bad moments, the good ones dont feel as happy. you know? hope that makes sense to you. its simple psychology.
@ytilanigiroon youre right. judging an entire group of people wihout knowing all of them would be called racism. youre right. but lets not get fussy. do you have better arguments why another country could have been the first to do that? anyway, as you said not my point.
and thats exactly the way i dont like to think about. to have everything controlled by computers. technology might be able to solve pretty much anything, so it makes sense to use it in for example science. but on subjects that focus on entertainment, its good to keep some mystery. and again, i dont mean to be racist wih this, but the way you talk about it is a very american way to look at it. if you started a survey with questions concerning this subject. the results in the US would much likely lean towards technology, im almost positive that it would be that extreme in europe.
@pietz *wouldnt
@pietz - I think it all comes down to fair play. No one wants to lose when it's clear that they won.
You already have the broadcasters brining technology to the field, in the form of more and more high-def, high speed cameras. 10 years ago, you might not have been able to tell that a call was wrong, now it's much more obvious.
Given that the broadcasters aren't going to stop brining more cameras to the party, why *not* bring tech to make the calls quicker?
Would you rather watch a bunch of erectile disfunction commercials while the ref endlessly looks at replays, or would you rather that the ref looked at a PDA, made the call, and got back to the game?
@pietz
"all the emotions that go into being mad at the ref will eventually die out entirely and without these bad moments, the good ones dont feel as happy."
If you can only find joy in the good by finding one particular person to blame for the bad, that's entirely on you. Would you not be able to tout the drawbacks of computer aided officiating when something doesn't go your way? Besides, it's not like they're going to install systems like this in every league on the planet. This would be strictly big-league.
Some psychology that seems simple to me:
When the human element of enforcing the rules of the game is removed you must place blame on either your team or the computer. If you are forced to accept that the blame lies on your players shoulders that may well translate into accepting shortcomings in your own life, possibly even trying to correct them. It's not like the world couldn't use some humility.
I'm not saying that if you put microchips in a bunch of balls that the world is suddenly going to enact human sacrifice, dogs and cats will live together, mass hysteria, or anything like that. But I don't think it would irreparably hurt anything.
Off topic:
I wouldn't call it racism, necessarily, but rather close. The problem I have is that there are too many people from the rest of the world and judge you as soon as they find out you're an American - and vice versa. That's not to say I don't understand where the conclusion can come from, but it's extremely shallow and narrow minded.
"and might even help cut down on the number of frightfully dull replay challenges."
Those challenges are often times anything but dull. Those tend to be some of the most emotional points in a game. When you're team's coach answers your prayers and throws a challenge to a play you feel is deserving of it...Then you sit on the edge of your seat hoping the call goes your way. I've seen many swear words thrown at coaches of the opposing team for challenging plays that went the way of your team. The outcomes of these replays tend to be met with a lot more "YEAHHHHHHHHSSS!!!!!!" or "That's BULL SH**!!!!!!" than... "Meh."
Anyway... I think this tech is sweet as it will help to eliminate some of the bad calls that tend to plague the teams I tend to root for.
@Red Rover I agree, it takes away some of the emotions you go through during a football game. Since these calls would be indisputable, you can't jump up and yell "stupid ref, that's bullsh*t" anymore because there's no way it could be the refs fault.
I'd say those in/out of bound situations even themselves out, but give viewers some great emotions and a lot of chances to yell at the TV screen. Let them be. Yes, maybe for goal line situations to see whether it was a TD or not, but for the rest? Nope. Plus it wouldn't work most of the times, because other than soccer, it doesn't just matter where the ball is, it also matters where the player and his feet are, you can throw a ball in the endzone, but that doesn't make it a touchdown, you can catch a ball thrown in the endzone while standing on the 1 yard line, doesn't make it a touchdown. Fot that technology to really work they'd have to install the same chip in every players feet, but then there still would be no way of telling which player is touching the ball when there are more players, so they'd have to install a fencing like system and who wants that?
The yellow line is nice, the replays are nice, but that's about all the technology I care for in football, don't kill the sport with trying to make it perfect. There are humans playing and humans judging, if you partially replace the judges you might as well just let robots play…
@sebastian actually if the ball is caught beyond the plane of the endzone it's a touchdwn, as long as the player is inbounds.
you have a nfl picture but this is about soccer its nice to see engadgets ironic contradictory pictures sometimes like the famous picture of pdiddy with a stack of one dollar bills..... some 1 has been hitting up the strip club
@big nazty
Dude what are you talking about this article is about the NFL. It states in the article that the company, had been trying to get these into soccer balls, is in talks with the NFL to use their tech in football. Did you read the article?
@big nazty And the picture is of P Diddy with a stack of hundreds and 20's and staring confusedly at the single one dollar bill that managed to make it's way into the stack.
Too bad it can't measure if a knee is down before the ball crosses the goal line, which is normally the real issue.
@mateoconamor just augment the athletes with knee microchips.
@mateoconamor Exactly my thought. This doesn't seem like it could actually make a very big difference.
@mateoconamor
I'm sure if they can figure out a way to effectively put chips in a football, they can figure out a way to put the chip in pants, gloves, shoes, etc.
I've been screaming for this idea for years, every time i see a bad call. One of the biggest jokes in football, is the first down chain. They go to all this trouble to be "precise" by measuring with that chain system, yet the actual spot is totally imprecise. They're spotting it where they THINK the ball got to, so really, they're only making a "precise" measurement from a spot that may not be precise at all.
The sooner this happens, the better. I don't get why some people want to keep technology out of sports. It's about getting the call right. If viewers at home can see a million replays and know the right call, the refs should be able to have the same benefit.
I really look forward to the day when baseball replaces all refs with robots. Refs/umps/officials should never decide a game.
Soccor need this more
soccer needs this more
@FritzJ92 haha seriously. frank lampard's goal anyone?
@FritzJ92
This, or the technology used in tennis, would be a much better option than stopping the game to check the replay like some are asking
@ChrisSsk
soccer/football isn't quite as continuous as many like to think. play stops all the time for goals, out of bounds, etc. many instances where you would want to look at a replay happen right before play stoppage. i don't think replays would be as bad as you think. to cut down on time, they could have another ref who's main job is to watch the replays, so refs don't have to run to the sidelines.