Saw this idea in an article by Chris Cooley of the Redskins (filling in for Peter King's MMQB on cnnsi.com). Basically, you put laser chips in footballs to track whether it crosses the end zone, whether it crosses the first down marker, etc.

I think it is interesting but I worry you will get a situation like tennis where some people think the computer chips are off. (Roger Federer often complains that the Hawkeye system makes a lot of mistakes).

here is the original article link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ....html?eref=sihp

so good idea or bad idea?

I'm all for something that will eliminate human error and won't slow down the game. There is already enough down time in football.

I'm a fan of not destroying the integrity of sports. Human error and bad calls are a part of every sport.

Half the fun of watching sports is the conversation/arguments that come from.."He was in!" "Oh, no no no..he was way out!"

But what if they don't have to be?

Bad calls and human error has always been in every sport. It's just part of the game and I think if you keep making these rules (the brady rule imposed this offseason)/technology advancements, you will destroy sports integrity.

so you aren't in favor of the replay of HRs in baseball and the challenges in football? Sorry but if technology helps make the right calls and doesn't delay the game severely then I don't see why it wouldn't be worth a try.

I swear to christ I think that's the dumbest shit ever. I watch sports for athletic accomplishments, not for the bad officiating.

QFT

You are confusing "is" and "ought." Just because something IS so, doesn't mean it SHOULD BE so. For example, based on your apparent lack of logical faculties, you ARE A FUCKING IDIOT, but this does not mean you SHOULD BE A FUCKING IDIOT. See? Is/Ought.



You know what we should do? We should handicap the officials, find some way to make the refs even worse. Then there would be even more arguing, and even more fun! Just think of how much better watching football would be if guys like GeneralGeeWhiz and DrawingDeadinDM were on the field, making judgment calls. The outcome would be significantly more-weakly correlated to a team's skill-level or on-field performance, but: lots of controversy!




Remember our IS STUPID vs. SHOULD BE STUPID example from before? Okay. Read it again. Just in case. If you're confused, please just let me know. I will explain it with condescension and a fair number of ad hominem attacks.

I didn't say they should or they shouldn't.

I wouldn't be opposed to it but the human element does add some dramatics.

Oh, my fault. I thought you were actually expressing an opinion on the topic at hand. I probably shouldn't have assumed you were answering the question in the OP. Silly me!

I do watch sports for athletic accomplishments, but trying to weed out every mistake that is possible is wrong imo.



wow, don't hold back.

I'm against HR reviews in baseball (although I am surprised at how well MLB is handling it), but I like instant replay in football.

Why on earth would it be wrong? I have never and will never understand the concept of "mistakes are part of the game" It should be our goal to eliminate errors, not preserve them. It makes no ****ing sense to me at all. It would be like awarding every 5th pot in poker to the wrong person because the dealer is blind, but no player being able to object, because it's just "part of the game" . ****ing retardation.

meh, different opinions.

okay, fine.. but I'd like you to defend the opinion that you'd rather have more errors in the game, in a way that makes any kind of sense. Why is human error more appealing to you than players deciding things on the field? Why is sloppiness preferable to precision?

Because it's pure duhhhh... Baseball players shouldn't play with gloves and there should be minimal padding in all sports. Let's make it dangerous as hell and while we're at it why don't we eliminate all refs/officials? Go wild!

Naw.. why don't we just make them wear glasses that uncorrects their vision, makes it like 20-80... we'll have more controversies, and more fun!

I already said this one.

Here are my basic thoughts on the issue:

I like variance as a sports fan. I like the idea that any team can win on any night. I hate a world where, for example, whichever team with the higher true-talent level would always win. The unpredictability of sports is part of its allure. But that unpredictability is based on the performance-ranges of the players involved, and the probabilistic nature of the particular game.

Not making every reasonable effort to reduce arbitrary variance is silly, though. If we could develop a super-football that would accurately spot the location of the football whenever a player went down, why would that be a bad thing? If the refs get the spot wrong by 12-inches or more 10% of the time... what does that have to do with football? What is that except a randomizing factor? It all comes out in the wash, hypothetically, but there are going to be some high-leverage spots in a short season where one team gets screwed and another benefits. Getting the benefit of a bad call is not a controllable skill. Referees are a necessity, since we have no other way to handle the book-keeping that takes place on a play-to-play basis.

I really want to see a good argument -- and I promise I'll behave like an adult from now on, no ad hominem attacks or anything -- supporting preventable,purely arbitrary, uncontrollable randomness in sports. Let's have a real discussion.

I think, given the arguments, everyone is going to agree that less error is better. What concerns me is how will we ensure that the smart football is actually smart enough to be relied upon. Tennis already has a lot of grumbling from top players (especially Federer) who think that the Hawkeye system is really inaccurate. Tennis balls are moving really really fast though so maybe it will not be as hard to calibrate for football's purposes. I just think at some point there will be a chip glitch and someone is going to lose a key first down and everyone is going to go batshit. They might have to have an instant replay challenge option where once a game the coach can challenge the smart football's determination and the ref can overrule the smart football if the replay shows clear and convincing evidence that the smart football messed up.

TMQ had this idea either last year or the previous year (the smart football, not refs with bad glasses). There are still some obvious issues. The plays that are the toughest to call are those "and goal from the one" plays where it's just a mass of humanity in a big pile and while the football might tell you if it crossed the line, you would then need to know if the ball crossed before or after the player's knee touched the ground. Or before or after the player lost control of the ball. Etc.

Maybe it can be like the shot clock and when the ball crosses the line the goal posts light up red. That would be kind of cool.

I've got absolutely no idea what a 'smart football' would cost, but I would think with the number of footballs you'd need per game per week per season that it could be cost prohibitive if they were 3, 4, 5k a piece*. Also, would they always function perfectly in the bitter cold?

_{*This is not an estimate of the cost of a smart ball.}

I think they would need to cost a great deal more than that to be cost prohibitive for the NFL, which basically prints money even in a shitty economy.

From TMQ:

Brad Riddle, a senior engineering student at Lehigh University, proposes this concept:

"The system must meet a few requirements. The first is there has to be a way that the ball can be sensed crossing the plane within about one millimeter, less than a tenth of an inch. The second is that it does this irrespective of players in the way of the signal. The third is that the ball cannot have its physical characteristics changed so much that the ball feels different -- the problem the NBA ran into with its new ball. The fourth is that anything added to the ball has to survive being tossed, kicked and spiked in a celebration dance.

"One solution would be to have a radio or microwave transmitter in the ball that would emit a signal and a mounted receiver, with a thin slot facing down the goal line. One of the main problems with this method would be the need to have a broadcasting frequency that could penetrate the human body, like a cell phone or wireless internet antenna that can also fit through a 1 mm slot. This solution does, however, allow any part of the ball to cross the plane of the goal line and set off the detector. Another solution would be to put a wider detector underneath the goal line of the field. In this case, there is a larger opening so a signal emitted from the ball would be able to get through. By lining the area with iron, only signals from the right direction (nearly straight up) could be detected.

"A big issue is that the ball would have to have a radio transmitter inside, though a weight of an ounce or two could be achieved because the signal power could be low. The only electronics would be a battery and something to generate the signal and some encoded information to prevent interference. Another problem is that if the ball is up in the air and in front of the goal line, the signal might be detected because the line from the receiver to the ball would not pass through the metal barrier. The solution to this would be to put the antenna deeper under the field so that unless the ball is seven or eight feet up in the air the system works. By putting the receiving antenna underground, if the field above it gets wet, the ability for the wave to get through will be lowered. This problem would mean increasing the power of the signal, which decreases the lifetime of the ball. This second solution seems to meet the initial criteria. If any part of the ball (with antenna in the seams) crosses over the buried metal edge of the goal line, a detection would be registered. The transmitted signal can be made so that it goes through the human body. The hardware inside of the ball could be balanced in such a way it does not change the physical characteristics of the ball. The type of hardware required for a transmitter is robust enough to survive the conditions a ball goes through during a game.

"If the NFL would consider doing this, the development cost, the implementation cost and the reliability could be issues. The development cost could be as high as several million dollars, the installation just as high. Also, the price per ball would be increased by $10-$15 per ball, and could only be used for a few series before the battery ran out. A system like this could be feasible if the NFL thought it was worth it to spend money on electronics R&D for something that is unproven, and the players (quarterbacks and kickers) could be convinced that the electronics in the ball did not alter its performance.

"This solves the problem in concept at least; the next stage would be proof of concept. And yes, I am looking for a job after graduation."

I dunno. If you're talking 5k per ball, at 30 balls per game at 15 games a week, that's 2.25 million a week..at 17 weeks, not even including playoffs.. but...



Buuuuuuuuut.. this all makes it a moot point, if it's accurate.