How SHOULD instant replay work (1 Viewer)

[Assani Fisher]

Which of these two ways is better:

1. The officials make a ruling on the field. If the play is challenged, they look at it on replay. Unless there is clear evidence that the call was wrong, the play stands as called. In other words, the ref must be 100% that the ruling was incorrect in order to overturn it. Note: this is the way the rule is stated currently

OR

2. The officials make a ruling on the field. If the play is challenged, they look at it on replay. The refs will ignore the call on the field and make the best ruling according to replay. In other words, even if the ref is only 51% sure that the on the field ruling was wrong, he will still overturn it.

Personally I've never really understood why the rule currently is #1, and I think that #2 is much more fair. And I think we've all personally seen cases where it hasn't been totally 100% but its still pretty close and the ref has gone ahead and overturned it anyway. What are the drawbacks of #2?

 

[AB in DC]

In practice, it's more like 90% (how often are you 100% sure about anything on a small video screen?), which is fine with me.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

Which of these two ways is better:

1. The officials make a ruling on the field. If the play is challenged, they look at it on replay. Unless there is clear evidence that the call was wrong, the play stands as called. In other words, the ref must be 100% that the ruling was incorrect in order to overturn it. Note: this is the way the rule is stated currently

OR

2. The officials make a ruling on the field. If the play is challenged, they look at it on replay. The refs will ignore the call on the field and make the best ruling according to replay. In other words, even if the ref is only 51% sure that the on the field ruling was wrong, he will still overturn it.

Personally I've never really understood why the rule currently is #1, and I think that #2 is much more fair. And I think we've all personally seen cases where it hasn't been totally 100% but its still pretty close and the ref has gone ahead and overturned it anyway. What are the drawbacks of #2?

#1. And if you win the challenge, you don't lose it. I don't care if you get and win 10 challenges a game. The point is to get it right...isn't it? Why should I lose one if the ref was wrong?My other point is that I'd have someone ELSE doing the review. Like Hochuli is going to overturn himself. Right.

 

[Despyzer]

I'd like to see them return to the time limit. If a call is too inconclusive to be amended within two minutes, let the original call stand and get on with the damn game!

 

[jurb26]

I'd like to see them return to the time limit. If a call is too inconclusive to be amended within two minutes, let the original call stand and get on with the damn game!

With the amount of different views I think the should allow 3 minutes rather than 2.

 

[jetpack]

Scrap it. #### happens.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Can anyone voting for #1 explain why they feel that way?

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Where's the option for getting rid of instant replays?

As for which option I would prefer -- you should never trust the camera. Keep it as option 1.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Can anyone voting for #1 explain why they feel that way?

Because the official may have a different perspective than the camera.No camera will ever be seeing what the official saw. He made the call to the best of his judgment. If there is conclusive evidence that it was the wrong call, fix it.But yeah, no limits on challenges if you get them right.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Can anyone voting for #1 explain why they feel that way?

Because the official may have a different perspective than the camera.No camera will ever be seeing what the official saw. He made the call to the best of his judgment. If there is conclusive evidence that it was the wrong call, fix it.But yeah, no limits on challenges if you get them right.

Fair point...let me introduce a 3rd option then:After watching the replay, the official takes into consideration what he saw live and what he saw on the replay. If after considering all of this the ref believes than he is 51% or more sure that his initial call was wrong he reverses the call.How is the current system more fair than that?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Can anyone voting for #1 explain why they feel that way?

Because the official may have a different perspective than the camera.No camera will ever be seeing what the official saw. He made the call to the best of his judgment. If there is conclusive evidence that it was the wrong call, fix it.But yeah, no limits on challenges if you get them right.

Fair point...let me introduce a 3rd option then:After watching the replay, the official takes into consideration what he saw live and what he saw on the replay. If after considering all of this the ref believes than he is 51% or more sure that his initial call was wrong he reverses the call.How is the current system more fair than that?

You're assuming that they follow the letter of "irrefutable video evidence", which I doubt they do 100% of the time.

 

[David Yudkin]

The problem I have is that refs have shell shock from years of problems and many times fail to blow a whistle, so by default the "ruling on the field" is more apt to be a turnover as they let the play go on. Because of that, IMO some plays go on too long when a runner should be down because his forward progress was stopped.

I do not believe that they review that--they look to see if a knee was down or not, but I have seen many plays where the ball carrier was stood up and going nowhere and the defense stripped the ball out for a clear fumble even though the runner was no longer moving forward.

I believe this year they changed the rule that teams were instructed to play through the whistle to at least determin possession if the ball came out, but I do not believe that in that scenario the ball could be advanced.

Also, can a team challenge whether a QB was "in the grasp"? This year in particular I saw numerous times where the QB was everything but totally knocked down, yet they were allowed to ditch the ball (sometimes complete, sometimes not). Given the propensity to flag defenders for barely touching QBs, they need to start calling QBs down more to make things consistent.

 

[BoltBacker]

I think you are overthinking this. In most cases I think the review ref decides either he...

A)agrees with the call so doesn't overturn

B)disagrees with the call and overturns it

C)can't tell for sure(50/50) so doesn't change anything

... so #1 and #2 are the same in most cases. I honestly don't think they are 63% sure about the call, or 37% sure about the call.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

The problem I have is that refs have shell shock from years of problems and many times fail to blow a whistle, so by default the "ruling on the field" is more apt to be a turnover as they let the play go on. Because of that, IMO some plays go on too long when a runner should be down because his forward progress was stopped.

I do not believe that they review that--they look to see if a knee was down or not, but I have seen many plays where the ball carrier was stood up and going nowhere and the defense stripped the ball out for a clear fumble even though the runner was no longer moving forward.

I believe this year they changed the rule that teams were instructed to play through the whistle to at least determin possession if the ball came out, but I do not believe that in that scenario the ball could be advanced.

Also, can a team challenge whether a QB was "in the grasp"? This year in particular I saw numerous times where the QB was everything but totally knocked down, yet they were allowed to ditch the ball (sometimes complete, sometimes not). Given the propensity to flag defenders for barely touching QBs, they need to start calling QBs down more to make things consistent.

The forward progress issue was never more apparent this year than in the AZ-CHI game where Edge was clearly stoned and being pushed backwards when the ball was stripped - which was the real start to the comedy of errors that cost the Cardinals the game. If they're going to allow the play to continue "in case" the play moves forward again, they should reserve the right to go back and say his forward progress was stopped at a certain point, even if they didn't immediately blow the whistle. They should be able to do that on the field and in reply. What's hard to figure is that they allow review to award recovery of fumbles after the whistle, but they do not consider forward progress stopped before the whistle to be reviewable within the course of the play. I just don't get that.Regarding in-the-grasp, the rules were changed within the last few years and it's not enough for a QB to simply be "In-the-grasp" of a defender (just ask Mathias Kiwaunuka). Because they felt I-T-G was limiting QBs ability to use their athleticism to escape potential sacks by running out of the tackle or getting rid of the ball, they changed the rule so that now the QB has to be I-T-G and about to get hit by a 2nd defender. Ostensibly this allows them to protect the QB from getting crushed by a 2nd defender while held defenseless by the first, but still give the QB the opportunity to make a play by getting rid of the ball or escaping the grasp.

 

[bez18]

They also need to get rid of the down by contact rule which stops them from being able to review a play

 

[shamrock84]

They should do it like college football where every play is reviewed.

 

[David Yudkin]

They also need to get rid of the down by contact rule which stops them from being able to review a play

IIRC, they have already amended this rule, and players CAN continue to play after the whistle is blown to recover fumbles (but I do not believe they can be advanced).I believe this is what you are referring to, but feel free to explain if I am missing your point.As for the poster above, my concern for "in the grasp" is that defenders really can't let up if the refs are going to let the QB try to squirm around and break tackles, yet they will penalize players for late hits, spearing, roughing the passer, etc. since the QB is no longer ruled as down. They can't have it both ways--the refs need to protect the QBs all of the time or a limited amount of time, not somewhere in the middle.

 

[David Yudkin]

They should do it like college football where every play is reviewed.

I suspect that that could tack on 30+ minutes per game if there are a lot of borderline calls.

 

[Godsbrother]

I would like to see it scrapped altogether. IR hasn't reduced the whining about bad calls -- all it does is slow the game down. Life ain't fair and sometimes you get a bad call. Line up and do something about it on the next play.

I would also change the rule that says you have to get two feet in bounds for a reciption. Change it to one foot but then eliminate the rule that allows a reception if you get pushed out of bounds.

 

[DaveGrumbles]

I think this is always the wrong angle to take on this replay thing. There will ALWAYS be an element of human error in officiating in athletics especially in sports like basketball and football...when you're talking about so many rules in effect that always will be judgement calls such as pass interference or especially charging and blocking in hoops. Easy to make a call in slo-mo from above the play...much different being at ground level at full speed and you're either behind the play or in front of the play. Those things will always be debated.

What would clear up most of the problems with the calls that leave nothing to judgement but more issues with line of sight such as first downs, sideline plays, fumbles, touchdowns would be the NFL's committment to putting cameras in position to actually capture whats happening on the field. Where are the cameras built into the down markers? Or cameras at each endzone line along with corresponding cameras that move directly above each down marker and the end zone? Heck you could even put a chip in the ball so that you could find it on any replay or have it light up when it crosses down or end lines. You look at what pro tennis can do with cameras and computer grids all over the court and you know the NFL has much more money at their disposal than tennis. You have to believe they could have any number of innovative gadgets out there. Even if it was expensive the cost can easily be dropped into the next tv deal and the networks could sell off these costs to whatever number of advertisers lineup to sponsor these instant replays.

If the NFL isn't going to completely commit to instant replay and pull out all the stops for it than why do it at all? Scrap it.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think this is always the wrong angle to take on this replay thing. There will ALWAYS be an element of human error in officiating in athletics especially in sports like basketball and football...when you're talking about so many rules in effect that always will be judgement calls such as pass interference or especially charging and blocking in hoops. Easy to make a call in slo-mo from above the play...much different being at ground level at full speed and you're either behind the play or in front of the play. Those things will always be debated.

What would clear up most of the problems with the calls that leave nothing to judgement but more issues with line of sight such as first downs, sideline plays, fumbles, touchdowns would be the NFL's committment to putting cameras in position to actually capture whats happening on the field. Where are the cameras built into the down markers? Or cameras at each endzone line along with corresponding cameras that move directly above each down marker and the end zone? Heck you could even put a chip in the ball so that you could find it on any replay or have it light up when it crosses down or end lines. You look at what pro tennis can do with cameras and computer grids all over the court and you know the NFL has much more money at their disposal than tennis. You have to believe they could have any number of innovative gadgets out there. Even if it was expensive the cost can easily be dropped into the next tv deal and the networks could sell off these costs to whatever number of advertisers lineup to sponsor these instant replays.

If the NFL isn't going to completely commit to instant replay and pull out all the stops for it than why do it at all? Scrap it.

I've thought about that for years. It would work in baseball for a strike zone, but in football the "end of a play" is subjective, so there's no value added in most instances. I can certainly think of cases where there IS value added (i.e. Witten's catch near the 1, 1 1/2 yard line vs. Seattle last week), but when a ref has to whistle the ball dead you'd have to sync that to the ball "lighting up". I've also thought about sensors in or aside the field to track the ball, but the same problem remains.There's also the concerns that you would have over the effects to the ball itself by installing electronics, even a passive receiver for RF energy (think EZ Pass).

It's a good thought, but I've vetoed the idea personally for the concerns above.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

My other point is that I'd have someone ELSE doing the review. Like Hochuli is going to overturn himself. Right.

What about this point? I think of lot of the egos out there just don't want to admit that they made the wrong call.

 

[jetpack]

I would like to see it scrapped altogether. IR hasn't reduced the whining about bad calls -- all it does is slow the game down. Life ain't fair and sometimes you get a bad call. Line up and do something about it on the next play.I would also change the rule that says you have to get two feet in bounds for a reciption. Change it to one foot but then eliminate the rule that allows a reception if you get pushed out of bounds.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think this is always the wrong angle to take on this replay thing. There will ALWAYS be an element of human error in officiating in athletics especially in sports like basketball and football...when you're talking about so many rules in effect that always will be judgement calls such as pass interference or especially charging and blocking in hoops. Easy to make a call in slo-mo from above the play...much different being at ground level at full speed and you're either behind the play or in front of the play. Those things will always be debated.

What would clear up most of the problems with the calls that leave nothing to judgement but more issues with line of sight such as first downs, sideline plays, fumbles, touchdowns would be the NFL's committment to putting cameras in position to actually capture whats happening on the field. Where are the cameras built into the down markers? Or cameras at each endzone line along with corresponding cameras that move directly above each down marker and the end zone? Heck you could even put a chip in the ball so that you could find it on any replay or have it light up when it crosses down or end lines. You look at what pro tennis can do with cameras and computer grids all over the court and you know the NFL has much more money at their disposal than tennis. You have to believe they could have any number of innovative gadgets out there. Even if it was expensive the cost can easily be dropped into the next tv deal and the networks could sell off these costs to whatever number of advertisers lineup to sponsor these instant replays.

If the NFL isn't going to completely commit to instant replay and pull out all the stops for it than why do it at all? Scrap it.

I've thought about that for years. It would work in baseball for a strike zone, but in football the "end of a play" is subjective, so there's no value added in most instances. I can certainly think of cases where there IS value added (i.e. Witten's catch near the 1, 1 1/2 yard line vs. Seattle last week), but when a ref has to whistle the ball dead you'd have to sync that to the ball "lighting up". I've also thought about sensors in or aside the field to track the ball, but the same problem remains.There's also the concerns that you would have over the effects to the ball itself by installing electronics, even a passive receiver for RF energy (think EZ Pass).

It's a good thought, but I've vetoed the idea personally for the concerns above.

Given the age we live in and the technology available, I am fairly confident that it is possible (practical is another matter) to put a chip in the ball that without question would know exactly where the ball was on each play and it could be integrated with the officials blowing the whistle. That way, when a play is called dead, they could tell preceisely where the ball was. Similarly, it is likely possible to have sensors on the sidelines to determine if someone stepped on a line or not. How sensitive they are and whether they would break every other play is another thing, but the military has devices that are basically made to withstand up to and sometimes including a nuclear blast. As for what the effects on the ball would be, they could probably balance the ball so it would still travel the same while in flight.As for other comments about having 87 cameras plastered all over the field at all different angles, I suspect that the benefit would not justify the cost and would also impede the enjoyment of people watching the game live. So there would have to be howver many technicians and camera operators clogging the field or they would have to be fully automated and would cost a boatload of money.

IMO, I can't see taking on millions of dollars to get this type of technology. After all, it's not like there are lives on the line and it's complex heart or brain surgery. So once in awhile they miss a call ot three. The game has lasted what, almost 100 years without all these devices, so I think it's save to say that they could do without them.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Get rid of the communist secrecy of the replay booth. Mic up the refs and use the jumbotron screen that every stadium in the NFL has as the screen for the review. That way everyone is well informed on the decision the refs make. Nothing is more frustrating than when the stadium, coaches, players, home viewers etc are 100% certain on a review decision by watching the replays on the jumbotron and the refs walk out to the middle of the field and make a different decision with something else. Everyone says "what were they looking at"? That gets eliminates

....plus it would be much more entertaining as well!!!!

 

[DaveGrumbles]

I think this is always the wrong angle to take on this replay thing. There will ALWAYS be an element of human error in officiating in athletics especially in sports like basketball and football...when you're talking about so many rules in effect that always will be judgement calls such as pass interference or especially charging and blocking in hoops. Easy to make a call in slo-mo from above the play...much different being at ground level at full speed and you're either behind the play or in front of the play. Those things will always be debated.

What would clear up most of the problems with the calls that leave nothing to judgement but more issues with line of sight such as first downs, sideline plays, fumbles, touchdowns would be the NFL's committment to putting cameras in position to actually capture whats happening on the field. Where are the cameras built into the down markers? Or cameras at each endzone line along with corresponding cameras that move directly above each down marker and the end zone? Heck you could even put a chip in the ball so that you could find it on any replay or have it light up when it crosses down or end lines. You look at what pro tennis can do with cameras and computer grids all over the court and you know the NFL has much more money at their disposal than tennis. You have to believe they could have any number of innovative gadgets out there. Even if it was expensive the cost can easily be dropped into the next tv deal and the networks could sell off these costs to whatever number of advertisers lineup to sponsor these instant replays.

If the NFL isn't going to completely commit to instant replay and pull out all the stops for it than why do it at all? Scrap it.

I've thought about that for years. It would work in baseball for a strike zone, but in football the "end of a play" is subjective, so there's no value added in most instances. I can certainly think of cases where there IS value added (i.e. Witten's catch near the 1, 1 1/2 yard line vs. Seattle last week), but when a ref has to whistle the ball dead you'd have to sync that to the ball "lighting up". I've also thought about sensors in or aside the field to track the ball, but the same problem remains.There's also the concerns that you would have over the effects to the ball itself by installing electronics, even a passive receiver for RF energy (think EZ Pass).

It's a good thought, but I've vetoed the idea personally for the concerns above.

I agree to some extent on your points however I believe the more variables or tools you add to the replay that a ref can use the better it will be overall. Let's say just as one example that a ref could see the ball light up prior to a players knee hitting the floor... he would immediately know the ball had crossed the marker or end zone prior to being down without taking up extra time to look at several bad angles of the ball appearing to cross a line that he can't actually see. The benefits of adding more to look at for comparison sake equals a better result and would obviously lessen the criticism. You definitely can't eliminate all of the faults out of a system but the NFL just doesn't seem willing to go the extra mile to drastically improve it.

 

[David Yudkin]

They could do what they did for hockey and have the ball light up on tv only. (I'm not sure that that solves much if you can't get a clear view of the ball, nor would it held determine possession or not.)

 

[DaveGrumbles]

As for other comments about having 87 cameras plastered all over the field at all different angles, I suspect that the benefit would not justify the cost and would also impede the enjoyment of people watching the game live. So there would have to be howver many technicians and camera operators clogging the field or they would have to be fully automated and would cost a boatload of money.IMO, I can't see taking on millions of dollars to get this type of technology. After all, it's not like there are lives on the line and it's complex heart or brain surgery. So once in awhile they miss a call ot three. The game has lasted what, almost 100 years without all these devices, so I think it's save to say that they could do without them.

Actually having small cameras placed in down markers and at the end zone is quite inexpensive. Again look at what tennis does along baselines and sidelines as an example or even horse racing as another example. These are automated cameras and would only need to be looked at by the ref himself in case of a challenge. Again it just gives further options. Personally I think its a pain and the whole replay deal should be scrapped but again if you're gonna commit to this than I think you go big.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think this is always the wrong angle to take on this replay thing. There will ALWAYS be an element of human error in officiating in athletics especially in sports like basketball and football...when you're talking about so many rules in effect that always will be judgement calls such as pass interference or especially charging and blocking in hoops. Easy to make a call in slo-mo from above the play...much different being at ground level at full speed and you're either behind the play or in front of the play. Those things will always be debated.

What would clear up most of the problems with the calls that leave nothing to judgement but more issues with line of sight such as first downs, sideline plays, fumbles, touchdowns would be the NFL's committment to putting cameras in position to actually capture whats happening on the field. Where are the cameras built into the down markers? Or cameras at each endzone line along with corresponding cameras that move directly above each down marker and the end zone? Heck you could even put a chip in the ball so that you could find it on any replay or have it light up when it crosses down or end lines. You look at what pro tennis can do with cameras and computer grids all over the court and you know the NFL has much more money at their disposal than tennis. You have to believe they could have any number of innovative gadgets out there. Even if it was expensive the cost can easily be dropped into the next tv deal and the networks could sell off these costs to whatever number of advertisers lineup to sponsor these instant replays.

If the NFL isn't going to completely commit to instant replay and pull out all the stops for it than why do it at all? Scrap it.

I've thought about that for years. It would work in baseball for a strike zone, but in football the "end of a play" is subjective, so there's no value added in most instances. I can certainly think of cases where there IS value added (i.e. Witten's catch near the 1, 1 1/2 yard line vs. Seattle last week), but when a ref has to whistle the ball dead you'd have to sync that to the ball "lighting up". I've also thought about sensors in or aside the field to track the ball, but the same problem remains.There's also the concerns that you would have over the effects to the ball itself by installing electronics, even a passive receiver for RF energy (think EZ Pass).

It's a good thought, but I've vetoed the idea personally for the concerns above.

Given the age we live in and the technology available, I am fairly confident that it is possible (practical is another matter) to put a chip in the ball that without question would know exactly where the ball was on each play and it could be integrated with the officials blowing the whistle. That way, when a play is called dead, they could tell preceisely where the ball was.

Ever hear a whistle from the stands?

Similarly, it is likely possible to have sensors on the sidelines to determine if someone stepped on a line or not. How sensitive they are and whether they would break every other play is another thing, but the military has devices that are basically made to withstand up to and sometimes including a nuclear blast.

again.There's 22 guys and refs on the field. Unless you have some brilliant sensor that I don't know about, how does it know who's foot is attached to the guy with the ball?

As for what the effects on the ball would be, they could probably balance the ball so it would still travel the same while in flight.

That's a maybe, but try and pass this idea off on the competition committee (or even Riddell) as a needed change.

As for other comments about having 87 cameras plastered all over the field at all different angles, I suspect that the benefit would not justify the cost and would also impede the enjoyment of people watching the game live. So there would have to be howver many technicians and camera operators clogging the field or they would have to be fully automated and would cost a boatload of money.

IMO, I can't see taking on millions of dollars to get this type of technology. After all, it's not like there are lives on the line and it's complex heart or brain surgery. So once in awhile they miss a call ot three. The game has lasted what, almost 100 years without all these devices, so I think it's save to say that they could do without them.

I think a goal line camera at either end is worth having, but other than that I'd agree about too many cameras all over the place. A referee camera (or 7) would be an interesting idea.

 

[Two Deep]

I think they should have a direct line to me cause I seem to make the right call at game speed 98% of the time. It's uncanny

I'm not so sure they shouldn't let the replay booth decide when a challenge should take place like they do under 2:00 minutes. If what they are looking for is fairness why leave it up to the coaches, is it only a bad call if the coaches notice?

 

[David Yudkin]

I think this is always the wrong angle to take on this replay thing. There will ALWAYS be an element of human error in officiating in athletics especially in sports like basketball and football...when you're talking about so many rules in effect that always will be judgement calls such as pass interference or especially charging and blocking in hoops. Easy to make a call in slo-mo from above the play...much different being at ground level at full speed and you're either behind the play or in front of the play. Those things will always be debated.

What would clear up most of the problems with the calls that leave nothing to judgement but more issues with line of sight such as first downs, sideline plays, fumbles, touchdowns would be the NFL's committment to putting cameras in position to actually capture whats happening on the field. Where are the cameras built into the down markers? Or cameras at each endzone line along with corresponding cameras that move directly above each down marker and the end zone? Heck you could even put a chip in the ball so that you could find it on any replay or have it light up when it crosses down or end lines. You look at what pro tennis can do with cameras and computer grids all over the court and you know the NFL has much more money at their disposal than tennis. You have to believe they could have any number of innovative gadgets out there. Even if it was expensive the cost can easily be dropped into the next tv deal and the networks could sell off these costs to whatever number of advertisers lineup to sponsor these instant replays.

If the NFL isn't going to completely commit to instant replay and pull out all the stops for it than why do it at all? Scrap it.

I've thought about that for years. It would work in baseball for a strike zone, but in football the "end of a play" is subjective, so there's no value added in most instances. I can certainly think of cases where there IS value added (i.e. Witten's catch near the 1, 1 1/2 yard line vs. Seattle last week), but when a ref has to whistle the ball dead you'd have to sync that to the ball "lighting up". I've also thought about sensors in or aside the field to track the ball, but the same problem remains.There's also the concerns that you would have over the effects to the ball itself by installing electronics, even a passive receiver for RF energy (think EZ Pass).

It's a good thought, but I've vetoed the idea personally for the concerns above.

Given the age we live in and the technology available, I am fairly confident that it is possible (practical is another matter) to put a chip in the ball that without question would know exactly where the ball was on each play and it could be integrated with the officials blowing the whistle. That way, when a play is called dead, they could tell preceisely where the ball was.

Ever hear a whistle from the stands?

Similarly, it is likely possible to have sensors on the sidelines to determine if someone stepped on a line or not. How sensitive they are and whether they would break every other play is another thing, but the military has devices that are basically made to withstand up to and sometimes including a nuclear blast.

again.There's 22 guys and refs on the field. Unless you have some brilliant sensor that I don't know about, how does it know who's foot is attached to the guy with the ball?

As for what the effects on the ball would be, they could probably balance the ball so it would still travel the same while in flight.

That's a maybe, but try and pass this idea off on the competition committee (or even Riddell) as a needed change.

As for other comments about having 87 cameras plastered all over the field at all different angles, I suspect that the benefit would not justify the cost and would also impede the enjoyment of people watching the game live. So there would have to be howver many technicians and camera operators clogging the field or they would have to be fully automated and would cost a boatload of money.

IMO, I can't see taking on millions of dollars to get this type of technology. After all, it's not like there are lives on the line and it's complex heart or brain surgery. So once in awhile they miss a call ot three. The game has lasted what, almost 100 years without all these devices, so I think it's save to say that they could do without them.

I think a goal line camera at either end is worth having, but other than that I'd agree about too many cameras all over the place. A referee camera (or 7) would be an interesting idea.

WHISTLE ISSUE: You don't have to hear it, as it would be an electronic sensor that integrates with the sensor in the ball to pinpoint where the ball was at the time the first whistle was blown. To map out the workflow, ref blows whistle, spot of ball illuminates on a grid of the field, spotter informs ref where ball was, ref marks ball.SIDELINE SENSOR ISSUE: All players have a sensor chip on their shoes. All refs, ball boys, people holding down markers, coaches, etc. do not. Make players on the bench stay off line. If player steps on line, combination of shoe sensor and sideline sensor triggers indocator on review monito (like the one for the spot of the ball).

GETTING THINGS BY THE RULES COMMITTEE: As I already commented, I doubt any of this would fly as the cost would be prohibitive and the benfit would be minimal. How many plays each week would this ***REALLY*** involve league wide . . . 10? . . . 20? Given all that, I doubt it would even get off the ground even if the technology were available.

Theother issue is that the NFL wouldn't want to pay for the video system and camera equipment and would try to pawn off the cost of the equipment to the networs, so now there are multiple forces at work that wouldn't want to pay for it.

 

[David Yudkin]

Since we're at it, I think they should do away with the ref making the call on the review. How someone could get a good view on a tiny little screen on a camera with a drape over his head is beyond me. Let the guys in the booth with 65 inch plasma tvs decide and tell the ref what the result was.

 

[DaveGrumbles]

Screw it...do away with all refs and lets go with the honor system. Some guy calls himself inbounds on a TD when he was clearly out on television then gets castrated on the sidelines by opposing fans. Interesting, but then I'm a huge fan of angry mobs...actually probably a bad idea overall...but higher ratings I suspect.

 

[jgb95]

They should run it like College and the NHL.

Have another Ref in a booth that can look at the play period end of discussion!!!

It's not like it's a $$$ problem come on if your going to do reply get it right!!!!!

I think it's a problem for the ref's who don't want to lose power or have their call reversed by someone else!

 

[Da Guru]

I could care less what the ruling on the field is.

If the play is wrong..correct it!

What they really need to change is what is unreviewable.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Since we're at it, I think they should do away with the ref making the call on the review. How someone could get a good view on a tiny little screen on a camera with a drape over his head is beyond me. Let the guys in the booth with 65 inch plasma tvs decide and tell the ref what the result was.

I agree with this. I think there should be 4 replay officals in a special room and each official has a nice screen to look at. They each get to look at it from every angle for 2 minutes and then have to submit a vote saying which way they think it should be. If 3 out of 4 vote in a manner that goes against what is on the field, then the play is overturned. If not, play stands. I think this would help keep fan interest during replays as well. You could have a camera that is filming the big screens that the officals are watching and as each official submits their vote, it could pop up on the screen as a tally. Quick, simple, objective, entertaining. I realize this is quite a cost, but maybe at least do it for playoff games?