Is this putting too much technology in the game?

[Mazeppa]

After all it is a "Game"


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/sec-big-12-pac-12-authorize-game-tracking-231102542--ncaaf.html

[sooner KB]

I can't really think of a downside.

[Landthief 1972]

I've often wondered why we don't track the ball position somehow so that it sets off an alarm when it crosses the goal line in goalline stands or for short-down situations. That still leaves the issue of telling if the player is down or not, but sensors could be placed in the kneepad and hip area, too, I guess. Just food for thought. Science, man. :P

[SoonerAtKU]

I can imagine as a coach to be able to track positioning and being able to overlay actual performance versus the "ideal" play diagram would be invaluable in the right hands. Now I'm imagining a version of the Google Glass software that would allow coaches to see that in real-time during the game. Now I'm short of breath.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I've often wondered why we don't track the ball position somehow so that it sets off an alarm when it crosses the goal line in goalline stands or for short-down situations. That still leaves the issue of telling if the player is down or not, but sensors could be placed in the kneepad and hip area, too, I guess. Just food for thought. Science, man. :P

To me, the biggest thing you could use it for is to simulate the ball when you can't see it for instant replay.

[SoonerAtKU]

You put a sensor inside each ball in the lining on each tip, there you go, that's your entire range of movement. We can finally get rid of people manually moving chains to test distances.

[SoonerNomad]

I can't really think of a downside.

I can think of a 1,000 downsides. The most compelling to me is that you cannot and will not fix every bad call in any sports game ever so stop trying. Since instant replay has been in place controversial calls have continued to happen at a pace consistent with the pace of controversial calls that existed prior to instant replay. Putting a chip in the football to determine one or two close calls a year along the end zone line seems to me as if we are on an inexorable march toward a game played by robots instead of human beings. Maybe all of the people in favor of that will finally get that perfectly officiated game they have visions of in their perfectly ordered world.

Me, I prefer to bitch and moan about the occasional lousy call (which sometimes are in my team's favor) and move on to the next play or next game. I prefer to teach the players that bad calls are part of the game that good to great teams overcome on their way to winning games and championships. I prefer that we not waste time watching officials under a hood for 10 minutes deducing that the ball needs to be half a foot different from where it is, or that 0.2 seconds need to be added to the clock. I don't need a chip in the football. I need a ref trying to get the call right. And when he gets it wrong, let's score on the next play.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

How about polygraph tests for officials in the OU/TX game? It can be kept to pre-game questions such as "Are you going to hose OU today?"

[agoo758]

I can think of a 1,000 downsides. The most compelling to me is that you cannot and will not fix every bad call in any sports game ever so stop trying. Since instant replay has been in place controversial calls have continued to happen at a pace consistent with the pace of controversial calls that existed prior to instant replay. Putting a chip in the football to determine one or two close calls a year along the end zone line seems to me as if we are on an inexorable march toward a game played by robots instead of human beings. Maybe all of the people in favor of that will finally get that perfectly officiated game they have visions of in their perfectly ordered world.

Me, I prefer to bitch and moan about the occasional lousy call (which sometimes are in my team's favor) and move on to the next play or next game. I prefer to teach the players that bad calls are part of the game that good to great teams overcome on their way to winning games and championships. I prefer that we not waste time watching officials under a hood for 10 minutes deducing that the ball needs to be half a foot different from where it is, or that 0.2 seconds need to be added to the clock. I don't need a chip in the football. I need a ref trying to get the call right. And when he gets it wrong, let's score on the next play.


So your argument is that we should not do this because it's not going to fix every single call?

How about we abolish our murder laws since they don't prevent every killing?

[SoonerNomad]

So your argument is that we should not do this because it's not going to fix every single call?

How about we abolish our murder laws since they don't prevent every killing?


Maybe that's why everyone thinks instant replay is so important. They compare it to murder!

My point is exactly the opposite. It is not really that important to get every call right. And you can't anyway. So let's move the game along and stop spending time trying to fix calls that, in the huge scheme of things, aren't that important.

[agoo758]

Maybe that's why everyone thinks instant replay is so important. They compare it to murder!

My point is exactly the opposite. It is not really that important to get every call right. And you can't anyway. So let's move the game along and stop spending time trying to fix calls that, in the huge scheme of things, aren't that important.

I knew you were going to do that. Since I made an analogy with murder, you interpret that as saying that football and murder is the same thing. Dissapointed in your inability to understand my point, but not suprised.

What I am saying is that if the technology is there, why not use it? So what if doesn't fix everything? That is your argument to not even try it?

[SoonerNomad]

I knew you were going to do that. Since I made an analogy with murder, you interpret that as saying that football and murder is the same thing. Dissapointed in your inability to understand my point, but not suprised.

What I am saying is that if the technology is there, why not use it? So what if doesn't fix everything? That is your argument to not even try it?

I know you are right. It is always best to get as many calls correct as possible. I also know my position against instant replay is not only contrary to our very nature as human beings, but also contrary to the current trend in every sport to expand instant replay into every level of each sport. It's coming in an expanded way in baseball. You cannot watch a college basketball game without the refs spending five minutes every two minutes of action going to the replay to see what time should be left on the clock. I get it. It's here. We're going to have more of it and I am definitely living in the past.

All I am really saying is that a chip inside the football is another example of progress gone awry. It is designed to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. I can think of a handful of times in five decades of watching football where it might have come in handy. And rest assured its use will be accompanied by another layer of rules that have to be interpreted by human beings.

My favorite instant replay irony is from the NFL, where they automatically replay every turnover and every touchdown. Sounds great in theory, but you know what they don't do. They don't automatically replay every play that should or could have been called a turnover or a touchdown, but wasn't. College football is more likely to replay everything (unless you can get to the line of scrimmage and snap the ball), but they don't replay obvious penalties (or non-penalties) that are just as important as other referee mistakes.

Maybe I am a Luddite. I just enjoy watching the game and replay is overused and underwhelming in my opinion and adds little or nothing to my enjoyment of the game. It hasn't fixed anything that was happening before it came about. It interrupts the rhythm of a game and to what end. There is still not a game without controversy or without a bad call or two. In my opinion, instant replay has added a layer of argument and controversy that didn't previously exist. (I don't think I can get through this lengthy of a diatribe against instant replay without mentioning how "not" valuable instant replay was in Autzen Stadium in 2006). It is the nature of sports.

I know I am not right about this. I know I will keep watching no matter the "progress" but I just don't think it's worth the hassle. Maybe if there was some guarantee they were fixing every call in every game it would be worth it, but until then I will keep thinking like the old man I am and keep hoping that they never put a chip inside of a football.

[8timechamps]

I've often wondered why we don't track the ball position somehow so that it sets off an alarm when it crosses the goal line in goalline stands or for short-down situations. That still leaves the issue of telling if the player is down or not, but sensors could be placed in the kneepad and hip area, too, I guess. Just food for thought. Science, man. :P

I really don't know why this hasn't made it's way into the game yet.

I would like to see (as has been mentioned in this thread) a sensor sewn into the ball that runs from tip to tip. Then, a sensor on the goal line that picks up the signal. How many times have we seen controversial goal line plays? At least once a year (but probably a lot more). In this day and age, I can't imagine that the cost would be prohibitive...someone just needs to make it.