Would you want this much Science and Technology in Football?

[Inimicus]

Can you give me a reason why it should stay in the human realm? I kinda want to know for a fact if he crossed the goal line on 4th and goal. 

 

Because I can point out countless examples of where software made a system more accurate and at the same time worse.

 

 

 

The history of this great game is written in the gray spaces between one fans interpretations of a play and the opposing fans interpretation of the same course of events.

 

Adding the idea of a ball that can be tracked to the millimeter adds nothing to the game.  In point of fact it removes the human element and part of what makes this game so much fun to watch,

 

With a chip in the ball would the Music City Miracle be such a wonderful point of discussion?

[panthers123]

Because you assume it will always work, or more specifically work in your favor.

 

What happens when the sensor in the ball quits working?

Or

What happens when the sensor in the ball is proven to be less than 100% accurate?

Or

What happens when someone compromises the signature of the ball?

Or

What happens when the sensor in the field is damaged?

 

 

 

We have decades of "good enough" to stand on. Leave it be.

 

If the technology doesn't work you could always go back to the replay and use eye test of the refs. This is something that will be clearly be used sooner or later. I really doubt the game will be played the same way in 200 years. 

 

I really don't agree with the notion of good enough either.

 

I mean if you went with that logic video tapes were good enough. 

Horses/Boats would be good enough to travel.

Letters would be good enough to communicate. 

 

The world doesn't work like that. In 200 years we made significant strides in every area of life. Internet, phones, cars, planes, medicine, etc. Why is sport any different?

[panthers123]

and sure your going to run into a lot of problems initially but it is not like we can't find solutions for them eventually 

[mattnasty919]

Why not just implant low frequency identification devices into the players themselves? That way we know for sure not only when players cross a goal line, but when they commit crimes off field as well. Hell, we should tie their medical information and financial information to them too. That way we can determine if theyve had previous concussions or injuries, and even make on field fine payments directly out of their account...

[Inimicus]

If the technology doesn't work you could always go back to the replay and use eye test of the refs. This is something that will be clearly be used sooner or later. I really doubt the game will be played the same way in 200 years. 

 

I really don't agree with the notion of good enough either.

 

I mean if you went with that logic video tapes were good enough. 

Horses/Boats would be good enough to travel.

Letters would be good enough to communicate. 

 

The world doesn't work like that. In 200 years we made significant strides in every area of life. Internet, phones, cars, planes, medicine, etc. Why is sport any different?

 

Did you really just try to equate advances in communication and transit to a fuging game?

 

Here is one for you then...

 

100+ years ago we cooked everything over an open flame, but now we have microwaves.

 

Does that microwave make your rib-eye steak any better?

[panthers123]

Did you really just try to equate advances in communication and transit to a fuging game?

 

Here is one for you then...

 

100+ years ago we cooked everything over an open flame, but now we have microwaves.

 

Does that microwave make your rib-eye steak any better?

 

The point I was trying to make was that evolving is a good thing. Improving upon something that should be strive for whether it be in communications or sports. This is something that could improve the games accuracy so why not do it?  

[Mr. Scot]

Not a fan of this.

 

Yes, errors suck...when they're not in your favor.  I've been watching football long enough to know that all teams (yes, the Panthers too) benefit from ref mistakes just as frequently as they suffer from them.

 

The human element is part of the game and shouldn't be removed.

 

Replay is enough.

[Jangler]

this thread is f'in awesome!

[t96]

All you technology fanboys, go watch the movie iRobot. It may be a movie but it is very true. Once you're done watching, then read the series of books it's based off of.

[Floppin]

The level of hyperbole in this thread is off the goddamn charts. Some of you are fuging ridiculous.

[Jangler]

[Ricky Spanish]

I just want the call to be right. if this improves accuracy of the ref decisions, then hell yeah do it. I never understood the "human error is a part of the game" argument. all the old people made the same argument for baseball. "oh that umpire/ref just totally blew that call and screwed my team out of a victory? that's just dandy though because he's a human! God forbid they do something to make sure they get the call right more often, that would just spoil these younguns with 'consistency'".

 

If the panthers were in the super bowl and cam jumps the pile for a last second play, the ball passes the line of scrimmage but there is no way to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did it, even though it's pretty clear it probably happened, and we lose, I can't see how those same people would be against having this technology. It would ensure they get the call right and that the game is scored and determined the way things actually happened, not based on some guy's opinion. 

 

Let me also say, I can handle when we lose a challenge and the refs get the call right. that never bothers me. it's when they are wrong and it fugs us over. that pisses me off to no end. I'd rather lose from the right call, then lose from getting screwed over. 

[JawnyBlaze]

I'm certainly of the "how can improved accuracy possibly be a bad thing" crowd.  I don't view refs as a part of the game.  They are a necessary evil.  Football shouldn't be a game of chance, it's a game of skill.  Trying to take the outside influence (poor refereeing decisions) out of the actual game itself (the contest played between two teams) would only positively benefit the game.  The ref's aren't part of the game.  They don't get points.  They don't win or lose. 

 

In the near future, people are going to be wondering how we ever watched football with people actually trying to determine whether a ball in a sea of arms and bodys actually crossed the goal line.  This sort of thing is the same sort of step forward as improved safety in helmets and equipment, using more advanced time keeping and score keeping, using huge TV screens so the fans can see better, etc.  If we were to stick with the "it's worked for so long so far, why change it" attitude we should just keep steroids in the game, go back to leather helmets, and outlaw the forward pass.

[cultclassiccat]

use the technology in the college and canadian leagues to see if its worth a poo.  youre never going to replace the refs but trying to weave technology into the game isnt a bad thing.  test this outside of the nfl and get a feel for what it brings to the table.  get it perfected and as light as possible, i could see it happening down the road maybe twenty or thirty yrs from now.  again, we cannot replace the refs, we need them on the field but this stuff is bound to happen sometime...HD instant replay, better uniform materials etc..