Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Moving the chains may be eliminated soon.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ECHornet said:

Good. About time we started using tech to improve games. A chip for first downs and breaking the goal line would solve time-costly issues once it’s ironed out. 
 

Also ready for automated strike zones in baseball. 

It won’t ever happen because of how massive the sports betting market has become. Multi billion dollar industry isn’t going to leave things to chance. 

Technology keeps getting better and better and yet the percentage of blown / missed calls continues to increase. Sorry, but I don’t think the correlation between that and the growing sports betting market is a coincidence.

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Points

The chain measurement is dramatic. 

Calling for a measurement was like a free timeout. 

They could freeze the video image and measure exactly where the ball was when the runner was down.

Really helpful when holding ball out while running out of bounds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Referees are (very) slowly becoming phased out, at the least not on the field. Some argue the ‘fun unpredictable traditions of the game’ but I doubt any one of these athletes support anything less accurate or technological methods to call a game their livelihood depends on. As a fan I agree, I want accuracy, not feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. We have the technology to make the game better, and we need to implement it sooner rather than later so that all the kinks can be worked out for the betterment of the product going well into the 21st century.

Edited by top dawg
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PantherOnTheProwl1523 said:

The chains were more of a formality and always apart of the game.  

Many mention the chip in the ball so I would assume that will also help with erroneous spots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Doesn't really sound like it would make much difference, unfortunately. 

There are solutions to solving the problem in the NFL but they would likely be very expensive, so I doubt you will see them anytime soon.

It won't make a difference.

I read the article and it also said this :

The NFL already has a chip in every football, but it uses those chips only for its Next Gen Stats tracking data, and not for officiating. That’s because the chips in the middle of every ball just aren’t accurate enough to locate where a football is to the inch. The data works fine as a good approximation of where the ball is, give or take the length of one football. But it doesn’t tell you whether a third down play just barely picked up the first down, or whether the offense should be facing fourth-and-inches.

 

So unless they create footballs that have chips located at the tips of either side as well as the middle (which will be very costly to make), I don't foresee the NFL going this route.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, glenwo2 said:

It won't make a difference.

I read the article and it also said this :

The NFL already has a chip in every football, but it uses those chips only for its Next Gen Stats tracking data, and not for officiating. That’s because the chips in the middle of every ball just aren’t accurate enough to locate where a football is to the inch. The data works fine as a good approximation of where the ball is, give or take the length of one football. But it doesn’t tell you whether a third down play just barely picked up the first down, or whether the offense should be facing fourth-and-inches.

 

So unless they create footballs that have chips located at the tips of either side as well as the middle (which will be very costly to make), I don't foresee the NFL going this route.

There are a bunch of different ways to skin that cat but they are all costly. The NFL isn't going to spend a bunch of money on that unless it helps their bottom line.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, glenwo2 said:

It won't make a difference.

I read the article and it also said this :

The NFL already has a chip in every football, but it uses those chips only for its Next Gen Stats tracking data, and not for officiating. That’s because the chips in the middle of every ball just aren’t accurate enough to locate where a football is to the inch. The data works fine as a good approximation of where the ball is, give or take the length of one football. But it doesn’t tell you whether a third down play just barely picked up the first down, or whether the offense should be facing fourth-and-inches.

 

So unless they create footballs that have chips located at the tips of either side as well as the middle (which will be very costly to make), I don't foresee the NFL going this route.

it's not like better tech doesn't exist. they're using the less accurate tech because it's good enough for it's current purpose. when you're just tracking general stats being off a few inches is fine.

still, there's tech that exists to be accurate down to a fraction of a centimeter. WAY more accurate than having a ref spot the ball. they definitely could implement this if they wanted.

i'm all for it, watching a ref just give away an extra yard and a half and a free first down is some serious BS.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't get the Hunter hate. Just imagine his ceiling if he stopped trying to be this 2way freak and focused on one side of the ball 
    • 100%.  You have to play the cards that are dealt.  Not the cards you wish were dealt.
    • I'd say its definitely going to be addressed this off-season.  We went into the last draft with a roster of RBs including:  Chubba, Blackshear, and Miles Sanders. We picked Jonathan Brooks in the second and still signed Rashaad Penny afterwards.  Fast forward....One turned into a top 10 back, 1 is injured/out for most if not all the '25 season, 1 retired, 1 will either take a huge paycut or be cut, and the last is a restricted free agent. We brought in Mike Boone as well. Add him to the free agent list also.  We need a physical option.    Which qualifies:  Ashton Jeanty(Boise St): Overall ranked Top 10. Almost 2k yards after contact, 28 tds. Would take our first rounder. My money would be on an NFC East team selecting him. (97.2 PFF run grade) - 121 forced missed tackles.  Omarion Hampton(UNC): Ranked everywhere from 20 - 59 overall. Consensus #2 back after Jeanty. He'll be a second rounder. 1,222 Yards after contact w/ 15 tds.  (90.5 PFF run grade) - 72 forced missed Tackles Kaleb Johnson(Iowa): Ranked from 38 - 69 depending on which media outlet you prefer but generally #3. 2nd/3rd possibly. 1,060 Yards after contact w/ 21 tds.(86.7 PFF run grade)- 66 forced missed tackles Cam Skattebo: Ranked from the 50's - 104. Every mock I do he ends up BPA at some point. 969 Yards after contact w/ 17 tds(92 PFF Run Grade). Probably the best receiving back of the group. 81 forced missed tackles.  If the '24 and '25 draft classes were combined, IMO the rankings would be, in order: Jeanty, Hampton, Brooks, Johnson, Skattebo. I wouldn't take one high but I'd take one for Chubba and Brooks insurance. 
×
×
  • Create New...