The problem of spotting the ball
For a long time, officiating crews have had chains to measure whether the spot of the ball is beyond 10 yards from the original LOS. They now also have instant replay to review things. But what about the spot itself? We saw in NW-Ohio that the spot of the ball was a game-changing call, and it looked like a questionable spot. (I thought we got a bad spot on a 3rd and 1 in our game as well, although it ended up not mattering.) Why does the sport accept this?
It seems very strange and contradictory to me that football is willing to put up with spotting that seems like complete guesswork on the part of a line judge who is often far away from the play itself, only to then bring out the chains and measure everything. Is there a way to use technology to improve this?
October 6th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
Maybe the technology doesn't need to be used every play, but could be available in particularly close situations. For something like what happened in the NW game, there's got to be a much better camera angle, at least. If the TV networks can have their own yellow line, the replay guy should have an official one to look at too.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
I really don't understand why a tiny GPS type device in the ball to give exact positioning and maybe something in the sticks to say, yes the ball crossed me first down would be difficult to do.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^
I know it isn't the first time its been brought up. I just agree with OP that there are probably better ways to do it.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
Just because the ball crossed the line does'nt make it a first down. The player might have been down and rolled or reached then ball across, which makes such a system more complicated
October 6th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^
Yeah, you'd still probably have to go to replay to determine when the player's progress was stopped. But it would certainly help. You could freeze the replay where he's stopped and if the GPS thing is signalling a first down there, then he's got it.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^
the ball's progress with a synchronized time of the play and you solve almost all of the problem with where the ball was at what time/progress of the play. we are sending nano robots down peoples arteries, i'm guessing the technology exists to do this and has for decades.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
This is why we need upvotes back.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
3 feet is generous, too. Moving targets are even less accurate depending on the signal refresh rate.
Furthermore, lining up the time stamps of GPS packets and the camera would be a challenge itself, and you have to compensate for satellite motion and the accuracy of the respective clocks, etc.
October 6th, 2013 at 2:08 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 2:45 PM ^
That would be better, but that's not GPS. That's just simple triangulation. Part of the issue is where to put the sensor in the football. It could probaby be done, but who's going to spend money on labor for people to do these things?
October 6th, 2013 at 4:28 PM ^
Considering how much money CFB is making on these games, I think they could shed a couple dollars to improve the product.
But honestly, I think they could get this to work with minimal oversight. The GPS idea probably wouldn't work because of the lack of fidelity, but I imagine there is something they could implant in the first-down markers as well as the ball to give the refs a reasonable approximation of field position.
October 6th, 2013 at 8:21 PM ^
Installing triangulating machinery in every football in the entire country being used in a college or FBS football game sounds extremely expensive.
October 6th, 2013 at 3:05 PM ^
October 7th, 2013 at 9:19 AM ^
The accuracy of GPS is on the order of feet isn't it? Not sure how that would help spot the ball when you're really quibbling over inches or in some cases, fractions of inches.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
I've always wondered if there should be sensors in the tips of the football that signal the forward progress of the ball to a sideline sensor. But it would require someone operating the sensors to indicate when the play starts and stops, or something.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
One day, we'll have the technology to be able to quickly and effectively locate balls, but unfortunately technology just isn't there yet. There's just no way to get sensors into footballs that can stand up to the wear of a football game, communicate quickly with a remote server, and do it all consistently for a reasonable amount of money.
I'm also curious about why people are all so upset about the spot of the ball (outside of the fact that it benefited OSU, of course). The line judge has a much better view of it than any camera angles we had did, and the yellow line on TV is pretty inaccurate itself (on one of the replay angles was about a yard or two short of the actual first down marker). If you pay attention to the actual spot of the ball on the yard lines and not by the yellow line, it looked like a fine spot to me.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^
I disagree with every point you made. The technology is absolutely there. The leagues just either haven't considered it or are resistent for some reason. The replay hood is outdated and eliminating it would speed up the process dramatically. Just have a didicated replay official in the ref's ear that looks at every close play and let's him know the correct call. It also wouldn't be difficult to say when the play ended. Do it exactly the way it is now. Put a light on top of the sticks so when the ball crosses them the light goes on. If the ref's hand goes up before the light, no first down. If the guy runs backward after the light goes on, no first down. It's not complicated. As far as the game yesterday, the line judge certainly did not have a better view than we did, and I don't know what angle you saw the ball 2 yards short of the marker. On the angles I saw the ball was either completely obscured or right around the yellow line.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^
I don't believe this is the case. There has been research conducted at Carnegie Mellon into putting a GPS unit with an accelerometer inside footballs, allowing them to accurately gauge trajectory, spin and location even in a pile-up. I believe a German company developed something similar for soccer that they tested in American football as well. The NFL was actually looking to implement something like this at one point a couple years ago, but clearly they've not committed to anything yet.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
Ohio is a good team, but they're not great - probably should be ranked about 8th-12th in the country IMO. If you are a solid team it shouldn't come down to a ball spot by the refs.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^
I'm not just posting this because of that game. This is something that's bothered me for a while. We see on replay that officials often screw up when they spot the ball. Sometimes it can be hugely costly.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^
help tremendously with questionable spots of the ball by refs. I imagine that the instance in our game would be changed if a challenge or review was done by the booth. Regarding the Ohio spot, there were unfortunately too many people in the pile to be able to see where the ball should have been placed. Perhaps a second camera angle would have helped. Similar to other games (MLB umpire strikes and balls) there is human judgment by trained officials and some football plays do not lend themselves well to review.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^
Lol, I love the gratuitous insult.
Also, I'm pretty sure NW is a solid team.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^
particularly on offense. Plucky and determined, and lots of options and targets.
October 6th, 2013 at 2:26 PM ^
that's what the Wildcats were thinking when the Bears came to town, "It's only Maine!" So far that is the only loss on the Bear's schedule. As for Cal, going West and having to deal with PAC-10 officiating and all that can be challenging in itself. Actually Cal might not be as bad as their record indicates; they've played the Buckeyes and the Ducks, two near certain losses for most squads.
October 6th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
just an idea, but wouldnt it be possible to use some sort of gps on the bal l itself and track it on a monitor upstairs? the booth could just radio down to the line judge where to spot the ball on close plays
October 6th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
If we can bring Biggie and Tupac back to life, then we can fix the first down fiasco.
October 6th, 2013 at 3:39 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 12:59 PM ^
What you get is what you get, it's a game. There's already enough technology ruining the flow of the game as it is. If you want to start reviewing spots of the ball just buy more cameras and point them at the play.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:05 PM ^
I never understand this argument. You'd prefer a badly-officiated game with "flow" over a properly officiated game that happens to take five minutes longer because of a review or two?
October 6th, 2013 at 1:16 PM ^
Yeah, I would rather not take five minute breaks everytime someone gets close to the goalline. someone makes a catch near the ground, or someone runs next to the sideline. The rules were at the discretion of a referee on the field for a long time and that was just fine. The rules are still at the discretion of a referee, but now we get to wait five minutes as someone looks at a screen in the booth and makes a judgement call as to whether a "football move" was made or some garbage like that. And guess what? They still don't get it right all of the time. Just like the guys on the field didn't.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^
It wasn't "just fine." A lot of stuff was blown and games were won and lost predicated on errors. Not caring whether or not the rules are properly enforced or the calls are actually correct is an exercise in nihilism.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:38 PM ^
I think we should just have robots play the sport and computers officiate it. After all, all of us watch college football to experience perfection by players, coaches, and officials!
October 6th, 2013 at 2:47 PM ^
I keep thinking back to the World Cup a few years ago when a GOAL WAS SCORED and play just continued as if nothing had happened. I mean, that's just dadaist shit right there.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:42 PM ^
"A lot" is extreme. This isn't an issue very often.
And, for the record, I think not only did the official in the NU-OSU game have the best angle and view of the play, but I think the spot was pretty accurate.
October 6th, 2013 at 2:55 PM ^
I don't think aynone enjoys the 5-minute in game delays to review a clearly unquestionable call -- probably less so for the calls that really are difficult to determine.
Howver, I think you are conflating two things here. Let's assume that the technology to GPS/insert something into the football exists, as has been discussed above, the advancement in technology doesn't necessarily need to slow the game down. I guess my point is, essentially, that there is no reason greater technological reliance absolutely necessitates more interruptions in the game. Perhaps more concentration should be placed on the technology implementation than the technology itself?
I hope that made sense...
October 7th, 2013 at 10:02 AM ^
These types of plays are why mechanics were changed. The Umpire (the guys signalling a turnover) does not do this now in modern mechanics. He signals a "punch" (TD) or drops a blue bean bag (loose ball) to the wing, HE does NOT determine the outcome of the play. The wings have complete authority to signal TD, Spot (one hand up) or start sorting out possesion with the Umpires help.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^
I've always found it funny how they mark it in a very innaccurate way(pretty much a rough approximation) and then they are willing to measure it down to a millimeter.
October 6th, 2013 at 2:24 PM ^
It's hilarious. Completely insane.
October 7th, 2013 at 9:52 AM ^
But no one cares when they lackidasically spot it between 1 and 9 yards, or past the marker. I mean, if you need ten yards, and you get cheated on 1 yard on a spot to make it second and five and gain 4 more yards but don't get the first down, doesn't that matter just as much?
As mentioned the spot on the punt downing at the goalline was horrible. They put it past the one, then moved it back like 3 times. They're making it up as they go along.
October 6th, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^
October 6th, 2013 at 1:35 PM ^
*Runs to the patent office*