Originally Posted by Hog Rider:
Now we can trust computer software in the age of gambling instead of your lying eyes and HD cameras.
I hope they figure it out, but sounds like a fail to me. I can see it in specific situations, but don't feel it will be as accurate as a baseball strike zone.
you have a fiber optic net below the field. The ball has multiple chips in it. I think that has already been done without any complaints. How can it be inaccurate?
It’ll be accurate to within millimeter's. A human being sometimes 20 yards away will be more accurate than that? [Reply]
Originally Posted by scho63:
Not sure why they can't integrate a sensor into both ends of the football and know exactly where the forward progress ends.
Ball not always pointy north and southy. And ball not knowy when carrier is down by contact. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hog Rider: Ball not always pointy north and southy. And ball not knowy when carrier is down by contact.
I hadn't thought about that one. You'd theoretically need an entire ring of sensors plus one in each point. Again, you could probably solve for that, but the more complex you make it, the more likely it'll be screwy at times. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I hadn't thought about that one. You'd theoretically need an entire ring of sensors plus one in each point. Again, you could probably solve for that, but the more complex you make it, the more likely it'll be screwy at times.
Good points, maybe they can do a virtual perimeter reading/marking based on dimensions of the ball that could be made from single sensor. [Reply]
Originally Posted by C-Mac:
Good points, maybe they can do a virtual perimeter reading/marking based on dimensions of the ball that could be made from single sensor.
Maybe put a thin layer that acts as a sensor around the bladder of the football under the leather? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I hadn't thought about that one. You'd theoretically need an entire ring of sensors plus one in each point. Again, you could probably solve for that, but the more complex you make it, the more likely it'll be screwy at times.
Words like "Optical Tracking" sound like they're playing around with computer vision, AKA convolutional neural networks and drawing bounding boxes. Using that kind of technique you wouldn't need sensors you'd use a model that's been trained on tens of thousands of hours of video and you measure the probability of false alarm and probability of detection. Get the PD up to 99% and the PFA down and then you can have some level of confidence that you're outperforming the human. [Reply]
Originally Posted by scho63:
Not sure why they can't integrate a sensor into both ends of the football and know exactly where the forward progress ends.
It sounds like they might already have it. Putting myself in their shoes, though, I can come up with a variety of issues with it:
- It wouldn't be accurate in cases where forward progress is stopped but the pile lunges forward after the whistle is blown.
- Similarly, it wouldn't be accurate when the key question is when the runner is down.
- Just in general, it would be difficult to relay the "correct" ball placement down to the field. For example, if the system said that the ball should be at the 47.382 yard line, how does the ref place the ball at that spot? I don't want refs carrying around yard sticks out there.
Could they get around all of that? Maybe. You could sync audio/video timestamps up with the sensor data to address the first two. You could say that they aren't literally measuring the placement but are only using it when a first down (or touchdown) is in question. But all of that makes it more complicated, and the NFL tends to err on the side of keeping a little of the human element in the game, and it would be admittedly unsatisfying to have them just tell us what they computers say rather than giving fans something to debate. [Reply]
How would this help if it’s a reach over the line to gain type of play? The ball can be reached if it crosses, but you still need to determine if the runner was down before that happened. And that’s usually 90% of the contention in that type of play.
Dunno. Give it a shot, sure, but I don’t know if I see its value [Reply]
I've been hoping for some kind of tracking system for a long time. We could've lost the Super Bowl due to a bad spot. Fortunately Mahomes is so badass he can overcome blind (or crooked) officiating. [Reply]
Hmmm I did find this "magnetic transmitter" football. Its from about 10 years ago and looks to be funded by Disney? Guessing tech is further along now.
I would have thought that putting a microchip on a football would throw off everything BUT the article says that NFL footballs already have small weights in them to help with the balance and that the microchips would take the place of those? Had no idea
Does this affect the ball?
One concern might be that putting a magnetic transmitter in a football would alter its weight or balance. But when it comes to weight, a football is surprisingly forgiving.
"What most people don't realize is that the footballs are handmade, so there's quite a bit of variation from one ball to another — about an ounce of difference," Ricketts says. "So we designed our transmitter to be less than that natural variation." (There's less tolerance for variation in air pressure, as the Deflate-gate scandal has taught us.)
Additionally, footballs are naturally lopsided because of the laces, so manufacturers already need to put a small weight on the side opposite them to balance things out. That provides a natural spot for the transmitter. [Reply]
If you know where the two chipped points of the ball are within the grid, figuring out where the sides are is just a simple math equation. Constantly waiting on the refs to match the "knee down" to the timestamp isn't going to be fun.
That 2" matters all the time, but we're seeing runs get spotted half a yard off and I cringe every time I see a spotter run down the sideline on a kick out of bounds when you can tell he looked like he just stopped and called it good enough. A computer could spit out the spot based on the kick location and landing impact a hell of a lot faster and more accurately.
Either way, we have PMII, Butker, and Punt God moving the ball around for us so we can probably leave petty arguments over mere inches on the field up to the rest of the peasants in the league. [Reply]
