Microchips Coming to NFL Footballs?

[Sun Tzu]

Is the NFL really considering placing microchips in its footballs? - Page 2 - ESPN

First, it was instant replay. Then, radio receivers in quarterback helmets. What's next, microchips in footballs?

If German company Cairos Technologies has any say about it, that very well could be.

NFL football
AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast

According to Reuters, Cairos is in talks with the NFL about the possibility of inserting the chips into balls. The devices could then be used to determine placement on downs and touchdowns.

The technology was actually developed with soccer in mind. But the International Football Association Board, which consults with FIFA on determining the international rules for the sport, apparently said no thanks. Instead opting to continue with what has clearly been working for them -- as the English and American World Cup teams can attest.

If such modifications would affect the handling of the ball a la the NBA's failed synthetic ball experiment, then it's something to think twice about. However, that doesn't seem to be the issue of the debate.

Give credit to the NFL for reportedly considering the idea. No more wondering if a ball broke the plane. No more debating whether the referee gave a few generous inches. Using microchip technology would seem like a no-brainer.

But employing technological advancements in major sports has often been met with resistance. How else can you explain why Little League is ahead of Major League Baseball in its use of instant replay?

Mas...from another article here...

NFL mulling microchips in footballs for those life-or-death goal line rulings -- Engadget

The NFL is serious business. So serious, in fact, that the idea of refs getting decisions wrong sends chills up and down Roger Goodell's spine. Yeah, we all know they do it habitually, but the League seems to be considering improving accuracy just a little bit with the help of some tech. Cairos Technologies, a German outfit that's been trying to sell its goal line technology to football (as in soccer) bigwigs for a while, has told Reuters that it's in discussions with the NFL about bringing its magnetic field hocus pocus to the gridiron. The idea would be for the ref to be alerted, via a message to his watch, any time the ball does something notable like crossing the goal line or first down marker. It should be a great aid for making difficult calls like whether a touchdown has happened at the bottom of a scrum, and might even help cut down on the number of frightfully dull replay challenges. Win-win, no?

I for one, am all for it.

[k0ruptr]

I'm for it if it helps the game and doesnt effect the ball at all. And then Maybe we'll get some crazy smart computer d00d qb that hacks the microchips into fooling the system into always giving his team the first down on close calls. GO HACKERS.

[jeff061]

Anything that can improve calls without putting the refs head under a hood for 35 minutes.

[bhlloy]

+1. Nothing is as futile as refs spending 20 mins trying to get the spot correct on 4th and short or trying to get irrefutable evidence that the ball broke the plane on a QB sneak. If this can possibly eliminate that even if it's only a couple of times per team per season, it's a great thing. Well worth the money for the NFL to make the game more watchable.

[Anthony]

No brainer. About time.

[Aylmar]

How do you turn the chip off at the moment the action is blown dead? Did the Back Judge blow the whistle and stop the play just as the buzzer went off for a first down, or was the whistle just BEFORE the ball crossed the line to gain?

It's not as simple as say, did the ball get into the endzone or cross the first down marker. Did that happen while the play was in progress...that's the question. Where EXACTLY was the ball when the whistle was blown. I understand that they don't get it exactly right today, but if you're going to say technology is going to eliminate the missed spot from the game, then timing has to be incorporated or it's in essence no better than the system already in place.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I'm for it if it helps the game and doesnt effect the ball at all. And then Maybe we'll get some crazy smart computer d00d qb that hacks the microchips into fooling the system into always giving his team the first down on close calls. GO HACKERS.

It definitely won't effect it but it might affect it which would be just as bad.

Don't mind me, I'm in a foul humor and affect/effect is a pet peeve. It's better to nitpick this than kick the dog.

Easier too, I don't have a dog.

I like the idea of a microchip in a football though. Anything that puts the outcome of the game back in the hands of the players or hackers and not the refs has got to be a good thing.

PS: I feel good about definitely. I never knew that I was spelling that bastard wrong until I was nitpicked on this board. I don't even remember by who but I'm a better speller for their effort. I'm infinately grateful to them.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

How do you turn the chip off at the moment the action is blown dead? Did the Back Judge blow the whistle and stop the play just as the buzzer went off for a first down, or was the whistle just BEFORE the ball crossed the line to gain?

It's not as simple as say, did the ball get into the endzone or cross the first down marker. Did that happen while the play was in progress...that's the question. Where EXACTLY was the ball when the whistle was blown. I understand that they don't get it exactly right today, but if you're going to say technology is going to eliminate the missed spot from the game, then timing has to be incorporated or it's in essence no better than the system already in place.

I would guess that if you are able to take a replay and identify which frame the ball becomes down the chip would then be able to tell you exactly where it was. Not sure how much that helps though.

[k0ruptr]

Originally Posted by Axxon

It definitely won't effect it but it might affect it which would be just as bad.

Don't mind me, I'm in a foul humor and affect/effect is a pet peeve. It's better to nitpick this than kick the dog.

Easier too, I don't have a dog.

I like the idea of a microchip in a football though. Anything that puts the outcome of the game back in the hands of the players or hackers and not the refs has got to be a good thing.

PS: I feel good about definitely. I never knew that I was spelling that bastard wrong until I was nitpicked on this board. I don't even remember by who but I'm a better speller for their effort. I'm infinately grateful to them.

no worries, I don't really care how I spell online. If it's in a professional setting I can hold my own though. I guess online I'm just lazy. Funny since I used to write for a living part time.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Wouldn't the shape of the ball make a proper reading a near impossibility?

How about simply putting a camera on the damn line. Need to see something? Look at it from a perfectly straight line!

[Dr. Sak]

If you think this is fun...wait till you see the umpire in the backfield with the Referee this season.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Wouldn't the shape of the ball make a proper reading a near impossibility?

How about simply putting a camera on the damn line. Need to see something? Look at it from a perfectly straight line!

That would work good if it can see through bodies and nothing blocks the camera.

[Danny]

X-Ray Cameras!

[cyril]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

How do you turn the chip off at the moment the action is blown dead?

I suppose they have the technology to incorporate time code into both the ball and the whistle so everything could be synchronized.

[Sun Tzu]

...what the...

[k0ruptr]

hmm.

[Comey]

"Instead opting to continue with what has clearly been working for them -- as the English and American World Cup teams can attest."

What the hell is this sentence? I don't see a subject anywhere.

The AP and ESPN has been pissing me off since they started emoting in pure news pieces--ESPN doesn't even seem to have "pure news pieces" anymore--but I understand the changing times and that you can get away with it. But the sentence above...that's inexcusable.

[CU Tiger]

"calls like whether a touchdown has happened at the bottom of a scrum"

Really this seems like the obvious question....if dude is on the ground and pushes the ball under 3 people to the line while people pile on....TD

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

"calls like whether a touchdown has happened at the bottom of a scrum"

Really this seems like the obvious question....if dude is on the ground and pushes the ball under 3 people to the line while people pile on....TD

Well, this isn't any worse than right now, when they either guess or look at where the ball ends up after they pull everyone off the pile. Presumably like others have said, the technology will work frame by frame with the replay (it's not a TD here, not a TD here, now it's a TD) and things like down by contact, out of bounds and whether the play was whisteled dead will still be reviewed by the referee. If that's the case, probably not going to be as big a time saver as originally thought but still going to help in a lot of situations.

Even if they sync it up with the whistle, down by contact is still a reviewable play. I don't think anybody is suggesting this will be the be-all-end-all to replace review on the goalline or that TD's will be instantly awarded by computer.

[Ksyrup]

I like the idea of this, but don't you need sensors in a players knee/elbow, etc., to determine when the player touched the ground in relation to the ball? It's not just about the ball. The ball could cross the line while still "in the air," but after the players knee has hit short of the goal line, for instance. I don't see how this technology would help with that kind of call.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Comey

"Instead opting to continue with what has clearly been working for them -- as the English and American World Cup teams can attest."

What the hell is this sentence? I don't see a subject anywhere.

The AP and ESPN has been pissing me off since they started emoting in pure news pieces--ESPN doesn't even seem to have "pure news pieces" anymore--but I understand the changing times and that you can get away with it. But the sentence above...that's inexcusable.

It's not a pure news piece, it's an ESPN Page 2 article.

[JPhillips]

You don't have to synch it to the whistle. Presumably this would be tied to the replay so an official could stop the replay on the frame where the player is judged down and check to see if the sensor went off at that frame or if a player going out of bounds crossed the goal line.

This will just make instant replay on unclear touchdown calls a bit better, but I can't imagine it would ever be the default touchdown determination.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by Logan

It's not a pure news piece, it's an ESPN Page 2 article.

After careful consideration, and much reflection on your response, I'm reduced to one question.

So what?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Comey

After careful consideration, and much reflection on your response, I'm reduced to one question.

So what?

Page 2 is by definition an opinion and commentary section not a pure news piece. Surely you are ok with emoting in a commentary or editorial, right?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Page 2 is by definition an opinion and commentary section not a pure news piece. Surely you are ok with emoting in a commentary or editorial, right?

"Get off my lawn!!!"

[Comey]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Page 2 is by definition an opinion and commentary section not a pure news piece. Surely you are ok with emoting in a commentary or editorial, right?

Fine, point taken. I wasn't thinking about the emotion when I responded, but the technical aspects. I thought Logan was giving Page 2 a free pass for awful writing. That's my fault for posting when half-asleep, and completely not thinking.

That said, it doesn't excuse the awful writing. ; )

[CU Tiger]

[quote=Comey;2331677
That said, it doesn't excuse the awful writing. ; )[/quote]
agreed

[cyril]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I like the idea of this, but don't you need sensors in a players knee/elbow, etc., to determine when the player touched the ground in relation to the ball? It's not just about the ball. The ball could cross the line while still "in the air," but after the players knee has hit short of the goal line, for instance. I don't see how this technology would help with that kind of call.

I don't think they need all those extra sensors. end-of-play triggers (foot out of bound, knee down, etc.) could still be determined by officials, then replays go to the exact frame. Since the TV cameras are time coded with the ball sensors, we will know exactly where the ball is at that particular moment. So it will be a subjective + objective combo type of tech. Can't wait to see it happen.

[bhlloy]

One thing it should definitively be able to answer (assuming the technology is precise enough) is whether a player managed to get the ball inside or outside of the pylon. If the sensor doesn't go off, not a TD.

Other than that though, ironically this could actually lead to more replays not less. For example a 1st and inches play that the coach might choose not to challenge or a play that a coach might not be able to challenge might now be an automatic replay because the sensor was triggered. In the long run though, just get the call right. This technology would have removed any controversy from the play in the SEA-PIT Super Bowl a couple of years ago (Roethlisberger TD) IIRC

[EagleFan]

Why don't we just skip the middleman. We'll have robots playing the games and robots as the officials. That way no call is ever wrong and everything is sterile...