Computer chips could make calls
NFL uses them, but not to make the calls on spots or penalties
NFL coaches were the driving force to move their owners to vote for the use of replay to overturn officials’ calls.
Their slogan: Get the calls right.
That was more than 30 years ago, and they still can’t get them right. They did not get the spot right on Mike Tomlin’s challenge Sunday night against the Los Angeles Chargers. And they never got the chance to get the false start by a Chargers tackle right because the system does not allow for a review of that kind of infraction.
The use of replay to correct wrongs is a flawed system in the NFL that will never get all the calls right because humans still must make that determination.
Yet, there is a system that easily could be put into place along with an improved replay setup that would assure that more calls are right. The NFL — not to mention other sports, particularly baseball — needs to embrace the technology not only available to it, but especially because they already use to a great extent in other areas.
All footballs used in NFL games now have computer tracking chips in them, as do players inside their shoulder pads. Those chips provide information in practices and in games which the NFL uses to generate its next generation stats — how fast a player runs, how quick he is off the ball, how fast and high the ball travels, even how quickly a center snaps it back to the quarterback in the shotgun formation.
They don’t have quite the accuracy necessary yet, but it’s coming soon where the league can put those computer chips to more practical purposes, to “get the calls right.”
Once perfected, it would be simple, for example, to determine the precise spot of the ball when JuJu Smith-Schuster landed near the first-down marker Sunday night. The officials spotted the ball short of a first down. Even though replays appeared to show the receiver got the first down, after Tomlin threw the red challenge flag a human in New York determined the call on the field would stand.
That ruling probably was made because the official who made it believed he did not have enough clear evidence to overturn the call, which NFL rules mandate.
A computer chip could decide it correctly, quickly and without human hands involved.
The chip also would easily have determined that Chargers right tackle Sam Tevi jumped early for a 5-yard penalty that would have negated his team’s first touchdown on a 46-yard pass.
So why doesn’t the NFL take that next step and embrace a system that would get more calls right? Some people around the league will tell you that they don’t want their game to become so technologically dependent, that they want to keep the human element in it, that they don’t want it to become more of a video game. Others say that day is coming, although the owners would have to approve it.
It’s the same arguments people presented to get the replay system into the NFL to correct officials’ calls on the field. They said it 30 years ago, and they’re still saying it today, that they have the technology, so why not use it to aid their officials?
Another argument for replay, and a good one, was that people at home saw the replays on their televisions and could see the obvious mistakes officials were making. It wasn’t good for the game to keep making them when they had the technology to correct it.
Well?
You not only had millions of viewers who saw Tevi jump back early on that touchdown pass, but everyone at Heinz Field also saw it and they let the officials know it for the rest of the first half. At the very least, a coach should be able to challenge that noncall. At best in the future, a computer chip will decide.
It’s real nice that the NFL can generate all these interesting stats using computer tracking chips, but why not use those chips for real purposes? The league has embraced technology in other areas. For example: Computer tablets on the sideline have replaced the old Polaroid photos that were rushed down to the field to show formations, etc.; radio transmitters are in the helmets of the quarterback and one defensive player to send in plays from the sideline.
Not every call, of course, can be made using a computer chip. Holding will still be in the eyes of the beholder, unfortunately. So will pass interference, blocking in the back on seemingly every punt, and Al Riveron will still have the final say on whether it was a catch or not.
Baby steps. The replay system they use now is not the one they approved 32 years ago, then unapproved it, then voted it back in temporarily and finally permanently. It has been refined. The same could be done with the computer chip technology.
At first, they could use it to determine crucial spots, particularly at the goal line, out of bounds plays and the dreaded obvious false starts or defensive offsides.
As the technology advances, perhaps they ultimately could determine fumbles, recoveries and even receptions.
In the meantime, they need to overhaul the replay system. Dan Rooney always said the replay official should be part of the game-day crew, sitting upstairs in a box watching TV. Let that official make calls on replay, but require it to be made quickly.
The officials on the field make split-second calls, why can’t they be made instantly using replay? The last thing the NFL needs is to slow down its game more. Combining the computer chip with a fairer replay system should speed things up.
As for other sports, baseball needs to use the technology available to it more than any other. While they dissect a slide at second base and whether the shortstop’s glove ever-so-faintly touched the sleeve of the runner, they allow the home plate ump to botch the ball-strike calls. Get rid of that, and plug in the technology available to do it.
To repeat that 30-year-old battle cry: Just get the calls right, or at least try harder.