With all of the different types of scenarios and rules. Would AI be a better solution than Humans at some point? You have to figure that if all the penalties and reviews are getting put into a database that can predict the right call based on the rules, you could have a nearly perfect and consistent system. AI can run data and give you the results during a review, much like they do now when they call NY.
The caveat to this is, could they do it fast? I would cringe at the thought of reviewing every penalty, but I wonder if the NFL is looking into this for the future.
I was shocked to hear yesterday that every NFL team gets a scouting report on the refs for the upcoming game. How is this even allowed? They said during the broadcast that the crew we had has thrown the most flags so far this season. Can't the NFL control that a little bit? like they did for all of the holding calls the first few games?
Why can't the NFL use the grades they get for the refs and take action on them? "Like hey guys, stop throwing so many holding calls etc.." How does the NFL allow that to continue? and what if one team gets the bad crew more often than other teams. How do they keep that fair?
I honestly began to feel bad for Washington for the amount of flags that were thrown.
I hope someday they fix this system, because it feels broken and it's getting worse.
Isn't thins why we invented laser beams?
baseball actually makes a lot of sense too, It would be easier to implement for sure. If it works there, I bet the NFL would look into it.
Tracking every player, ever section of the field. Are cameras still operated by humans or by computers?
All that footage would need to be fed into a database simultaneously in real time.
Will the NFL risk an off-site data center outage during a game? All stadiums would need to build high end data center on site to ensure no disruption.
I'm sure these things are on the minds of very smart people somewhere, but it is a very complicated process to make that happen.
Since I was a kid I thought if they wanted even competition, this would be the smartest way. Obviously it still needs to be well conceived and much better executed (no point if it takes long or is inaccurate). But these things move super slow even IF they aren't somewhat more interested in 'control' over 'even competition' moment to moment (whether bias for game flow, players or teams...aside from just missed calls)
I've always maintained the reason officiating is so bad is because the refs are looking for too many things. You don't need AI making the calls, just let the tech give the refs a breather.
Play clock and 12 men on the field should be managed upstairs. First downs, ball placement, crossing the plain, neutral zone infractions, can all be aided by sensors employed in other sports today.
As much of the objective calls should be tech, and let the refs focus on the subjective stuff.
I've always maintained the reason officiating is so bad is because the refs are looking for too many things. You don't need AI making the calls, just let the tech give the refs a breather.
Play clock and 12 men on the field should be managed upstairs. First downs, ball placement, crossing the plain, neutral zone infractions, can all be aided by sensors employed in other sports today.
As much of the objective calls should be tech, and let the refs focus on the subjective stuff.
I really like this idea and something similar to this has been posed to the league. I'm not a conspiracy fan, but part of me thinks the league likes having some controversy. They've had proposals nearly every season to develop refs full-time, so you don't have 50+ year old judges moonlighting while chasing down 20 year olds. They claim not to do it because of expense - yet look at the revenue the league brings in.
Under the current system, it is nearly impossible for a 30 year old to be a head ref. He simply can't earn enough experience to work games and that's just ridiculous.
But if the NFL did what Christian mentioned - blending tech with better refs to manage the subjective calls, you don't have to be 50 to make those types of calls. What the NFL has ingrained into us is that only old guys with years and years of experience are capable of officiating a game, and there's really no safeguards from keeping a guy from having 3o years of shitty experience carrying that over into a head NFL role.
At the end of the day, the NFL is really just another television show. And the league office and owners are the directors and producers. So having drama, conflict, and controversy are all good elements of a good television show. Having the refs make mistakes, for the entire audience to see, just adds to the drama, intrigue, and controversy. It creates headlines and gets people talking.
Yeah, sure, the NFL can talk about replays, more training, etc. And there appears to be some good, quick fixes available. But the NFL talks about it first - the competition committee must agree! - and teases the audience by trying to be deliberate and thoughtful...keep them wanting more.
How do you think sports radio and debate sports television were created? To talk about all the drama, conflict, and controversy.
There are enough subjective calls in a game to get under the hood and come out with a controversial call. That won't go away.
Conversely, if you give the ref a hand on some aspects of a play, maybe you don't need to review PI, because the ref can focus on the hands, if say a camera is focusing on their feet.