Slashdot Mirror


NFL: National Football Luddites?

theodp writes "The National Football League has been brainstorming with tech and communications companies on how to bring the NFL into the 21st century. Major-league sports are famously technophobic — the NFL outlaws computers and PDAs on the sidelines, in the locker room and in press-box coaching booths within 90 minutes of kickoff. But that may be about to change, which the WSJ's Matthew Futterman speculates could mean: 'Coaches selecting plays from tablet computers. Quarterbacks and defensive captains wired to every player on the field and calling plays without a huddle. Digital video on the sidelines so coaches can review plays instantly. Officials carrying hand-held screens for replays. Computer chips embedded in the ball and in the shoulder pads (or mouth guards) that track every move players make and measure their speed, the impact of their hits, even their rate of fatigue.' Part of the impetus for the changes is the chance for a windfall — the NFL's sponsorship deals with Motorola and IBM will expire after this season, and the NFL will be seeking more technology (and presumably cash) from its next technology partner(s)."

257 comments

  1. the pro in pro sports by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't watch pro sports because I can't relate to it. It's not interesting. Now college and lower are really interesting. There are huge differences in the athletes and you can see it. Mistakes happen so you can compare perfection to imperfection. Coaches matter too. And everyone is having fun. Pro just kills it. If they are going to go pro I'd like to see them go all the way and allow super modified cyborg humans compete.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:the pro in pro sports by rotide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't watch pro sport due to multiple reasons. First, it's basically nothing but a bunch of prima donnas complaining all the time. Everyone thinks they are gods gift. News flash, it's a game. Yes you get paid, but you're throwing a ball around a field, get over yourselves. Second, the fact that they are nothing but commodities in and of themselves now. Hell, the teams themselves are practically traded like baseball cards. Not to mention the non-stop and constant advertising. But what really gets me is the sheer fanaticism about it. People get so offended if you bash their quarterback, or root for the rival. There is nothing fun about it. Just a bunch of prima donnas on TV and people who idolize them for no reason. All the while you're being sold everything from beer, to deodorant, to cars. Hell, the Super Bowl is almost better known for it's advertisements!

    2. Re:the pro in pro sports by cos(0) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes you get paid, but you're throwing a ball around a field, get over yourselves

      It's possible to trivialize any career if you try. I bet you get paid for simply pushing bits around, so get over yourself.

    3. Re:the pro in pro sports by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      I choose not to watch Football because the greedy bastards black out the games on TV if they don't sell enough tickets, which is a totally tacky policy while the average ticket costs over 70 bucks with players' salaries in the millions of dollars.

      Plus, the more games I've watched in the past few years, the more it feels like the basic outcomes of the games are pre-determined and that all of the "behind the scenes" hype is like a bad reality show. Not a surprise given the big, big money involved in pro football. The chargers had the AFC championship and the best kicker in the league, then blew their chances because that kicker just happened to blow 4 kicks that game. The night before that game, key Chargers including LaDanian Tomlinson were seen at a local titty bar (Cheetah's, I think) getting fucked up.

    4. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing fun about it.

      I'm guessing there's little that's fun about your life.

    5. Re:the pro in pro sports by rotide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wasn't trying to trivialize it. People just take the art (yes art, I'll give you that) and skill of throwing a ball and turn it into a holier than thou profession. It's sickening. You're a professional ball thrower and personality on TV. The problem is, it seems as though most of them see themselves as the latter. Everyone just needs to realize they are nothing more than professional kids in the sense that they play the same game kids do, just with more rules and structure. Not to mention multimillion dollar contracts.

    6. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't watch pro sport due to multiple reasons. First, it's basically nothing but a bunch of prima donnas complaining all the time. Everyone thinks they are gods gift. News flash, it's a game. Yes you get paid, but you're throwing a ball around a field, get over yourselves. Second, the fact that they are nothing but commodities in and of themselves now. Hell, the teams themselves are practically traded like baseball cards. Not to mention the non-stop and constant advertising. But what really gets me is the sheer fanaticism about it. People get so offended if you bash their quarterback, or root for the rival. There is nothing fun about it. Just a bunch of prima donnas on TV and people who idolize them for no reason. All the while you're being sold everything from beer, to deodorant, to cars. Hell, the Super Bowl is almost better known for it's advertisements!

      There is more to sport than just the Lingerie Football League.

    7. Re:the pro in pro sports by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      I don't watch pro sports because I can't relate to it. It's not interesting. Now college and lower are really interesting. There are huge differences in the athletes and you can see it. Mistakes happen so you can compare perfection to imperfection. Coaches matter too. And everyone is having fun. Pro just kills it. If they are going to go pro I'd like to see them go all the way and allow super modified cyborg humans compete.

      I think some of these might make it worse (from your perspective). Frequent no-huddles mean more plays, more injuries and shorter careers (especially for Quarterbacks).

      Other things that take the error out of refereeing would be a welcome arrival. But players on the field should be as unplugged as possible.

    8. Re:the pro in pro sports by Silentknyght · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't watch pro sports because I can't relate to it. It's not interesting. Now college and lower are really interesting. There are huge differences in the athletes and you can see it. Mistakes happen so you can compare perfection to imperfection. Coaches matter too. And everyone is having fun. Pro just kills it. If they are going to go pro I'd like to see them go all the way and allow super modified cyborg humans compete.

      I don't know why this was moderated "off-topic", it's relevant, albeit a bit of an "end game" perspective... At some level, the "purity" of a sport comes into play, and this "technological" decision is directly tied to that. Right now, we have human beings playing sports and human beings coaching sports. We disallow unfair augmentation of players (i.e., performance-enhancing drugs), not only because it would become a race-to-the-bottom for player health, but also because it removes that sense of fairness we currently perceive by "limiting" the players to the gifts with which you were born.

      If coaching introduced technology without limits, it'd end up like Wall Street: a massive technological arms race to compute the "right" outcome faster than the opponents, and humans would be eliminated from the picture. YMMV, but I'm not interested in watching a sporting contest like that.

    9. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prima Donna. Bugger off and look it up.
      Please don't come back.

    10. Re:the pro in pro sports by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      If coaching introduced technology without limits, it'd end up like Wall Street: a massive technological arms race to compute the "right" outcome faster than the opponents, and humans would be eliminated from the picture. YMMV, but I'm not interested in watching a sporting contest like that.

      So, like F1 then?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    11. Re:the pro in pro sports by sexconker · · Score: 3

      Yes you get paid, but you're throwing a ball around a field, get over yourselves

      It's possible to trivialize any career if you try. I bet you get paid for simply pushing bits around, so get over yourself.

      Go ahead and try to trivialize a surgeon, firefighter, or coast guard rescue swimmer without looking like a moron.

    12. Re:the pro in pro sports by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Prima Donna. Bugger off and look it up.
      Please don't come back.

      "Today the term has become a mainstream word outside opera to often describe a vain, undisciplined, egotistical, obnoxious or temperamental person who finds it difficult to work under direction or as part of a team, and although irritating, cannot be done without."

      Your own link shows that he used it correctly.

    13. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey at least it wasn't spelled "pre madonna"...I've seen that phrase thrown out 2-3 times over the years

    14. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I bet you get paid for simply pushing bits around, so get over yourself.

      At least when a bit pusher gets his app working, he doesn't claim it shows Jesus is on his side...

      rj

    15. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't watch college sports because it's fundamentally dishonest. Call a spade a spade: these kids are minor league pro athletes. Give them their money and stop trying to launder it through the financial aid department. The reason it doesn't happen is because people like to think that these kids are getting an education, but anyone who's ever met a college athlete knows that for the lie it is. Getting a 3.5 GPA in "sports management" at a public university is not an achievement.

      Someone will doubtless mention the linebacker friend with a 4.0 in astrophysics they knew in college, but there are thousands of college athletes just in D-I sports. You should be able to come up with a hundred examples or more of kids just like that. After all, the top 10% of humans overall are pretty smart, so assuming we're selecting our "athlete scholars" for both athletics and scholarship, we should be doing even better, right? ...Right?

    16. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most new cars have more technology then F1 cars do now. F1 has no active suspensions, no automatic transmissions, no ABS, no traction control, and no electronic stability control. Hell, F1 even requires everyone to use the same ECU to cut down on cheating.
      Now I personally wouldn't want an automatic in my car and I removed the malfunctioning ABS as well - it was an old three channel system that I could easily outbrake manually in all conditions, but a modern system might be desirable.

    17. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All of them save people who are going to die anyway. Next?

    18. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's possible to trivialize any career if you try. I bet you get paid for simply pushing bits around, so get over yourself.

      Go ahead and try to trivialize a surgeon, firefighter, or coast guard rescue swimmer without looking like a moron.

      I bet you get paid for cutting things with knives.
      I bet you get paid for pouring water out of a hose.
      I bet you get paid for swimming.

      Yes they're broad generalizations that vastly oversimplify what is happening and everything that goes into the job, but so is "you're throwing a ball around a field".

    19. Re:the pro in pro sports by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      You're a professional ball thrower and personality on TV. The problem is, it seems as though most of them see themselves as the latter.

      By all means, if it is mostly winning personality to do what they do, then show me how easy it is.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    20. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you get paid, but you're throwing a ball around a field, get over yourselves

      It's possible to trivialize any career if you try. I bet you get paid for simply pushing bits around, so get over yourself.

      Go ahead and try to trivialize a surgeon, firefighter, or coast guard rescue swimmer without looking like a moron.

      Challenge accepted.

      Surgeon: "You're cutting and sewing."

      Firefighter: "Playing with a very large squirt gun, and axe."

      Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer: "You're swimming."

      That's the point of trivializing anything. It's more than doable (and the appearance of being a moron in doing so is highly subjective of course.) Someone within the craft and someone outside of the craft will always have different opinions.

      Case in point, my time in the Marine Corps Infantry. Here you have a job that looks to be very caveman-like, hell, we're even called Grunts.

      "You just run around and shoot things. We did that when we were kids." One could easily trivialize. Yet, for anyone familiar with the level of technology one must aquatint themselves with, the amount of systems and behaviors one has to understand, and the fact that all of that has to be performed in the worst environments under high stress? You don't exactly scrap the bottom of the barrel for your "typical" employee.

      Or, professionally, as being a Chemical Engineer, I could easily say "Yeah, I just watch heat move around" and that would be such an oversimplification, but also have a glint of truth.

      And that is the key situation, that within the trivial lies truth.

      --

      Think about it, for 'you' as a hypothetically highly-skilled person in a hypothetically highly-skilled position to explain your job to someone who doesn't understand it you would HAVE to trivialize it for them to get the picture. The general public doesn't understand, and certainly can't do, what you do - that's part of the reason you're trained and paid to do that job.

      Another poster mentioned that they prefer College Football to Professional, because there you see the greater differences in skill. That also leads to the trivialized explanation. Think about it, pick a roomful of random people and watch them play football. Now watch College Athletes do it. Now watch Professional Athletes. You will see large differences with each group.

      It's like saying someone is the "Worst" Olympic athlete despite that person likely being better than the majority of the populous they represent.

      So yes, you can trivialize any profession into something basic because simplifying an explanation to a group of persons unfamiliar with the topic is part of basic communication skills that humans possess.

      So yes, Professional Football IS just throwing a football around. It is just running around on a field, and it's also so much more, without that being a contradiction.

    21. Re:the pro in pro sports by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      My girlfriend lives in an area that regularly blacks out her "home team". I found SportsDevil plugin for XBMC works rather well. If you're just using the computer it streams from http://www.firstrowsports.tv/

    22. Re:the pro in pro sports by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Someone will doubtless mention the linebacker friend with a 4.0 in astrophysics they knew in college, but there are thousands of college athletes just in D-I sports. You should be able to come up with a hundred examples or more of kids just like that.

      I could *easily* come up with over 100 examples of smart student-athletes from my graduating class. Hell, I could come up with about 15 examples of smart Division I athletes just from my freshman dorm (which had 50 students total). My roommate got a 1400 on his SAT, majored in economics, and then ended up playing pro football for a few years before an injury ended his career.

      And this college also happens to have a pretty decent athletic program, having won the Director's Cup the last 17 years in a row, so don't bother saying it's not possible to do both well on a large scale.

      Less than 1% of college football players ever play professional football, and most of the ones who don't knew they would never go that far. Other sports have even lower percentages (or no pro leagues). For every hotshot pro prospect squeaking by in "sports management" there are a hundred other student athletes using their abilities to help pay for an education (and more often than not with much less than a full ride).

    23. Re:the pro in pro sports by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      Yes you get paid, but you're throwing a ball around a field, get over yourselves

      It's possible to trivialize any career if you try. I bet you get paid for simply pushing bits around, so get over yourself.

      True, but you don't have to try terrribly hard to trivialize a career in which one gets paid to play a game.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    24. Re:the pro in pro sports by dward90 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please cite examples of this. I think you're factually incorrect. There might be a small number (single digits) of players in all of American professional sports who act the way you are describing. The vast majority act (shockingly) *professional*. They say things like "We've worked hard and we're going to try to get better every day. I'm happy to do what I do for a living." I would put my foot in mouth and consider myself humbled if you could cite one example of a players acting like "a bunch of prima donnas" without finding a dozen where they act like (again, shocking) professionals.

      --
      My other sig is clever.
    25. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could *easily* come up with over 100 examples of smart student-athletes from my graduating class.

      And yet you fail to mention 1. Cool anecdote, bro.

    26. Re:the pro in pro sports by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood those people. They just meant that the person was showing a 70's attitude.

    27. Re:the pro in pro sports by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? I clearly mentioned one in my post. Two others on the baseball team and swimming team are both MDs. Three more are attorneys, two more were investment bankers last I heard. Am I going to drop names? To an anonymous coward on slashdot? Please fuck off.

    28. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a hundred other student athletes using their abilities to help pay for an education (and more often than not with much less than a full ride).

      That seems like an argument FOR paying college players...

    29. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the prior poster, but I see their point.
      I am over myself. I push bits around and make a living. I don't do victory dances, scream, and thank Jebus for making me so f*cking great.

    30. Re:the pro in pro sports by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      well if you're talking about Marilyn Monroe, pre madonna might make sense ... does that make today's pop stars post madonnas?

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    31. Re:the pro in pro sports by sjames · · Score: 1

      We pay plenty of people to do far less interesting things that are no more useful in the end. You don''t think anyone actually reads those reports filed in triplicate, do you?

    32. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can't, because he doesn't have a winning personality.

    33. Re:the pro in pro sports by josephtd · · Score: 1

      College sports, basketball and football specifically have become so commercialized that there is very little separation between them and their professional counterparts. That being the case, I'll take real professionals where the skill level is higher any day. I don't get this holier than thou attitude that still persists about college sports. When the Houston Cougars lost their last game of the season and by extension the Conference USA title, the lead story was how they cost Conference USA BCS money. Give me a break.

    34. Re:the pro in pro sports by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Still trolling? Or a different AC?

      Don't know why a college gymnast or lacrosse player needs to be paid a salary to play a sport in college. Some of the best get scholarships, but for most that's not why they do it. They do it because they like it, and they get a chance to compete against the best. And it probably helped their admissions application as well, as should an activity they put so much effort at excelling in, no different from a student of theater, violin, speech, etc.

    35. Re:the pro in pro sports by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with the sentiment of "I don't want to watch a bunch of showboating prima donnas." The whole NBA lockout that cost a boatload of minimum wage jobs at stadiums and the like is par for the course with these guys. They want an extra million or two and the only people who really get hurt are the regular employees of the venues and the fans.

    36. Re:the pro in pro sports by Thugthrasher · · Score: 1

      He never said it was mostly a winning personality. He said that most of them see themselves more as a personality on TV than a professional ball thrower. Which, when it comes down to it, is all a pitcher is, for example.

    37. Re:the pro in pro sports by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Sports is civilized war. Adding gadgets at least let's it more resemble 21st century war, rather than 16th century.

      --
      I8-D
    38. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can throwing a ball around get us into space? Cure cancer? Solve the problems in education? Teach people personal responsibility?

      Some things are a lot easier to trivialize than others.

    39. Re:the pro in pro sports by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The ones with the wrong cover sheets?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    40. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you get paid, but you're throwing a ball around a field, get over yourselves

      It's possible to trivialize any career if you try. I bet you get paid for simply pushing bits around, so get over yourself.

      His point exactly. It would be rather weird to see the same kind of fanaticism, inflated ego, constant coverage, and unabashed advertising over the average office job.

      Moreover, it's ridiculous to try to say that some jobs aren't more important than others. And if you really think that pro athlete isn't one of the more trivial jobs, then you're an idiot.

      Personally my number one complaint with pro sports is how much people fucking talk about them. It's like everyone suddenly has aspbergers when it comes to football. I's funny how someone can come up to you and talk about the same thing day after day and never catch on that I am entirely uninterested in the subject and never contribute.

        It's not the topic itself, that's annoying, but the effect it has on people. I would get just as pissed if everyone constantly gabbed over any one subject over and over and over, but they don't it's just sports.

    41. Re:the pro in pro sports by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood those people. They just meant that the person was showing a 70's attitude.

      IF you mean Madonna...you are talking squarely about the 80's.

      The Zeppelin fans of the 70's wouldn't have put up with her.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    42. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you honestly using Stanford as your representation of college athletes throughout the country? I know this might come as a shock to you, but Stanford is far from the norm in college sports. It is an aberration.

    43. Re:the pro in pro sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. I started to particularly notice it during the Tour de France this year. With the team coaches in radio contact with each of their riders, I started to feel as if a lot of the mental competition had disappeared from the race. I remember (admittedly is from the nether fog) seeing unexpected upsets (80s and file footage from earlier) due to the star riders losing track of some other rider/group. Now the coach just reminds everyone that rider X has a gap of Y seconds, and they reel them back. BORING!!!

      Personally, I would be very happy if coaches for any and all sports were limited to pre-competition athlete development and half-time/between rounds encouragement and adjustment. No more in-game interaction, no play-calling, etc. Maybe let the coaches handle player substitutions, but even then I'm dubious. Give the mental game back to the players as well as physical. There are no coaches suggesting moves in chess, why are they needed in football, basketball, darts, whatever?

    44. Re:the pro in pro sports by ffflala · · Score: 1

      The reason certain athletes make dozens, and occasionally hundreds, of millions of dollars isn't because of some inherent value in the performance of their art (if you want to think about it that way.) They get this kind of money because these forms of entertainment have developed such widespead appeal that they can (and do) deliver billions of dollars of advertising space.

      Look at any big venue event, be it sports game or concert. Brand logos are pasted everywhere, they're embedded in as much media as possible, and you'll be subject to countless commercial breaks, messages from sponsors, and product/service plugs.

      It's the same reason that other forms of entertainment can rake in millions and/or billions, despite not being some incredible contribution to human society. It's not that the art is that good, it's simply that it's able to push enough ads to generate million dollar salaries for the stars.

    45. Re:the pro in pro sports by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Hence PRE Madonna. ;)

  2. irrational resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I irrationally resist this move.

  3. And you choose the NFL as your example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say the NFL is probably one of the least "luddite" of the major sports--compare them to soccer or basketball for example...

    1. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only part of Association Football (soccer in your parlance) that is luddite is the use of action replays to allow the referee to make a better decision. Even that is on the agenda for change. On the contrary, Technology is being used widely in soccer, Rugby Union and Rugby League to measure the performance of players both on the pitch and off it in training.

      Technologies like Prozone http://www.prozonesports.com/index.html and opta http://www.optasports.com/sports/football.html provide detailed statistics to the Management/Coaching staff. Almost none of the top league European Soccer sides do not use some variant of these technologies, and if they don't, they won't be top league for much longer. Almost every successful side owes a fair part of their recent success to video analysis both on and off the pitch.

      In Wales we have grown used to seeing our Rugby Union coaches sat infront of laptops during matches, watching the laptops almost as much as the game. Players are biometrically monitored during training to ensure that they are neither slacking off nor overdoing it and risking injury during training.

      Rugby League has led the way in the use of action replays for the referees to watch in order to review infringements and borderline decisions, typically during the act of scoring a try.

      Cricket and tennis have championed the use of Hawk-eye http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/ to decide whether a ball would have hit the wicket or was in or out respectively.

      So, no, soccer is not luddite, and the NFL could certainly be doing and allowing more technological innovation.

    2. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by bjorniac · · Score: 1

      Compare it to tennis or cricket, where Hawk-eye aids umpire decisions and you'll see its definitely a way behind. Cricket in particular has a lot of recent tech toys added - 'snickometer' and 'hotspot' being used to see if ball met bat through sound or residual heat. That said, radio communications between players and coaches have been banned - the reason given is that whilst in play, the game should only be decided by the players on the field.

      Soccer remains behind a little, it's true, though the English Football Association has recently proposed using a Hawk-eye like system to make line calls. The main reasons cited are that replays etc would interrupt the game, and since it's a free-flowing sport (rather than the stop-start of tennis, american football or cricket say) this would change the game fundamentally.

    3. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moreover, how many other sports can claim to have made significant contributions to medical science? The NFL is fairly unique when it comes to the prevalence of certain otherwise-rare medical conditions. We've come a long way in understanding concussions because of all the NFL players that have experienced multiple concussions over a relatively short timespan. And we've been able to confirm the effectiveness of at least one treatment for severe spinal injuries because the NFL offered an opportunity for doctors to arrive on the scene of a paralysis incident within seconds.

      The NFL could have turned their back on these issues, but they've instead worked with the medical community to learn more about how we as humans work by offering cases that would be hard to study otherwise. They've made an obscene profit doing it, but at least they've done it.

    4. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was referring more to the World Cup, and their ongoing reluctance to use technology. This was a story during the last World Cup, and I found the World Cup official's reluctance to use more cameras or referees to be rather strange, not to mention their reluctance to use replay. The regular, professional leagues are certainly more advanced.

    5. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by The+Snowman · · Score: 2

      I'd say the NFL is probably one of the least "luddite" of the major sports--compare them to soccer or basketball for example...

      Really? You grasp for a luddite sports league and bring up basketball, by which you probably mean the NBA?

      MLB has to be the clear winner in ludditeness. They just recently allowed instant replay, but only for home run/foul calls (i.e. balls hit very close to the yellow poles). There is no official review, no challenging (ever see a coach argue and win instead of getting ejected?), nothing. Just about the only technology is the camera that tracks the location and speed of pitches for people watching on TV.

      Baseball is far behind the technology curve. I'm not sure that it needs more technology, but MLB certainly needs to make some updates to how it runs its league (like cut the number of games in half, increase the pace of the game). Regardless, it is clearly the most austere of the professional sports leagues in the USA.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    6. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Baseball fan chiming in...

      Now, I do feel that baseball is too slow to adapt new technology. If I were commish, we'd not only have instant replay challenges, we'd be using some of that nifty cricket technology to call balls and strikes.

      But speed up the game? Aside from a few match-ups (I'm lookin' at you, Yankees-Sox), the pace is fine. A bit under three hours, same as football. I could do with fewer commercial breaks, but we all know that won't happen. And a shorter season? Why? They sell around 30k tickets a game, and the parks can't seat 60k. Besides, one of my favorite things about the game is that it's there whenever I want it. I don't need to wait for a particular day.

    7. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rugby League has led the way in the use of action replays for the referees to watch in order to review infringements and borderline decisions, typically during the act of scoring a try."

      And now referees are scared to make a decision and go to the video ref 9 out of 10 times.

    8. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Soccer hasn't even discovered stoppable clocks or clocks that count downward yet.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    9. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Dude, the ref still counts penalty time on his freaking wristwatch! something most 40-and-unders in the real world don't even own.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    10. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, there is nothing you could do to make baseball interesting. It's a close to applied statistics as you'll find anywhere, also what could you do with technology except give umpires the option to look at all the replays, maybe some sort of automated strike zone detection? Every single play in baseball has a 'correct' response and all the players know it, coaching during the game doesn't even enter into it, changing pitchers is about it. I remember reading an article about baseball back in the '80s talking about how the average baseball game has 18 minutes of play - stretched out to well over two hours. That is the definition of boring right there. If you could get a game down to an hour it might be tolerable to watch.

    11. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Why should a clock have to count downward to be able to determine a fixed length of time? And why should a play clock stop just because someone fell down and wants the ref to throw a yellow card at the other guy? Sounds like soccer's clock works pretty well compared to other sports.

    12. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      When I watch an association football/soccer game(soccer's a British word, BTW), I have no idea how much time is left in the game because they haven't yet embraced this advanced game-clock technology. Somewhere, soccer scientists are toiling away trying to figure out how to get remaining game time to display on these strange liquid crystal displays people have hanging in their homes. If only there were some way to transmit stoppage information from the referee to some kind of a signal receptor contrivance! Damn you, physics!

      On the other side of the Atlantic, I still can't watch American football on the damn internet. The American football scientists are diligently working on some kind of technology that could transmit games directly to a home computing device. Once invented, the video will flow directly from the field to my eyeballs - because of this flow I'm sure marketers will call it flooding or creeking. I look forward to a time when I can creek NFL games to my tabletop computer.

      The Canadians have us all beat, with their captured space-alien technology that allows the puck to render the boards transparent, allowing us to see it in all it's soft blue glow.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Except that when the game is over, they are still playing, and only the ref knows the magic number.

      It would be trivial to convey the ref's knowledge to the scoreboard. Nothing has to count down, just display the same number that the ref has in his head - just like the card they throw up on the sidelines at the half.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by tepples · · Score: 1

      What do most 40-and-unders carry instead? A pocket watch?

    15. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by rHBa · · Score: 1
    16. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Seriously? A cell phone. The wristwatch is one of the first things they subsumed, and long before the appearance of smartphones.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    17. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      The reason that info is not displayed is because the Ref doesn't actually have the exact figure - it is down to his discretion when to blow the whistle. He has a guideline, of course, but ultimately it is up the the primary referee to call time.

    18. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cell phone you idiot...

    19. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      Will your average cell phone give the ref minutes and seconds without any extra effort?

    20. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

      There is an argument that, unlike American Football, Association Football is not a play by play game and is free flowing with the ball often in play for 5 to 10 minutes between breaks in play for a corner, throw in or goal kick. The reluctance to "break up play" by going to the video referee for every foul or debatable decision is understandable. Additionally, the room for and level of interpretation from referees is much greater in soccer (and rugby) than in the NFL. For instance a replay of a tackle might not result in an increase in clarity as to whether a foul has occurred and the line between a foul and diving (or simulation) is often very thin.

      The lack of goal-line technology or replays to determine whether a ball has crossed the goal line (as occurred in the England vs Germany game during the World Cup) is again a topic of controversy and one that's being discussed by FIFA and is likely to be introduced by the next World Cup: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14322449.stm

    21. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I sometimes wear a watch
      easier to glance at wrist than dig out phone, especially if phone is in some mode where the simple screen with the time isn't easily accessible
      but even at my age, some of it's habit from before I had a phone

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    22. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing that baseball is the major sport on U.S. television that has no actual game clock or theoretical time limit for a game but it typically gets done in the allotted 3 hour time slot (unless there's extra innings, of course), yet the games that have actual game clocks and a defined length of play routinely run over week after week.

      Part of that is because while it has a naturally slower pace, it doesn't stop every few minutes so the officials can watch TV to decide what just happened. The thing I like most about the replay rule for home runs is that it is almost never used. As for balls and strikes, the game would lose a lot more than most imagine if it had that. There's a lot of strategy going on with every pitch finding out how the ump sees the strike zone that day, the pitcher trying to get him to see it bigger and the batter trying to make it smaller.

      One great part of the game is that with minimal equipment, a group of kids can play a game that is very much like they see on TV. They don't have to pretend there's a ball and strike computer and replay cameras with 23 angles The official rules are even written with imperfect playing fields in mind. Even at the pro level, some of the fields have well known and even celebrated imperfections.

    23. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      LOL @ discretion in the silicon age.

      A couple of high-school students could rig up a belt with buttons on it that he could jab his "estimates" at. It could even be one button that adds 30 seconds to the game. It could add these estimates up for him so he doesn't have to use "discretion", and it could even beam this number to the main scoreboard. It would be a fun class project and soccer could grow some Darwinian tech legs.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by rotor · · Score: 1

      As a Red Sox fan who doesn't live or die by how the team is doing, I probably watch more Sox-Yankees match-ups than the rest of the baseball season combined. I don't think those games are too slow-paced. Yeah - they take forever, but it's the Sox and the Yankees! I can watch that game for 6 hours with a good group of guys and be very happy about it!

      Of course, it's still better to watch how the Patriots or the Bruins are doing on any given game day.

      --
      Addlepated - punk & metal
    25. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Except that football doesn't really have a defined length of play. Sure, there's 60 minutes, but there are all sorts of rules about when the clock runs and when it doesn't. Much different than basketball and hockey, which don't have the problem of running over.

    26. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Of course they could, but that's not the point. It's a trivial thing to have exact timekeeping, but that is not the desired outcome here and it's why the Ref has discretion. No one is under any illusion that it's "high school level" technology to keep accurate game time.

    27. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Except that when the game is over, they are still playing, and only the ref knows the magic number.

      When the game is over, the game is over. When they are still playing, the game isn't over yet.

      This kind of timekeeping sure kills the defeatism of, say, football, where the team who has the ball when there is 10 seconds on the clock often just spikes the ball just to get it over with and everyone starts running onto the field before the time runs out. Can't score in ten seconds. What if it was really a minute and ten?

      Your complaint is actually a strength in soccer. The game keeps going until it is over. The players don't just give up because the time is nearly over.

    28. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      Sure, there's 60 minutes, but there are all sorts of rules about when the clock runs and when it doesn't. Much different than basketball and hockey, which don't have the problem of running over.

      explain that one. hockey and basketball both have timeouts. i don't watch much basketball, but i can tell you hockey indeed will mess with the clock. in a recent game, a faceoff was set with 0.5 seconds left in the period. the refs bumped it up to 1.5 seconds to allow the possibility of a play after the puck drop. and hockey runs over all the time, we call it overtime (imagine that). when overtime doesn't solve it, there's a shootout. in the regular season overtime is 5 regulation minutes, while during the playoffs it's a full 20 minute period. overtime is sudden death, so there's no predicting exactly when it will end.

      most people don't know jack shit about hockey.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    29. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The players don't just give up because the time is nearly over.

      You compared two very different games. Use hockey instead, which is basically soccer on ice with full contact. Hockey does not suffer at all from the criticisms you lobbed at football.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    30. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Right, thus my contention that soccer is run by Luddites :)

      We wind our watches and we LIKE it!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    31. Re:And you choose the NFL as your example? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It does have limited timeouts and a clock for how long the game can be in play. Baseball has none at all. If everyone drags their feet it could easily take more than 6 hours. It's up to the umps to keep things moving along. When the games started getting a bit long, the leagues got together and decided the umps would be a bit more insistent and as a result they're now much closer to where they should be.

  4. Make money, disregard females by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like this is the perfect to time to make niche software for the NFL. And lock them in to support contracts.

    Make bank.

  5. They do allow non-humans to compete by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    substance abuse in professional sports is so high that it is not entirely accurate to consider the sports a display of human skill--although not super-modified-cyborg-humans, they're as close as they can be without being detected by drug screenings

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by calibre-not-output · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Substance "abuse"? It's just substance use - athletes using chemical aids, steroids and hormones to improve their physical performance. I can't imagine why you'd qualify it as abuse in any way, shape or form - it's not like the athletes are hooked on steroids. They use these substances as a means to an end, not as an end in themselves.

      --
      Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
    2. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      substance abuse in professional sports is so high that it is not entirely accurate to consider the sports a display of human skill--although not super-modified-cyborg-humans, they're as close as they can be without being detected by drug screenings

      I'm not trolling here, but I honestly never understood this. Could someone explain to a non-sports person why steroids (which is what I assume you are talking about) is any different from taking vitamin supplements, diets planned by professional nutritionists, sports drink, specially designed running shoes, etc. Who cares? If it's not "fair" just allow everyone to take steroids.

    3. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      You're getting too hung up on the semantics of the word. You don't need to be addicted for it to be considered "abuse".

    4. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it is because vitamin supplements and diets are generally safe where as steroid use is not considered safe. So if some people are doing it, then in order to compete everyone needs to do it, so are forced to do something dangerous to their body.

    5. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by hldn · · Score: 1

      you realize how dangerous and punishing on the human body football itself is, right?

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    6. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Ask wrestler Superstar Billy Graham or Road Warrior Hawk how steroid "use" becomes abusive later in life.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Sure. Vitamins, diets and sports drinks don't enlarge your heart increasing the risk of heart attack by hundreds of percent. They don't render you sterile. They don't cause you to need to get your feet amputated later in life. I could go on about the dangers of steroids, but they are certainly not safe over the course of a lifetime.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    8. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Steroids don't occur in a hypothetical "normal" diet.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    9. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm under the impression that the NFL has pretty strict testing policies for steroids and hormone therapy. The NFL is a pretty solid organization, and is part of why football is so popular today.

      And I know the home run rate in MLB has really fallen off, which means the anti-steroid measures are working.

    10. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by guanxi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Could someone explain to a non-sports person why steroids (which is what I assume you are talking about) is any different from taking vitamin supplements, diets planned by professional nutritionists, sports drink, specially designed running shoes, etc. Who cares? If it's not "fair" just allow everyone to take steroids.

      A good question that's been discussed by many in sports. Here's my understanding and take:

      First, technically there are other drugs besides steriods; Human Growth Hormone (HGH), for example. I think the proper all-encompassing term is performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).

      1) The non-PEDs that you mention haven't significantly altered performance. Take baseball for example: Before PEDs, in the 75 year modern history of the home run, once someone hit 61 HRs (Roger Maris in 1961) and once someone hit 60 (Babe Ruth, 1927). Nobody else hit 60 in all those seasons by all those players. In the 4 years from 1998 to 2001, players hit 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, and 73 home runs! Look at this list and note how many top HR single seasons occurred during the PED-era, and note that the trend stopped when drug testing began. (Many other records were set during the PED-era, HRs are just an easy example; the greatest individual hitting season ever and greatest individual pitching season ever both occurred (if you ignore the cheating) during the PED era).

      2) Sports are interesting as a contest of physical ability and effort, not of chemistry. That may be arbitrary, and maybe the Chemistry Olympics would be more interesting to Slashdotters, but physical competition is what is being advertised.

      3) PEDs involve health risks. Athletes are highly competitive by nature, and the difference between a good and bad season can be a multi-million dollar contract or the end of a career, being a minor-leaguer or making the big time. Unless PEDs are regulated, athletes are put in a position where they have to take greater and greater health risks, or lose.

    11. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      On top of the health risks that others have mentioned, there's the money aspect. Everyone can afford a healthy diet, a pack of vitamin supplements, and gear that gets you close enough to compete. Cutting-edge drugs, implants and surgery, on the other hand, would be out of reach of anybody but the most well-funded athletes.

      Compare it to F1 or, even better, NASCAR: there are a ton of rules in play that make sure that it's not just the richest team that wins, even if some of the modifications are really not that different. A big example is aerodynamics in F1: a huge expense that can lead to significant improvements, even if the overall shape of the car and its safety isn't that different from that of a much cheaper car.

      In short, it's designed to keep the sport from degenerating into who has the most money, not who is the most gifted and dedicated athlete.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you realize how dangerous and punishing on the human body football itself is, right?

      Exactly, now add a very body abusing steroid regime, and you wont see a retired football player above the age of 50.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    13. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      But I think you are being too inclusive with the term "abuse". Many of these guys are allegedly using these substances without abusing them.

    14. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      I'm not trolling here, but I honestly never understood this. Could someone explain to a non-sports person why steroids (which is what I assume you are talking about) is any different from taking vitamin supplements, diets planned by professional nutritionists, sports drink, specially designed running shoes, etc. Who cares? If it's not "fair" just allow everyone to take steroids.

      Sports are intended to be a combined display of inborn talent, natural ability, training, exercise, and experience. Ultimately that is what creates the competition.

      Vitamins, dietary supplements, and the like are valid because micronutrients are necessary to the functioning of the human body. That is, you can't ban them because they're necessary for life. The same is true for food. Drugs, on the other hand, serve no nutritional purpose. That's why they're called drugs and not foods. You can't justify that your body needs them, so they don't represent a natural state you could reach through (again) inborn talent, natural ability, training, exercise, and experience.

      As far as equipment, the primary motivation for most sporting equipment -- excepting equipment required such as skis in downhill skiing or a stick in hockey -- is not performance, but safety. Metal spikes work much better on baseball shoes, but are banned because of safety reasons. Bare knuckles do much more damage in boxing, but you risk breaking or injuring your hand. In most sports you can find similar examples where regulations proscribe or restrict what can be used even though other equipment would perform much better. It's not uncommon for sporting equipment to cause controversy because of a perceived performance advantage (see clack skates, the Michael Phelps swimsuit, aluminum vs wooden bats, etc).

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    15. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The main reason is that steroids, in general are not good for you. Especially for young adults. They are also illegal in many places, not just banned by the sport, but banned by the law. Contrast that with bicycling, which outlaws coffee (well caffeine)

    16. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but if they were legal you would have doctors administrating them with proper supervision. Few if any deleterious side effects and the athlete would be at maximum healthy potential. The way it is now people take what they think they can get away with as much as they can. It would be SAFER if they were legal, but available only when the athlete is an adult.

    17. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by bartoku · · Score: 1

      If the sport is so poorly designed that raw physical prowess out weighs skill then it is probably not worth much anyway. That is why I only watch putt putt golf.

    18. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, the average age at death of an NFL lineman is something like 54. It says something about the abnormal physiology that defines them, as well as the punishment that they endure.

    19. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without being detected by drug screenings

      Drug screenings? You mean, the announced one or two per year bits of theater where the player pisses into a cup before going back for more juice? Take a look a professional bike racing, where some riders are tested hundreds of times per year - sometimes more than once per day, always if you win, or if you are in the overall lead in a multiday race. Then there's the "biological passport" where a set of biomarkers are tracked from all these tests the athlete takes for "abnormal variation" to better plan the blood or urine tests in the future. And there are still a fair number of riders doping.

      There's very little interest in the MLB, NFL or NBA in actually tacking the problem of doping. Fewer home runs, less intensity of the court, less fury on the gridiron = lower revenues. The genie is out of the bottle, and no one really wants to put it back in.

    20. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think drugs are the only reason for the contiunous record breaking we're seeing across practically all sports. Players now are "professional".

      As recently as the late 1980s my mother worked with a bloke who was a international cricketer. But he wasn't actually paid - he had to take time off from work to compete. When he ran out of leave, then he had to take leave without pay. Since 70s to now we've seen professional sports really take off - as in, it's the player's full-time and only job and the player makes a living from his pay or sponsorship.

      Now in many sports (gymanstics, swimming) professional players are picked as national level players in their early teens. Everything for these kids practically goes on hold - school, family, relationships - everything.

      When you're able to dedicate that level of full time committment to a sport then records are going to get broken.

    21. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by guanxi · · Score: 1

      I don't think drugs are the only reason for the contiunous record breaking we're seeing across practically all sports. Players now are "professional".

      As recently as the late 1980s my mother worked with a bloke who was a international cricketer. But he wasn't actually paid - he had to take time off from work to compete. When he ran out of leave, then he had to take leave without pay. Since 70s to now we've seen professional sports really take off - as in, it's the player's full-time and only job and the player makes a living from his pay or sponsorship.

      Now in many sports (gymanstics, swimming) professional players are picked as national level players in their early teens. Everything for these kids practically goes on hold - school, family, relationships - everything.

      When you're able to dedicate that level of full time committment to a sport then records are going to get broken.

      While I agree that 'professionalization' has boosted performance, it's been going on for decades and wasn't unique to the PED era. In baseball, performance leaped to extraordinary heights when PEDs were introduced, and then fell to earth when drug testing began.

      Also, how can we say how many recent records are due to PEDs and how many are due to professionalism? The records in some sports are clearly falling to PEDs, such as cycling and track & field. Hard to believe that any sport without an effective drug-testing program doesn't have a large number of performers taking them.

    22. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by calibre-not-output · · Score: 1

      Was that "later in life" that you typed there? Seems to me you're not refuting my point at all. One or two people getting carried away because they can't keep up with the younger generation does NOT mean that the "abuse" generalization should hold any water.

      --
      Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
    23. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by calibre-not-output · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to restrict the meaning of "abuse" to addiction. It also happens that most of these pro athletes do not use performance enhancers in doses or with a frequency so high that it ruins their health. Any one of these factors can constitute abuse, but most athletes don't fit in that description, even though some of them obviously do.

      --
      Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
    24. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fat people abuse candy bars - but we haven't outlawed them. Even designer steroids more closely resemble something natural then what goes into and comes of some of our junk food.

    25. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I think you are being too inclusive with the term "abuse". Many of these guys are allegedly using these substances without abusing them.

      I'm sure their shriveled testicles and tiny penis begs to differ.

    26. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Becasue they are using the drug outside it's prescribed use; hence Abuse.

      "are hooked on steroids"
      which would be addiction, and not abuse. Not the same thing.

      Dumbass.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take baseball for example: Before PEDs, in the 75 year modern history of the home run, once someone hit 61 HRs (Roger Maris in 1961) and once someone hit 60 (Babe Ruth, 1927). Nobody else hit 60 in all those seasons by all those players. In the 4 years from 1998 to 2001, players hit 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, and 73 home runs!

      It sounds to me like pitchers need to be taking more PEDs to even things out.

    28. Re:They do allow non-humans to compete by calibre-not-output · · Score: 1

      So if I prescribe you aspirin as a blood thinner and you take one for a headache, that's aspirin abuse? Don't pull definitions out of your ass, fuckface.

      --
      Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
  6. It doesn't make the game better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't make the game more enjoyable to the viewer - so in that aspect they have reason to drag their feet and not waste time or money on it.

    1. Re:It doesn't make the game better by herojig · · Score: 1

      This is so true, take last week's GB vs. Oakland: where there was a challenge - but the instant reply gizmo was broken - so the ruling on the field had to stand, even though it was clear from the audience camera that the ruling was wrong. Something has been lost, re: officiating in the electronics age, and adding more gadgets to the mix will only make it worse...

      --
      I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
    2. Re:It doesn't make the game better by hedwards · · Score: 1

      As opposed to back in the 40s when such mistakes were only known to the players and probably not even all of them. On the whole the technology has made it a lot easier to find problem officials and deal with them than in the past. Granted the mistakes are still left unfixed in most cases.

  7. Slow to adopt != Luddism by Scareduck · · Score: 2

    MLB's At Bat app for the iPhone and other phones is one of the best sports apps I've ever seen. Players have adopted iPads as a scouting aid. I don't know where the author makes the claim that sports are technophobic; perhaps a better way of putting it is that they're slow to adopt, but that's not the same thing as Luddism.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:Slow to adopt != Luddism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The author doesn't make the claim that sports are technophobic... He makes the statement that Football is technophobic... and you're talking about baseball. I'd love to flag this RTFA.. but in this case, a simple RTFSummary will suffice....

  8. Just asking. . . by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 2

    . . .why are any of these technologies necessary or beneficial to NFL football? The sole benefit I could imagine is the ability to better protect players from injury, or after an injury has occurred. Other than that, I want to see athleticism, strategy and luck, not dweebs huddled around techno-baubles.

    1. Re:Just asking. . . by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1
      Sports and stats go hand-in-hand. More statistics will enhance the public's appreciation for the game. For example, a dramatic tackle analyzed in real-time with accelerometers could be reported seconds later by the announcer:

      Wow! The running back just took a hit and experienced a force of 150G's*! He was hit at a 5-degree angle and knocked back a whole meter...

      * No lie.

    2. Re:Just asking. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then maybe a readout of how many months' worth of mental competence are subtracted from the player's lifetime with every brain-quivering hit.

      Honestly, I wrote that before I saw the /. dept.

    3. Re:Just asking. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about how much more fun it would be if there were no huddles - faster paced = more plays to enjoy. Add in the execution improvement that would come with a quarterback being able to tell a receiver to break left now or a receiver calling for the ball when the DB slips. Communication links could dramatically improve the game.

    4. Re:Just asking. . . by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Think about how much more fun it would be if there were no huddles - faster paced = more plays to enjoy. Add in the execution improvement that would come with a quarterback being able to tell a receiver to break left now or a receiver calling for the ball when the DB slips. Communication links could dramatically improve the game.

      Wow... that all would be cool. But it would be even cooler to put each player inside a giant robot like on the Power Rangers!

    5. Re:Just asking. . . by similar_name · · Score: 1

      Wow! The running back just took a hit and experienced a force of 150G's*! He was hit at a 5-degree angle and knocked back a whole meter...,

      Now that's funny.

    6. Re:Just asking. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want to see dweebs then football really isn't the game for you..

  9. Sensors ... by guanxi · · Score: 2

    First, any call regarding location could be decided electronically and instantly. Every time they position the ball after a tackle, determine a first down, out of bounds, touchdown ... no reason not to use sensors and make instant, accurate calls. No more errors, no more wasting time on replays.

    You could use sensors to decide issues of contact:Determine pass interference -- was the hit before the play? Facemasking ... roughing the kicker ... helmet-to-helmet ... sensors in receivers gloves, in the ball, and in the field to determine possession on catches ...

    Sure, sensors won't be perfect, and probably some application would turn out to be impractical, but take the refs errors out of the game, spend less time referreeing and more time playing.

    1. Re:Sensors ... by preaction · · Score: 1

      "Sure, sensors won't be perfect, ..." now instead of arguing over the imperfect calls of referees, we're arguing over the imperfect calls of computerized sensors.

    2. Re:Sensors ... by Radres · · Score: 1

      I don't think this would quite work for all calls in the game of football. For one thing, the rule on the tackle is when any part of the body other than the feet or hands touches the ground, the player is considered down. Also, when the player stops forward progress, he is considered down. I just can't see there being a system that could handle making this determination; it would require the player to wear some uncomfortable equipment and it would probably be possible for the player to interfere with that.

      Not all receivers and defenders wear gloves, or even want to wear gloves. It's difficult enough for video game football to get these rules right where they have absolute control over player positions; how could we expect there to be sensors to get this right in meat space?

    3. Re:Sensors ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      First, any call regarding location could be decided electronically and instantly. Every time they position the ball after a tackle,

      Better than that, they could track the ball's forward progress and never need a ref or ump or whatever the zebras are called. Pressure sensors in every knee and elbow pad tells us when the player was down, the computer tells us where the ball was. Position sensors tell us offsides or even count the number of players on the field. No replays, no bad calls.

      but take the refs out of the game,

      Fixed that for 'ya.

      For a season, the NHL had a tracking device in the puck so the tellyvission could follow it easier and do technical flummery with data. That seems to have gone away quick. Maybe the fans didn't like it? Why wouldn't they? It removes part of the sport from the game.

      spend less time referreeing and more time playing.

      Most of the time "refereeing" is when the clock is stopped. Less time refereeing, but not more time playing.

      Maybe next we apply this to real football and never have an incorrect offsides call again? Think the soccer fans would go for it? And, of course, all kinds of medical telemetry so we can all tell when the cheatin' Man United players fake injuries looking for a yellow card.

    4. Re:Sensors ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      For one thing, the rule on the tackle

      The introduction of technology could easily introduce changes in the rules. Don't be a luddite.

    5. Re:Sensors ... by sexconker · · Score: 1, Funny

      helmet-to-helmet

      My favorite contact sport involves slapping my uncut pecker against another man's uncut pecker.
      Circumcision is mutilation, people. Respect and celebrate the foreskin. Then slap it around like there's no tomorrow!

    6. Re:Sensors ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'Fox Tracker' puck changed the balance and feel of the puck, players hated it. They hollowed out the puck and put batteries and IR LEDs in it for tracking. It looked stupid the way the graphics worked, the blue glow obscured what the players were doing as well. With HD the puck is much easier to see, even Americans can find it! I would love to see some sort of linear strip camera along the goal line and net to get parallax and obstruction free views to see if the puck crossed the line, but there aren't too many ways to improve the use of tech in Hockey. The coaches seem to all have ipads and radio to the guys up in the booths, showing replays to the players during the commercial breaks and timeouts. I suppose you could give everyone helmet mounted radios so they could communicate easier but as it is now the players just yell to each other on the ice and it seems to work OK.

    7. Re:Sensors ... by hedwards · · Score: 1, Informative

      Pssst, you forgot to log out.

    8. Re:Sensors ... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Wha? You can't just go down to the local radio depot and get a box of magical star trek sensors. "sensors" are a broad category of various devices that allow us to automate the gathering of certain types of information, with various drawbacks and limitations.

      Without defining the rules of the sport around the properties of various sensing devices used, I doubt you could approach perfect scoring in any sport outside of, maybe, Fencing.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:Sensors ... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They didn't need it any more once high definition broadcast started gaining traction.....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:Sensors ... by MikeD83 · · Score: 1

      The glowing puck in the NHL was called FoxTrax I believe there was two reasons it did not gain traction:
      1. You're correct in saying HD televisions solved the problem of not finding the puck. But more importantly...
      2. Hockey fans didn't like it.

      Given the topic of this article, it is interesting that when this technology was brought to the NHL, people didn't like it. I'm an NFL fan, I don't want more technology. What I want is less commercials and to actually watch the game.

      This past Sunday, CBS decided to cut the first 7 minutes of the Patriot game by showing the final of the Buffalo game (which no one besides fans of the teams involved cared about.) Then they missed one of the kick-offs because they were at commercial. The NFL is looking for whiz-bang technology when they really need to get back to basics- show the freaking game.

    11. Re:Sensors ... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      no more wasting time on replays.

      You realize thats the point right? A given football broadcast game has ~11 total minutes of actual football moving action (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406.html). They have to figure out some way to fill up the extra 3 hours so fans will stay and watch the commercials. If they got rid of all the time consuming parts of the broadcast, the NFL wouldn't be raking in $9 Billion/year.

    12. Re:Sensors ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Just like getting a hair cut is mutilation, or having a mole removed.

      Circumcision has been shown, over and over again, to be healthier. Less STDs, less foreign bacterial growth, less fungus, less foreign germs.

      There are many good studies on pubmed. Not that good studies will change the mind of someone who comes into an NFL tech discussion just to mention his penis.

      Learn to think instead of just react.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Sensors ... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      You're likely in a 'secondary market' for either Buffalo or Miami. The TV rules are crazy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_on_television

    14. Re:Sensors ... by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Pssst, you forgot to log out.

      Pssst, no I didn't.

    15. Re:Sensors ... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Factually incorrect. Tons of studies have been done, and just as many show adverse effects as positive effects, and overall the differences for both are NOT statistically significant. Beyond that, there's inherent selection bias - people who are circumcised in the US are typically circumcised because their parents believe it to be healthier. The pool of circumcised men has a bias towards health conscious parents that the pool of uncircumcised men doesn't. That bias and that belief doesn't make it true. In fact, if you were to account for that bias you would find that circumcision is actually very harmful.

      But keep on believin'!

    16. Re:Sensors ... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The whole point of it was to grow the fan base with new fans. Getting rid of it (instead of toning it down, as was done with the line-o-scrimmage in NFL broadcasts) was pandering to their already existing fans, who of course didn't care about it - they were already putting up with the inability to see the puck. Perhaps the existing fans really cared more about the fights than the gameplay.

      While it was in place, I briefly considered getting into the sport. Being able to follow the play would've let me get up to speed more quickly. But it was done with so soon that I never got into it, and didn't have an HD set for several years after that. I still don't watch hockey.

      There's nothing wrong with more technology, as long as it improves the experience. It should be a natural addition, not be distracting for the fans or players, and most importantly, should absolutely not be half-assed. A while back NFL tried using a "bullet vision" type technique by placing cameras all around the stadium. But they cheap'd out on it, and didn't use enough cameras, instead using interpolation techniques to get the intermediate frames, and it looked like crap. But it could've been really awesome if they'd used enough cameras not to need the interpolation.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  10. Statstical analysis by Myria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If computers were allowed, it might have far-reaching effects. A computer could know the entire state of the game, and look through every game in history to determine the outcomes of each choice a coach has at a particular moment. It could present to the coach a list of choices along with the expected outcomes given the probabilities in the past. In a way, it would eliminate some choices of the coach.

    I think baseball would be affected much more than football. Baseball has ten times the games per year as the NFL, so statistical analysis would be more effective.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    1. Re:Statstical analysis by Threni · · Score: 2

      > A computer could know the entire state of the game, and look through every game in
      > history to determine the outcomes of each choice a coach has at a particular moment.

      Isn't that like picking this weeks lottery numbers based on up to the minute analysis of how previous draws have gone?

    2. Re:Statstical analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coaches already do this, perhaps not on a play-by-play basis, but to say that statistics haven't influenced sports is inaccurate. Pitching coaches already know where hitters are the weakest and what kind of pitches they struggle against the most, just like a good coach can pick apart a defense and find weaknesses that can be exploited by an offense. Even if computers are leveraged to make this easier or instantaneous, the meta-game will simply shift to encompass these changes and the most successful coaches will be able to compensate for these differences.

    3. Re:Statstical analysis by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      They already do that to some extent, running analysis before each game and trying to distill the most salient bits of data into things for the coach/players to memorize. I agree it'd up it another order of magnitude if they allowed it in real time, though at this point it's already a weird sort of quasi-athletic competition where how good the coach is at memorizing things is a significant factor...

    4. Re:Statstical analysis by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. One could see things like the likelihood of gaining X yards from all the times you (or others) have used a particular tactic against this particular team (or against all teams), or weigh with more math the relative risks of passing vs punting vs running a ball. I think that the communication impact would be huge, but I am certain that statistical analysis of what's the "smart" or "safe" choice (risk vs reward) of a set of plays could make things interesting from the coaching side.

    5. Re:Statstical analysis by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Isn't that like picking this weeks lottery numbers based on up to the minute analysis of how previous draws have gone?

      No, there's more to the game than mere chance. In a way it's more akin to chess, where in a given situation some moves are more likely to lead to a win than others.

      Disclaimer: I know bugger all about American football, other than it involves two goals and a ball.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:Statstical analysis by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I look forward to the day when, at the beginning of the match, the coaches will whip out laptops (or is it tablets?), type furiously, then one of them will look up and say, "you win".

      Then we can retire "professional sports" for good, and spend all that money on something useful, like education or free hookers for all the aspie nerds in colleges. ~

    7. Re:Statstical analysis by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      While that might be true, it is unlikely to make as big of a difference as you seem to think. The variables in the game are such that making consistently reliable predictions about the outcome of plays is unlikely.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Statstical analysis by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      Billy Beane did just this with sabermetrics. (The new film Moneyball is based on this).

      Long before he book and movie were made Business Week (or similar magazine) had an article about it. He stopped looking at the human equation in baseball and started looking straight at statistics. And statistics of statistics. Stuff that you wouldn't even think about considering. "He hits 90% of the balls and 45% of those hit earn him a double when the pitcher is left handed." Then started to assemble a team of cheap players that statistically worked together.

    9. Re:Statstical analysis by fermion · · Score: 1
      This may be true, but the reality is that in any environment where competition does not exist and the agents are free to set their own margins and rules, innovation is going to be slow. While computers might be able to use some form of stochastic and other analysis to predict certain parts of the game, it is unreasonable to assume that somewhere such computers are not doing exactly that and feeding information back to agents in or around the field

      The only reasonable reason to not embrace technology is because using technology to improve a product requires up front investment. As mention, most pro sports do not exist in a competitive environment, so it would be silly to invest in development that does not have a guaranteed and large return. This adverse situation to innovation is further aggravated by the fact that profits from increasingly obsolete media would likely be threatened by any real use of technology. Of course the increasingly obsolete media, an industry with only slightly more competition, is equally scared of technology as sports are about the only thing that is currently viewed in real time, which makes it valuable commodity for advertisers.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    10. Re:Statstical analysis by artor3 · · Score: 1

      They already do this in baseball. Ever see a spray chart? Here's Aaron Hill from 2009. Managers eventually caught wise. He went from ~30 HRs a year to 8 last year, because pitchers started pitching him away. And he wasn't just slumping either -- his OBP stayed about the same. He can still hit the ball just fine no matter where you throw it, but he only has the strength to knock it out of the park if its pitched inside. That's a bit of an extreme case, but managers do look at this stuff for every batter they go up against, and plan pitching strategies and field positions accordingly. Ever watch Teixeira at bat? I'm pretty sure the third baseman gets lonely, being the only one left on that half of the field.

    11. Re:Statstical analysis by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      They already do that to some extent, running analysis before each game and trying to distill the most salient bits of data into things for the coach/players to memorize. I agree it'd up it another order of magnitude if they allowed it in real time, though at this point it's already a weird sort of quasi-athletic competition where how good the coach is at memorizing things is a significant factor...

      I saw a TV show about this a year or two ago where analysts for each team would pore over years of footage of opposing teams. I'm sure franchises quickly scoop up anyone with a background in data mining. Real time analysis, however, is probably exactly why computer equipment is banned.

    12. Re:Statstical analysis by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      The thing that gets glossed over is that the "moneyball" draft of 2002 wasn't very good. Oakland had several first round picks and only the first two (Nick Swisher, and Joe Blanton) did anything significant in majors. Add to that the fact that a number of good players who had the sabermetric stats to suggest they were good were ignored, often for some really stupid reasons.

      If Beane had really stopped looking at the human equation he would have drafted Prince Fielder.

    13. Re:Statstical analysis by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Two words: chess.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    14. Re:Statstical analysis by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Two words: chess.
      Ok, One word: "One Night in Bangkok."

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    15. Re:Statstical analysis by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Lottery is random*, people have trends and abilities that can change form week to week.
      When was the last time you heard a lottery announcement where the number 6 was going to be out due to a knee injury?

      *random enough.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Easiest new tech for football: RFID in balls by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a huge focus now on scoring plays. Every time there is a scoring play, the play is reviewed to make sure the player wasn't down and that the ball actually crossed to goal line. I've always thought they could make it a lot easier on the referees, for both scoring and spotting the ball, if they put RFID or similar chips inside the balls, then put sensors at every yard line to determine where the ball was at a given point. As a football official myself, let me tell you, there is a lot of inaccuracies regarding ball spotting. A lot of the time, especially if it is an out of bounds play, they will simply spot the ball on the closest yard line (unless of course it is right by the other team's bench, then they have to be much or accurate".

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Easiest new tech for football: RFID in balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that hurt?

    2. Re:Easiest new tech for football: RFID in balls by stockard · · Score: 1

      A system like this was proposed for the 2006 World Cup, but Adidas and FIFA opted not to use it because they found some issues with it. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/2029/ I also heard somewhere that a few teams tried it in a few exhibition games (not sure if it was this same system), and the fans didn't like it because they couldn't argue with one another about whether someone actually scored or not! And since pro sports is just entertainment, you certainly don't want to alienate your fan base...

    3. Re:Easiest new tech for football: RFID in balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd hate to see touchdowns decided by RFID and announced by some huge flashing light or screen display. The crowd would likely focus as much or more on that display as they did in the players on the field.

      I would like to see some advancements - line judges are notoriously inaccurate on offside calls, it is impossible to spot a football for the next play after a 20-man fumble pile, and the did-it-cross-or-not moments are never accepted equally by all fans of both teams. But they'll have to find ways to utilize them that accentuate, rather than detract, from the experience of watching the game.

    4. Re:Easiest new tech for football: RFID in balls by fwice · · Score: 1

      The issue with RFID in the balls is rather simple.

      RFID can tell you if the ball crossed the goal line to be a score.

      RFID cannot tell you if the runner's knee was on the ground before the ball crossed the line.

    5. Re:Easiest new tech for football: RFID in balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, all you would need is three onfield sensors and use the same math that they use in satellites to know where the ball is at any given moment.

    6. Re:Easiest new tech for football: RFID in balls by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Goals in hockey are announced with a flashing light and screen display. It's not an issue.

  12. Re:NFL--not what you think by Myria · · Score: 2

    A current NFL quarterback solved two of the Clay Millennium million-dollar prizes while in undergraduate school. Goes to show that stereotypes don't always fit!

    Given the NFL's record, I don't think that anyone having been sacked a bunch of times will be able to do much more than count change when they're done.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  13. Blernsball ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe something in the direction of Blernsball, just adapted for football. People would love it.
    At least in Japan they would go crazy, I guess.

  14. Interesting, but... by tehlinux · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of advanced chess. It's an interesting idea, but I doubt anyone takes it as seriously as OTB.

    --
    Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
  15. Start with the refs by gman003 · · Score: 1

    Before they start giving quarterbacks iPads, try letting the refs use the cameras to make more informed decisions. I don't even keep up with football, but I hear constant complaints from friends and family that do about referees making "bad calls" that you can totally see on the instant replay, but apparently they aren't allowed to use that.

    (I am quite possibly completely misinformed, here - as I said, this is a problem I know exists only at second hand)

    1. Re:Start with the refs by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That applies to pretty much any sport you care to name. Part of the problem there is that what you see on the camera isn't always what happened, for various reasons the depiction on camera can be misleading in a way that one on the field wouldn't fall for. Other times the camera just has more precision than what a person can actually see.

      The flaws will remain permanently, or at least until we decide that it's OK for football to be played and judged by robots.

  16. I see it as good by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    I don't care at all for NFL. or any "major league" sport for that matter.

    I don't see the bad side of more money being invested in technology though.

  17. Keeping it accessible by sd4f · · Score: 1

    I think that it's quite silly to try to go stupid with the permitting or disallowing technology. Soccer tries to make it as accessible as possible by not allowing any technology, and their reasoning is that they don't want to play a different game to that which a lot of kids and adults play in the park. I think that's a reasonable approach, but the football i mostly watch, rugby (league and union), in particular NRL, they use video refereeing mostly for legitimate scoring purposes, which in top tier games, is somewhat reasonable as well, however the main referee, though, has to make the decision to consult the video ref.

    Using stuff like radios and tablets i think will be silly, the tech should be used to help with making the game fairer, that's about it

    1. Re:Keeping it accessible by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2

      I have some books about football history and the in the 60's and 70's there was a genuine fear that teams would use computers to replace human intellect for play calling and analysis. They had to relent as far as radio headsets for coaches/offensive coordinators and quarterbacks, because teams were using "messenger guards" to relay information into the huddle every play anyways.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  18. Meatheads and Tech by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've seen this story before. NASCAR infamously has been trying to integrate technology, yet they can't track the speed or position of any of the 42 cars on the track at a specific moment in time...they rely on 100 year old radio wave transponder technology and timing loops. "Math" consists of dividing the length of the track by the time to complete one lap to determine a car's speed. "Telemetry" consists of how far the throttle is depressed (um all the way usually) and how far to the left the wheel has been turned.

    1. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admittedly I'm not a NASCAR fan, but it does seem it's a bit more advanced that what you are reporting:

      http://storefront.nascar.com/trackpass/about/raceview

      What are all the features included in RaceView?

      Get All the Race and Driver Information You Need - LIVE!
      Instant crash and caution updates

      Streaming lap-by-lap commentary

      Real-time race information such as number of cautions, laps, race leader, number of leaders, and flag status

      Get real-time driver points and standings

      View real-time driver positions, speed, lap time, RPM, brake, throttle, and time behind the leader

      Track pit stats and times

      Includes PitCommand and Scanner FREE

      Set your driver and view preferences

      Launch RaceView from your desktop! You can place a RaceView icon on your desktop so it's even easier to watch live races.

    2. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 1

      "yet they can't track the speed or position of any of the 42 cars on the track at a specific moment in time"

      It's good you didn't say "speed AND position" I hear that gets REALLY tricky.

      --
      --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    3. Re:Meatheads and Tech by zbobet2012 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was going to mod the parent down, but instead I will reply.

      Nascar intentionally limits the data that may be sent to the announcers, as much of the data coming from the cars is considered proprietary information for each team, this is mostly done in the interest of perserving competition. The actual teams put sensors on the cars that collect a simply amazing amount of data, from tire forces, suspension forces, engine sensors, frame torque, and etc. Last I talked to the software companies that do this high end race teams in NASCAR and Forumla 1 collect over 1000 data points once every microsecond or so. It is common place practice now for teams to "tune in" there cars by doing an actual test run in the car and then placing the data into a CVD (computation vehicle dynamics) program like Optimum-G and perform tweaks to the car several times and simulate the actual test run as its much cheaper and quicker to do it that way.

      Hell, a few years ago Formula 1 placed limitations on transmissions as there was a serious concern that the engineers where automating the transmissions for the drivers based on test runs around the track. If you think that the engineers and people involved in racing in a multi-billion dollar business where winning can mean tens of millions of dollars for the team are "meatheads" you are at such a level of ignorance its astounding.

    4. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong.

      The telemetry for NASCAR is well beyond what you describe. There are hundreds of values captured hundreds of times every second ... including the steering wheel position. The engines are highly instrumented. Air pressures (Bernoulli calculations) are taken around the vehicle, tire pressures are known.

      Much of NASCAR is very limited for the safety of the drivers and I guess for historical reasons.

      As to the NFL adding technology.
      2 computers no more. 1 in a back room and 1 on the sidelines. Too much would distract from the human aspects of the game. I'd remove all radio communications and definitely not allow in-helmet radios. I'd add drug testing to Olympic levels too. Every week during the season and every other week otherwise. Living a clean life should be required to play the sport. Playing with pain meds should not be allowed.

    5. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      I hear NASCAR fans enjoy a good Heisenberg joke.

    6. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Animats · · Score: 2

      I've seen this story before. NASCAR infamously has been trying to integrate technology, yet they can't track the speed or position of any of the 42 cars on the track at a specific moment in time...

      That's a solved problem. That technology has been deployed since 1982. When we were doing a DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle, we went to talk to the Sportsvision people about precision real-time GPS. They use some tricks we couldn't; for example, they have a model of the track and can get precision GPS with fewer satellites because they know altitude for each point on the track.

    7. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're a fucking troll. I'm not a NASCAR fan but I have seen the races at the local bar from time to time and they can indeed tell the possition and speed of a car without dipshit like dividing the lap length by the lap time. Go YouTube for it and you'll see how wrong you are. And if you can't stand up and admit that you're wrong that makes you a cunt ass bitch too.

    8. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 43 cars in any given race. They sure can and do track speed and position. You're a shitty troll.

    9. Re:Meatheads and Tech by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Of course we do! I have a sign in front of my house that says:
      Heisenberg may or may not have slept here.

    10. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if he did, the odds are he was related to who he slept with.

    11. Re:Meatheads and Tech by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Heisenberg? Screw that shit, we only drink Bud Light.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    12. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last year I got to visit Andretti Racing in Indianapolis. They explained all the technology involved and it just blew my mind. They said every year they scour the rule book looking for new things to measure. Something that's been ruled out of bounds is particularly interesting because that suggests there's something about that particular technology that gives and advantage, so they try to reverse engineer it with legal technology.

    13. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You either have no idea what the fuck you're talking about or are completely stupid. Probably both.

    14. Re:Meatheads and Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I think is great is next season NASCAR if finally going to fuel injection! I think the last vehicle sole in the US with a carburetor was in the early 90s.Only 20 years after it was determined to be too crappy for every day driving, NASCAR figures it might be a good thing. The 'Car of Tomorrow' that they adopted a few years ago was a big mistake, Now all the cars look the same, I've never really liked NASCAR, just a bunch of cheaters turning left.

    15. Re:Meatheads and Tech by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Can't as in 'It's against the rules' not can't as in 'durr. we aitn knowin' hows that's doin''

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. More information = better sport by nixed3 · · Score: 4, Interesting


    This would be so great for the sport. I am a huge football fan, and for the most part, I feel that NFL referees do a decent job of officiating the game considering the phenomenal pace at which these athletes are moving (flying) around the field. Use of HD-Replay allows them to "get it right" with a rather high percentage.

    Think of the potential for this: With just a few modifications, a football can have a chip to detect where it is on the field, at any given timestamp. This can be used to practically guarantee correct calls on scoring plays. Why not take it a step further and have the ship calculate how much pressure is being exerted on the ball from the player holding it (to determine if someone has "possession")?

    However, while I feel that technological advances for the sport in general are good (sensors in the ball and on the field, referees with better access to information), I am concerned about what happens if each TEAM gets to use increasingly complex technology because then the league has to provide the same tech to every team in every game. Obviously, if one team has access to superior information/technology that the others don't it is game-breaking. You can't give one coach a live, continuous HD feed from the sky viewing all players on each player (the coveted "All 22" shot) if every coach doesn't have it.

    (I just feel the need to soap box here and point out that NBA is a completely different story, as I'm almost certain that [playoff] NBA officiating is absolutely rigged and has been for the last decade.)

    1. Re:More information = better sport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, while I feel that technological advances for the sport in general are good (sensors in the ball and on the field, referees with better access to information), I am concerned about what happens if each TEAM gets to use increasingly complex technology because then the league has to provide the same tech to every team in every game. Obviously, if one team has access to superior information/technology that the others don't it is game-breaking. You can't give one coach a live, continuous HD feed from the sky viewing all players on each player (the coveted "All 22" shot) if every coach doesn't have it.

      You should probably know, the all important "film" that players and coaches watch isn't the telecast that we see. It's specially made by the home team to do exactly what you're suggesting. You can see all 22 players, and focus in on any single one of your choosing.

      It's mandatory for every home team to make this film and distribute it to the away team, every game.

  20. Fan Engagement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Quarterbacks and defensive captains wired to every player on the field and calling plays without a huddle"

    This is a particularly bad idea for football where crowd noise is encouraged to try to impair the other team's ability to hear. The whole point of sports is the entertainment of the fans. Fans feel like they are contributing to their team when they yell and make noise. If they subvert this effort with technology, it will make the games less entertaining for the fans.

    1. Re:Fan Engagement by tehlinux · · Score: 0

      This is a particularly bad idea for football where crowd noise is encouraged

      This would not go over too well at the Clink!

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    2. Re:Fan Engagement by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You have to be kidding. Fans around here get loud enough that the players can't hear the call when the QB's trying to relay it to the players. And that most certainly does have an impact beyond what the current technology can solve. Well, without giving every single player a noise cancelling headset.

  21. Battle School by kEnder242 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anderson talking to Graff about his new job.

    "Though after years of watching those children flying, football is like watching slugs bash into each other."
        - Ender's Game

    --
    my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
  22. This just in by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    Old rich fucks with brain damage that glided their way though school find technology scary

  23. Soccer by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 2

    In UK several teams use tracking devices on players, multiple gadgets , multiple maps , so far the best result i have seen was on a software that predicted the player effort and could determine with a good accuracy is next injury, so the effort on that player could be managed. knowing that on premier players rate from 10M each it is for sure a good investment.

    As for the game rules.... we use to say , a referee that doesn't score a penalty by mistake or incopetence, as the same guilt as a striker that failed an easy goal, the referee has the right to be wrong sometimes.

  24. and this is a good thing? by apcullen · · Score: 1

    nothing mentioned in the summary sounds as though it would improve the game of football from a fan's perspective. At all. Quarterbacks wired to every player and calling plays without a huddle? Really? How does that make the game more fun to watch?

    1. Re:and this is a good thing? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Quarterbacks wired to every player and calling plays without a huddle? Really? How does that make the game more fun to watch?

      It only makes it fun if it is being done as a desperation move by a losing team running out of time, and they're doing something risky in an attempt at getting that one last score that would have them win.

      Make it "normal" and it would lose all allure.

      If you are going to get rid of the huddle, why not get rid of the play itself? Simply use modern "fantasy football" rules and decide based on the play being called and the players on the field how it will turn out. Less chance for injury to the players. Less chance for injury to the fans because there won't be as many of them driving home from the stadium drunk -- or in any other condition.

    2. Re:and this is a good thing? by GillyGuthrie · · Score: 1

      If the players weren't huddling all the time, the play clock could be reduced by a significant number of seconds... making the game much faster paced. The players wouldn't be able to keep up with the pace like this so the dynamics of the game plays would change. Also, fans would lose the beer-drinking, pissing, and eating time that is available between plays.

    3. Re:and this is a good thing? by sirroc · · Score: 1

      There really doesn't need to be a technological solution to this. Just watching the University of Oregon football team is a perfect example. While their playbook is simplistic to a pro scheme; the purpose is speed. According to ESPN, the Ducks averaged around 20'ish seconds per play. The breakneck (per football standards) pace of play easily exposes poor conditioning. The reason that they play so quickly is that every player looks to the sidelines for the play call. Not just the QB. This ensures that everyone gets the play as quickly as possible without the need to huddle.

      I feel that the NFL needs to speed up their plays. A 45 second play clock with no timeouts, as a defense effectively (not always; see Chicago v. Denver) ends the game with anything under two minutes remaining. The NCAA has the same problem.

      However, if a technological solution is needed then a broadcast to all offensive players for a play call seems appropriate.

    4. Re:and this is a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you. I like the form of football but not the violence. Change it into a form of chess or war theory without the people brutalized and injured and you have a much better game. You can watch it on TV or internet and not freeze your tail off. You won't have asst. coaches buggering kids in locker rooms.

  25. YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it would be WONDERFUL to have all that WiFi and Bluetooth traffic sailing around. I don't think they could check a stadium closely enough to find a cleverly....uh, well you can think of a million scenarios, reasons to crawl around in that traffic. From outright espionage and black hats to haXord-off script kiddies will bend, fold, spindle and generally take all the info they want,sell it, post it and generally rub the NFLs nose around in it, in a very public way. I got Kreskin and a sideshow gypsy sitting here who predict the same thing.
            Maybe they were right to keep it low tech if they want to somehow lay ownership to some photons that are God-given to every man, woman,child and dog who is not an atheist on the planet. A voice from above just told me, in fact, that information is free and we should stick to tangibles for our corporate profit needs.
    Well, I ,personally, will share any information I get with any atheists who might be interested just so they don't feel left out and we can all sit back and watch the game, the locker-room,cheerleaders dressing rooms the sidelines, from our laptops wherever that may be.Cheers!

  26. where the ball is only part of it. players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where the ball is only part of it. players foots / body / hands are a big part as well and good luck getting sensors on the body to last a full game.

  27. Re:NFL--not what you think by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

    Who would that be?

  28. Re:NFL--not what you think by WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Only one of the Clay Millennium prize has been solved and that was by a reclusive Russian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

  29. It's been a while since I've been to a pro game... by IANAAC · · Score: 2
    but back in the 90s and early 2000s I used to go to the Fiesta Bowl every year with my family as part of our yearly Christmas get together, since my parents chose to live in Phoenix later in life.

    While the game might be better than a pro game to watch, it was definitely set up to make money and draw TV viewers in.

    I'm not a huge football fan, but I would always enjoy seeing what went on to produce a college bowl game, from the way media were handled on the sidelines, to parachuters (or helicopters) flying into the stadium, to the halftime show, to what went on during the commercial breaks, and there were TONS of commercial breaks. The audience's attention would shift (and immediately) from the field to the end zone screens during every commercial break. If you looked down at the field or sidelines, it was as if the players, coaches and everyone else involved in the production were robots being suddenly switched off while all our eyes were diverted to the big screens.

    I always found that really fascinating. The few times I've been to a pro game, the slickness of it all wasn't anywhere near what the Fiesta Bowl was.

  30. Banning tech != luddites by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Banning technology is the accommodation that the league makes for allowing networks to broadcast every time a player or coach farts on the sidelines. You can't combine that kind of access with instantaneous contact with the outside world. Honestly, they should just stop the sideline bimbos from shoving mikes into every conversation between a coach and a player, but that'll never happen.

    On top of that, there's a wink-nudge system of players and coaches tipping off members of the sports media to game plans so that sportscasters can sound smart, insightful, and observant during games. You tell your former coach-turned-color-commentator that you're going to run zone blitzes all day, who then tells the audience that he "notices" lots of zone blitzing packages, then you can't very well have opposing staff members watching at home and firing off texts to their offensive coordinator.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  31. Sports should be low-tech. It's human competition. by eepok · · Score: 1

    Background: I have had multiple conversations about "athletic endeavors". I have settled on the following taxonomy.

    ***Athletic Competitions*** --- Competitions requiring athletes to physically demonstrate their athletic and applicable mental capabilities (often to their fullest extent).

    Races (human-powered): Running, Cycling, Rowing, etc.
    Sports (directly competitive scoring): Basketball, Football, etc.
    Sports (indirectly competitive scoring): Hammer-throw
    Athletic Competitions (subjective scoring): Gymnastics

    ***Non-Athletic Competitions*** -- Competitions that may or may not require athleticism for general health/well-being, but do not require the fullest extent of athletic performance in competition.

    Races (non-human-powered): NASCAR, Formula 1, Horse Racing, Yacht Racing, etc.
    Non-Athletic Competition: Sharpshooting, Competitive Drum Corp, Jazz Dance
    Non-Athletic Game: Board games, Gambling

    Many will undoubtedly argue that "you need to be in great physical shape to be a formula 1 driver" or the "formula 1 drivers are athletes", and that may be true, but in the end, formula 1 is a competition of technology, not human capability.

    Back on topic, I think that football is best without the aid of computers at the sidelines. The sport is supposed to be a competition of team power, coordination, and thinking capability. Computers on the sideline dilute the need for thinking capability. The ability to judge the probability of a defensive formation working well against an offensive play is a measure of human decision-making skills based on the ability to "feel out a game" or even do his/her own math. If computers are allowed on the sidelines, then we may as well start prepping the cyborg football league.

  32. Not techophobic by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

    Major-league sports are famously technophobic — the NFL outlaws computers and PDAs on the sidelines,

    It's not because they're technophobic. Their IT guys won't let them connect their "toys" to the network.

  33. That's crazy talk! by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    I was going to mod the parent down, but instead I will reply.

    What a radical concept! ;-)

    (For the humor impaired: I am not criticizing zbobet2012. I am commenting ironically on the tendency of people to use the moderation system as a discussion system, which is wrong.)

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  34. clock != play by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    The main reasons cited are that replays etc would interrupt the game, and since it's a free-flowing sport ... this would change the game fundamentally.

    I hate that excuse. Soccer/football is not a non-stop sport. Play stops all the time -- for injuries, throw-ins, corner kicks, etc. It's just the clock doesn't stop. This "play never stops" thing is the biggest dellusion in soccer, and I think it hurts sometimes, such as the World Cup's inability to admit it's not 1932 anymore.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:clock != play by bjorniac · · Score: 1

      Well the play does stop, and I don't know anyone who would claim otherwise. However, the game can't be stopped arbitrarily and the 'stops' are often tactically kept very short. Consider the recent world cup match Germany vs England: A shot hit the crossbar, then the ground, then the crossbar again before returning to the field. If it isn't a goal, play should continue uninterrupted, if it is, then you should stop. Do you stop the game to watch a replay? What if the ball is returned for another goal?

      Likewise, throw-ins and free-kicks are often taken quickly to press an attacking advantage - you don't give the defense time to reset particularly if you're counter-attacking. Stopping for a replay would allow defensive players to get back and break an attacking advantage.

    2. Re:clock != play by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

      Likewise, throw-ins and free-kicks are often taken quickly to press an attacking advantage - you don't give the defense time to reset particularly if you're counter-attacking. Stopping for a replay would allow defensive players to get back and break an attacking advantage.

      Okay, I see your point there.

      Certainly, *adding* a reason to stop the action would *change* the existing dynamic. But it wouldn't be the *only* time play stops, which is my point. Faking injuries to stop play is already a well-documented technique, so it wouldn't even be the worst case. Does this mean it's worth the change? That I can't say.

      And really, I don't think the game needs replays so much as it needs goal detection, which can be done in real-time nowadays, or so I'm told.

      --

      dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
      I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    3. Re:clock != play by bjorniac · · Score: 1

      I totally agree on the line calls - I'd also have it run on off-side calls if the tech could support it (it should be able to, TV replays seem to have no trouble recreating the field positions as the ball is played, and the ref only stops play when he takes note of the linesman, who could be replaced/aided by a computer indicator). Faking injuries and deliberate time-wasting are both supposed to be penalized, but largely go unpunished because it's hard to prove. I'd love to see the accuracy improvements that cricket has enjoyed brought into football (OK, soccer for Americans) and you're right that a lot of the excuses for why they aren't seem rather weak on closer inspection.

  35. The Jetsons live again! by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    I look forward to the day when, at the beginning of the match, the coaches will whip out laptops (or is it tablets?), type furiously, then one of them will look up and say, "you win".

    There was a gag in The Jetsons a lot like that. Technically the coaches were controlling robots, but otherwise it was as you describe.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  36. Science marches on by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    This is so true, take last week's GB vs. Oakland: where there was a challenge - but the instant reply gizmo was broken - so the ruling on the field had to stand, even though it was clear from the audience camera that the ruling was wrong. Something has been lost, re: officiating in the electronics age, and adding more gadgets to the mix will only make it worse...

    The problem is, you're not going to be able to stuff that genie back into the bottle. With modern televised sports, you're always going to have great instant replay. And camera coverage is only going to increase. (And think ahead a few decades to when people have implanted vision augmentation tech!) If you just ignore the tech, you just piss off everyone, who can clearly see a call was bad.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Science marches on by hjf · · Score: 1

      That's why in football (or "soccer") all that bullshit is forbidden. You can't even have the stadium's giant screen showing the game. And the referee has the last word. Fair or not, those are the rules. Why? Simply because not all football is televised, and you can't have a set of rules for "major leagues" and another for "amateurs".

    2. Re:Science marches on by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

      That's why in football (or "soccer") all that bullshit is forbidden. You can't even have the stadium's giant screen showing the game. And the referee has the last word. Fair or not, those are the rules. Why? Simply because not all football is televised, and you can't have a set of rules for "major leagues" and another for "amateurs".

      Except that people still see the replays at home/after, so they still get all pissed off.

      "Fair or not, those are the rules" is a bad reason for anything.

      Simply because not all football is televised, and you can't have a set of rules for "major leagues" and another for "amateurs".

      Why not?

      And you neglect the vision augmentation thing. When people have cameras and displays implanted in their heads, you can't just ban it. Sure, that's decades away, but it's likely to happen. Everybody is already carrying a high-resolution movie camera with them already.

      --

      dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
      I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    3. Re:Science marches on by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Football and soccer (at least in the US) do show the game on the screen at the stadium. They also show replays, including controversial calls.

    4. Re:Science marches on by hjf · · Score: 1

      It's not about getting pissed off at home. It's about players and coaches not interfering with the game to dispute every play. Football has two non-stop 45 minutes half-times. Once the ball starts rolling it keeps rolling, except for free shots and penalty shots (and if the player wastes too much time "preparing" the play he can get a yellow warning card or a red expulsion card).

      Simply because not all football is televised, and you can't have a set of rules for "major leagues" and another for "amateurs".

      Why not?

      Simple. Because here in Argentina (and many other countries) the system allows any team to play in "major leagues". They just need to win the promotion tournaments. Also, "major league" teams can go down to lower categories. Even high profile teams like "River Plate", they went down to "B" category last year. "A" teams are usually very good, have sponsors, and move millions of dollars on every match. B division is much lower than that, but they usually have their own stadiums. Even lower categories are dirt poor, completely amateur, and they mostly train just a couple of times a week. Still, they have (remote) chances of playing in higher categories. And many even do.

      Point is: soccer is a skill sport. American football is a completely different game. It's mostly boring, the ball is stopped most of the game, and almost all the game comes down to the coach's ability to read the other teams' statistics and choose plays accordingly. Soccer is 22 guys running after a ball for 90 minutes.

  37. Could lead to cheating by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    Say a guy up in the booth or even on the sidelines could place the opposing players formation on a virtual field. He could then punch in the receivers routes, ball handoffs, etc. and name the play. Or if the play was already in, that information would spring up and the information could be relayed to the defense. I don't see how that would be much different from the Patriots scandal.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  38. Pro Sports Cyber War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just THINK of all the ways technology that is used in game could be hacked for one team's advantage. WiFi networks hacked. Closed systems tapped. Think Diebold. Enter in the third party, Griefers with DoS attacks. Home field technological advantage.

    Can't wait for the commercials during those technology issue time-outs.

  39. Coaches invest in packet sniffers by Ziabatsu · · Score: 1

    Be sure to change your password before playing the Patriots. I'm waiting for the DDOS attack on their Watson powered play maker.

  40. the NFL needs another joke rival league by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone thinks the two point conversion came from college ball, but the NFL resisted it until the USFL came along in the '80s and showed that it added interest to the games. More recently, the XFL introduced sky-cams over the field. The NFL uses these sorry-ass rival leagues for R&D, just like Microsoft used Apple as their UI lab throughout the '80s and '90s.

  41. Make it pay per view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make all the football games, Pro, College, and Highschool games all pay per view.

    As an alternative, may ESPN a premium channel.

  42. Re:Sports should be low-tech. It's human competiti by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    Many will undoubtedly argue that "you need to be in great physical shape to be a formula 1 driver" or the "formula 1 drivers are athletes", and that may be true, but in the end, formula 1 is a competition of technology, not human capability.

    Funny, the first thing that came to mind from your list wasn't Formula 1, but Jazz Dance. Competitive dance looks like it requires gymnastics-lite as the cost of entry before you can even begin evaluating on skill and form.

  43. after reading the intro, bah! by pbjones · · Score: 1

    after reading the intro, why have players at all? if you suggest that there is something WRONG with not having hi-tech in sport, then you may need to rethink the core point of the game, humans vs. humans, not wired vs. wired.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  44. Re:NFL--not what you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No he didn't. Bad troll.

  45. roids and home runs by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    'roids were a factor in the home run explosion, but not the only one

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:roids and home runs by guanxi · · Score: 1

      ballparks with closer fences = easier to hit the ball out of
      diluted pitcher talent and longer seasons due to expansion (note that Maris got an asterisk on his 62 due to playing a longer season)

      To the extent these things are true, they were true before the PED era and after drug testing began, but the HRs only occurred when there were PEDs.

  46. roids and home runs by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    not to underrate the problem, but roids weren't the only factor in the home run explosion

    i suppose the roots of other factors go way back to the end of the dead-ball era

    advances in "vitamin supplements, diets planned by professional nutritionists, sports drink, specially designed running shoes, etc. Who cares? If it's not "fair" just allow everyone to take steroids" as well as advances in PED technology (contrast to Ruth's gluttony)
    ballparks with closer fences = easier to hit the ball out of
    diluted pitcher talent and longer seasons due to expansion (note that Maris got an asterisk on his 62 due to playing a longer season)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  47. "paid to play a game" by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    fun things can become work when taken to that level of seriousness. those at the top are still ridiculously well paid though

    though I'd agree that some fans take it way too seriously

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  48. blackouts by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    there's a reason those tickets aren't selling
    I'm not particularly interested in watching any more craptacular performances by the Buffalo Bills this season...

    blackouts (or blackout threats) are a big issue for them, not sure how it is elsewhere.

    sometimes teams pull tricks (including but not limited to discount tickets) in order to sell the remainder

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  49. Re:So, like F1 then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its an interesting comparison, with two strands of reply.

    1. F1 has benefited from more technology in the simple fact that fewer drivers die or suffer incapacatiting injuries each season, despite spectacular crashes that reduce the cars to pinwheeling scraps of metal, unlike similar motor-racing franchises that don't pay so much attention to circuit design, vehicle construction regulation and engine power.

    2. Telemetry and in-race driver communication has taken away much of the "driver skill" aspect of the sport. Instead of relying on a driver to understand his car and be able to judge when things need to be dealt with, they are just a person skilled in guiding the car around the track as quickly as possible.

    F1 IS boring, especially if the prime purpose for watching is the possibility of horrific mutilation and firey death right in front of you. Otherwise its just like slot-car racing. F1 is just a money-making machine for the people at the top (and I don't mean the drivers in this context). It looks like NFL have seen this and want to emulate the methodology for similar rewards.

  50. Maybe they can take a tip from FOX Sports by msobkow · · Score: 1

    FOX Sports made a shambles of hockey with their lazer light highlighting of the puck for people too lazy to pay attention to the game.

    Maybe they can have the football leave tracers now, too. :p

    Technology has no place in some arenas, and playing games is one of them. Games should not be such a serious business. They're games.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Maybe they can take a tip from FOX Sports by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, shambles. I mean, it complete distracted from the fights, name calling, and fans screaming obscenities in front of kids.

      It almost had people who where looking at the sport might actual get interested.

      Ice Hockey is played by thugs, and cheered by thugs.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Maybe they can take a tip from FOX Sports by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      right. instead of fights on the ice, at baseball or football games you get fights in the crowd or parking lot. name calling and screaming obscenities in front of kids are not exclusive to hockey either, that's a really stupid thing to imply. you have no idea what a thug is.

      fans didn't like the foxtrax puck effects because it distracted from the already complex situations occurring during the play. watching the puck is (brace yourself for a shocker) not always the most important thing, it's not tennis. a real hockey fan is also looking at other players' positions on the ice, like the goalie who might be out of position or the defensemen who might be outside the zone and too far away to keep the puck in, or the forecheckers who are backing out of the zone in anticipation of a breakaway, or the line change off the bench where there might be too many men on the ice....

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  51. football also stretched out by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    football is also stretched out

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406.html
    also note how little you miss and how much faster the game is via DVR

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  52. Rugby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American rugby has nothing in common with football

  53. american football 2min warning, soccer extra time by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    in the early days of American football, those on the field weren't aware of the timekeeper's exact number - hence the two-minute warning, a tradition carried over even with clock info available

    yeah, why doesn't soccer stop the clock if the ref is just going to add extra time anyways?

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  54. It is a horrible game anyway so you can't make it by Occams · · Score: 0

    I can't believe this. I attempted to watch a game of this form of football on TV last night. The average length of a play was about 3.5 seconds, with a wait inbetween plays of many times that duration. During the breaks they changed players, and sometimes almost the whole team to substitute specialists: not to mention the TV commercials. With all these breaks the pace was so slow that I found it simply impossible to maintain an interest in the game. The several coaches of each team were clearly in radio contact with key players and all players were heavily armored. Rarely was the ball actually kicked. This is not football folks. Rather, it is some kind of lame board game played by turns. The cheating has been institutionalised into the rules - like using radio communications to warn and instruct, and replacing players with specialists for just one play. Football should be a fast athletic game of kicking and catching from all players, with two teams all in action and no more, and substitutes permitted only for injured players. Now to seriously suggest that there is insufficient technology in this game is simply ludicrous. This was once a real team sport akin to rugby, but too many interests have slowed it down, and dumbed it up, until there is almost nothing left. There is no grace and beauty. Certain players are admirable only for being massively over-weight and therefore immovable. The rest of the world thinks it is awful, and refuses to play. So it will never be anything more than an example of how Americans can ruin a sport, and Americans will never amount to much in real international football.

    --
    Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
  55. Or... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    You could just let the guys crush each other, watch it, and enjoy the mayhem.
    You know, entertainment and all that?

    Seriously, some of these posts sound more like doctoral research projects rather than a sports game. Pressure sensors in cleats, proximity sensors in receivers' gloves, GPS tracking on the football (is Russia gonna steal it?). There is nerd level and then there is "whacking off to his new GPU board" level.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  56. Re:Sports should be low-tech. It's human competiti by Bravoc · · Score: 1

    I agree 100%. Next thing you know, we'll have iPads at chess tournaments to make them "more high tech". Just because we have technology, does not mean we need to apply it. WTF?

  57. future... by ManosLijeros · · Score: 1

    In 2015, Skybowl became self-aware...

  58. The REAL challenge... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

    It'll be interesting to see how they manage to implement new technologies while still maintaining the same broadcast length. The reason the NFL pulls in $9billion/year is because millions of rabid fans are glued to game broadcasts (and thus advertisements) for 3 hours blocks at a time. If they put sensors in the ball to tell you where it was every time and wireless communication to eliminate huddles, that'll cut the broadcast time down significantly, thus reducing revenue. The average football broadcast contains 11 minutes of total new football action. The rest is all replays, huddles, measurements, timeouts, challanges etc. If you had to replace all of that with an ad, their revenue might jump for a bit but I'd imagine it would fall off drastically as people got wise.

  59. Why? Because... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    ...they're jocks, not nerds? ;)

  60. Bread and circuses. by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    Why not? It's not like they're really sporting events anyway. It's just another form of entertainment. Who cares if the players are cyborgs? Their job is to injure themselves in order to amuse people.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  61. Exploitable Advantage by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Professional athletes have an exploitable advantage in life. They are more physically fit and graceful than the average person. They use this to play a game and are compensated much higher than the average person.

    I do not have this advantage. I do however have the ability to break down and solve complex technical problems. I exploit this to my advantage. I make more than the average person as well. I do not make as much as a professional athlete yet I enjoy what I do.

    You can call it fair or unfair, but in the end we all take advantage of the talents and skills that we possess naturally and/or develop through practice.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  62. Let it be...Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the NFL wants to do some of the things the article writer wants, then it will....don't force it. Why do you people have to meddle in everything for "progress", leave it the hell alone.

  63. For all those bashing Pro Sports by lordmage · · Score: 1

    I am sure they are "Crying" all the way to the bank. Get over it, there are way too many people who enjoy professional sports and a large market that I am sure Albert is just whining about some Anonymous Coward hates that he is making 22 million a year playing a sport where he bashes a ball past a fence.

    If you paid to go see your local chess masters at work, or paid to see a slashdotter present, then maybe they will get the 22 million instead of someone else.

    Btw, are you also saying Performance Drugs should be disallowed? How many of you drink Caffeine or do some 5 hour energy drink just to pass some test in school. Should we ban you from doing your chosen profession?

    Nope, not an Anonymous coward here.

    --
    I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
    1. Re:For all those bashing Pro Sports by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "How many of you drink Caffeine or do some 5 hour energy drink just to pass some test in school."
      Caffeine does not help you pass a test.

      And yes, ban performance drugs. There is enough pressure on the athlete to compete, not having a ban just means they will be pressured into to taking even more dangerous enhancement drugs. Don't be a simpleton.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  64. Entertainment by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Except that at least they are competitive. Unless you are consistent, you don't pull the big salaries. You must dedicate your entire life. Explain to me the millions Johnny Depp makes for playing make believe. He can go off an do crappy low budget art movies. The only time you see a pitcher do anything like that, it's a charity golf tournament.

    And unless you're Jackie Chan, there's not much danger of a permanent or life threatening injury.

    --
    I8-D
  65. It's still going to be incredibly boring by toxonix · · Score: 1

    The only thing that could possibly improve the NFL is the introduction of edged weapons. Football, basketball, baseball are all sports that require one ball. Auto racing however, requires...

  66. Soccer luddites by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    It's not about getting pissed off at home. It's about players and coaches not interfering with the game to dispute every play.

    So don't let the players and coaches dispute anything. Place the technology under the control of the officials.

    Football has two non-stop 45 minutes half-times.

    Soccer/football is not a non-stop sport. Play stops all the time -- for injuries, throw-ins, corner kicks, etc. It's just the clock doesn't stop. This "play never stops" thing is the biggest dellusion in soccer, and I think it hurts sometimes, such as FIFA's inability to admit it's not 1932 anymore.

    if the player wastes too much time "preparing" the play he can get a yellow warning card or a red expulsion card).

    Can, but often doesn't. At least, not in the Cup matches I've seen.

    Simply because not all football is televised, and you can't have a set of rules for "major leagues" and another for "amateurs".

    Why not?

    Simple. Because here in Argentina (and many other countries) the system allows any team to play in "major leagues".

    That still doesn't explain why technology must be forbidden. I'm not talking about changing game mechanics. Just allowing for things like goal detection or honoring of replay evidence. With modern technology you can replay something in a matter of seconds. If this was under the control of an off-field official they could signal the referee if they saw something. You don't off to stop play unless there's an infraction. Similar to how the linesmen work. Add in two-way hands-free radios to make communication easier.

    American football is a completely different game.

    I'm not talking about US football here.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.