Reed83HOF Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk 39m39 minutes ago The Patriots proposed requiring cameras to be placed on every sideline, goal line and end line for better instant replay angles. I'm sure they will only use them for replay purposes....
Beef Jerky Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Well it won't be for the teams OP... It is for the Refs.
ddaryl Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Well it won't be for the teams OP... It is for the Refs. its the cheatriots there is a motive
Beef Jerky Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 its the cheatriots there is a motive No they just usually have good ideas.
White Linen Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Isn't there now? It appears every line is covered to me.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 All Pats jokes aside this is a great idea. I never understood why this didn't happen. Why are there not cameras on the 1st down line, sideline or goal line? There is no reason that a play on the boundary should ever be ruled inconclusive because they didn't have a good angle.
NoSaint Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) All Pats jokes aside this is a great idea. I never understood why this didn't happen. Why are there not cameras on the 1st down line, sideline or goal line? There is no reason that a play on the boundary should ever be ruled inconclusive because they didn't have a good angle.it blows my mind that they dont have better camera angles on the secondary games. SNF and MNF are usually pretty reliable but when the bills play the jags on sunday afternoon there should still be about a half dozen basic shots that are required. just crazy that a sport so huge neglects that basic framework at each game. i know its an expense but.... Edited March 18, 2015 by NoSaint
Malazan Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Well it won't be for the teams OP... It is for the Refs. Of course. Pats were just taping other teams signals for the sake of Football history too.
Reed83HOF Posted March 18, 2015 Author Posted March 18, 2015 Well it won't be for the teams OP... It is for the Refs. /Sarcasm (with a hint of skepticism) It really is a good idea and necessary... it blows my mind that they dont have better camera angles on the secondary games. SNF and MNF are usually pretty reliable but when the bills play the jags on sunday afternoon there should still be about a half dozen basic shots that are required. just crazy that a sport so huge neglects that basic framework at each game. i know its an expense but.... Just give it to them...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 All Pats jokes aside this is a great idea. I never understood why this didn't happen. Why are there not cameras on the 1st down line, sideline or goal line? There is no reason that a play on the boundary should ever be ruled inconclusive because they didn't have a good angle. Agreed. I'm completely guessing, but I'd bet it has to do with how expensive those network cameras are and who's on the hook to supply them, the networks or the league? I can see the networks being upset about having to provide more cameras per game, but the league surely can do it on its own. Still, it's 2015. certainly they can find cheaper (and still effective) alternatives. Hell, Modern Family just filmed an entire episode with only iPads and iPhones.
GG Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Still, it's 2015. certainly they can find cheaper (and still effective) alternatives. Hell, Modern Family just filmed an entire episode with only iPads and iPhones. and it showed
Kirby Jackson Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Agreed. I'm completely guessing, but I'd bet it has to do with how expensive those network cameras are and who's on the hook to supply them, the networks or the league? I can see the networks being upset about having to provide more cameras per game, but the league surely can do it on its own. Still, it's 2015. certainly they can find cheaper (and still effective) alternatives. Hell, Modern Family just filmed an entire episode with only iPads and iPhones. I am not a big proponent of "the human element" type of stuff. If there is a way to get a call correct that should be the goal. The pace of the game is less important to me. I think back to the "Fail Mary" and that kind of stuff just is not acceptable. If there is a method to lessen errors than by all means it should be enacted.
ddaryl Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 No they just usually have good ideas. no there just the cheatritos
Rivermont Mike Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 They should put cameras on their lower-level employees, equipment managers, and in the facilities bathrooms. Those seem to be "problem areas," historically, for the Pats*
K-9 Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Isn't there now? It appears every line is covered to me. The number of cameras varies depending on whatever the networks decide to commit to a particular game. The bigger the game, the more resources committed, usually. Other games, say between Tampa Bay and Oakland, are covered by a sketch artist in comparison. I suppose the league could provide their own dedicated cameras and crews each game but I doubt they would want to spend the money to do it. Bottom line is there is a big disparity between replay capabilities from game to game. GO BILLS!!!
Peter Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 All Pats jokes aside this is a great idea. I never understood why this didn't happen. Why are there not cameras on the 1st down line, sideline or goal line? There is no reason that a play on the boundary should ever be ruled inconclusive because they didn't have a good angle. I agree 100%.
NoSaint Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 The number of cameras varies depending on whatever the networks decide to commit to a particular game. The bigger the game, the more resources committed, usually. Other games, say between Tampa Bay and Oakland, are covered by a sketch artist in comparison. I suppose the league could provide their own dedicated cameras and crews each game but I doubt they would want to spend the money to do it. Bottom line is there is a big disparity between replay capabilities from game to game. GO BILLS!!! right - youd think in the TV contract theyd write in standards as a minimum
BillsfaninSixburgh Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 The number of cameras varies depending on whatever the networks decide to commit to a particular game. The bigger the game, the more resources committed, usually. Other games, say between Tampa Bay and Oakland, are covered by a sketch artist in comparison. I suppose the league could provide their own dedicated cameras and crews each game but I doubt they would want to spend the money to do it. Bottom line is there is a big disparity between replay capabilities from game to game. GO BILLS!!! If the NFL can mandate that all balls in all games be inflated to a consistent PSI to keep the playing field level and make sure their is no competitive advantage one-team has over another, then it should apply to the same standard of consistency to the camera shots available in all games at all sites if they are going to be used to assist in officiating the games. It shouldn't matter the so-called importance or market appeal of the game. For example, if in Week 17 Pats playing Broncos for home field advantage 1-2, Colts playing Bucs and a Colts win gets them 2 if Broncos lose and fall to 3 if Broncos lose. Pat-Broncos have 20 cameras, Colts-Bucs have 8 cameras. Broncos lose, but unfortunately for the Colts, the Buccaneers upset them on a last second controversial call that would have been overruled if their was 20 cameras. This rule is a no-brainer and has been for a long time(even if the Cheatriots proposed it).
NoSaint Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 If the NFL can mandate that all balls in all games be inflated to a consistent PSI to keep the playing field level and make sure their is no competitive advantage one-team has over another, then it should apply to the same standard of consistency to the camera shots available in all games at all sites if they are going to be used to assist in officiating the games. It shouldn't matter the so-called importance or market appeal of the game. For example, if in Week 17 Pats playing Broncos for home field advantage 1-2, Colts playing Bucs and a Colts win gets them 2 if Broncos lose and fall to 3 if Broncos lose. Pat-Broncos have 20 cameras, Colts-Bucs have 8 cameras. Broncos lose, but unfortunately for the Colts, the Buccaneers upset them on a last second controversial call that would have been overruled if their was 20 cameras. This rule is a no-brainer and has been for a long time(even if the Cheatriots proposed it). i wouldnt even say equal, but a better minimum standard. a meaningless week 17 game between two 2-14 teams and Super bowl will have different coverage standards, and that doesnt bother me- but i think there are some basics that definitely get left out of the smaller games.
BillsfaninSixburgh Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 i wouldnt even say equal, but a better minimum standard. a meaningless week 17 game between two 2-14 teams and Super bowl will have different coverage standards, and that doesnt bother me- but i think there are some basics that definitely get left out of the smaller games. HOFer ....I agree with your "minimum standard point". However, the NFL's ridiculous popularity is due in no small part to betting (both legal and illegal), and fantasy football. Having lost bets and fantasy football contests that hinged on things that happened in meaningless games between irrelevant teams that were 2-14 in the last week of the season, there should be a consistent standard that applys. The NFL can't publicly acknowledge that, but they know that bettors and fantasy footballers are part of the market they crave, so for a multi-billion dollar enterprise, a consistent standard should be applied.
Recommended Posts