Peter Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Belichick wants league to have cameras at end of each goal line Belichick has asked the league to place cameras at the end of each goal line. He is absolutely correct. Why in the world would the league not implement this as standard practice is beyond me. This drives me crazy every time the league/networks do not have camera directly on the goal line when there is a controversial call at the goal line. They also should have a camera directly on the side line. When Carr "scored" his "TD," there should have been a camera angle that could have shown whether he was out of bounds before the ball cross the goal line.
VABills Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 No it wouldn't have seen his foot go out, first off. Secondly the coach has got to ask to have it reviewed and MM didn't.
BuffalOhio Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Here here! And since Belichick is asking for it, and he's a darling of the league, it'll probably happen.
scribo Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 I think technology can do better than cameras. At this point there is no reason to not have some type of sensors on the ball and at the goal line. Then there would be NO question as to whether it reached the goal line. Of course, that would have to be used in combination with cameras to see if the ball carrier was down or out of bounds.
plenzmd1 Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Belichick wants league to have cameras at end of each goal line Belichick has asked the league to place cameras at the end of each goal line. He is absolutely correct. Why in the world would the league not implement this as standard practice is beyond me. This drives me crazy every time the league/networks do not have camera directly on the goal line when there is a controversial call at the goal line. They also should have a camera directly on the side line. When Carr "scored" his "TD," there should have been a camera angle that could have shown whether he was out of bounds before the ball cross the goal line. 447774[/snapback] Especially when you consider the disparity of coverage not only by the differant networks, but even game to game on the same network. Some games have 6 cameras, some have 10. Wonder if having a game in Hi_Def makes any differance to the reply calls. With so much on the line in every game in the NFL, I agree every stadium should have the same exact views for all plays.
Fan in Chicago Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Especially when you consider the disparity of coverage not only by the differant networks, but even game to game on the same network. Some games have 6 cameras, some have 10. Wonder if having a game in Hi_Def makes any differance to the reply calls. With so much on the line in every game in the NFL, I agree every stadium should have the same exact views for all plays. 447794[/snapback] I agree, inventions such as these have changed tennis also where there is now no question about line calls. But the key here is that it needs to be done for all stadiums or none at all.
Peter Posted September 20, 2005 Author Posted September 20, 2005 Especially when you consider the disparity of coverage not only by the differant networks, but even game to game on the same network. Some games have 6 cameras, some have 10. Wonder if having a game in Hi_Def makes any differance to the reply calls. With so much on the line in every game in the NFL, I agree every stadium should have the same exact views for all plays. 447794[/snapback] You are absolutely correct. With the billions that the NFL makes, there is no excuse for not having consistency throughout the league and with each game.
nick in* england Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 I think technology can do better than cameras. At this point there is no reason to not have some type of sensors on the ball and at the goal line. Then there would be NO question as to whether it reached the goal line. Of course, that would have to be used in combination with cameras to see if the ball carrier was down or out of bounds. 447783[/snapback] Nahh the sensor thing would make balls too expensive. They tried it in the NHL with puck sensors - each puck cost $200 and each time the lost a puck to the crowd they lost $200. Also - how would a sensor know whether the player was down before the ball crosses the goalline or not? A goalline camera is a smart idea - but even then if there is a mass of bodies how can the replay official TRULY know if the ball crossed the plan before the player is downed? Nice idea - but should remain at the idea stage only.
nick in* england Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 With so much on the line in every game in the NFL, I agree every stadium should have the same exact views for all plays. 447794[/snapback] That's why there are 6 refs on the field and we don't ref football games by video. It's not broke and it don't need fixing.
VABills Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 That's why there are 6 refs on the field and we don't ref football games by video. It's not broke and it don't need fixing. 447819[/snapback] seven
nick in* england Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 seven 447821[/snapback] duh - yeah my bad.
VABills Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 duh - yeah my bad. 447823[/snapback] Referee Umpire Head Linesman Line Judge Back Judge Field Judge Side Judge
KRC Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 RefereeUmpire Head Linesman Line Judge Back Judge Field Judge Side Judge 447824[/snapback] 8 - Replay judge. You are both wrong.
VABills Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 8 - Replay judge. You are both wrong. 447827[/snapback] He said "on the field " Friggen moron.
Thailog80 Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 BB cries because Stephen Davis touchdown beat his little patsies....boo hoo Billie you've had plenty of BS'ers called your way.
Ramius Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 No it wouldn't have seen his foot go out, first off. Secondly the coach has got to ask to have it reviewed and MM didn't. 447777[/snapback] We wont know for sure, because the Bills had no timeouts, therefore Mularkey couldnt have challenged it...so quit your anti-mularkey crusade already
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 I think technology can do better than cameras. At this point there is no reason to not have some type of sensors on the ball and at the goal line. Then there would be NO question as to whether it reached the goal line. Of course, that would have to be used in combination with cameras to see if the ball carrier was down or out of bounds. 447783[/snapback] right I believe with RFID installed in football and a set of sensors we actually might be able to elliminate the measuring of a first down, placement issue of ball, whether ball broke plain of the goal line etc. The technology is there we dont need freaking cameras.
KRC Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 He said "on the field " Friggen moron. 447828[/snapback] He also said 6 refs on the field. You came back with 7. If you want to play the semantic game, there is only 1 Referee. Again, you are wrong.
VABills Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 We wont know for sure, because the Bills had no timeouts, therefore Mularkey couldnt have challenged it...so quit your anti-mularkey crusade already 447833[/snapback] And why didn't we have any timeouts left? I believe we still had one left at that point BTW.
scribo Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 And why didn't we have any timeouts left? I believe we still had one left at that point BTW. 447843[/snapback] The Bills had ZERO timeouts left at that time. So, no, MM could not challenge it. I am sure of it. But, you're right, VA, why did the team squander all its timeouts that early?
Recommended Posts