Bob, your first answer is why I've followed your writing for so long. I think the maddening thing about football for me is that it's such a great casual sport to enjoy, but it also makes some people boil complex systems down to easy concepts like "stale" or "uninspired".
I love that your work makes football more accessible without resorting to hot takes - I hope more people pay attention.
Going to add this here, and it's something I've been blathering on about for years but especially after the launch of VAR in soccer. And it goes like this:
If we’re going to insist on video replay - it should be withOUT slo-mo.
Use all the camera angles you want, but only view replays in real time.
If it can’t be deduce from multiple, at full-speed, replays that something different than what was called on the field (by the trained human rules expert hired to do the job, usually standing just feet away from the incident in question) - stands.
It's my belief this creates a compromise between those insisting on using modern technology to resolve clear and obvious errors by humans and those of us bored and frustrated by "Zapruder'ing" replays to death for so long that full commercial breaks take place.
Interesting take. I will banter your blatherings among my sports-crazed brethren and we will berate, bloviate and bemuse ourselves with the merits of it all. That sounds actually like a pretty fair compromise - in my best Cal Naughton Jr voice.
Also: "But, as I watch these baseball playoffs, I am still not close to accepting the humans calling the strike zones when they are off so often."
So much this. Holy cow, the strike zone calls have been atrocious and clearly have swung momentum in every game. So stupid not to get that correct - almost as bad as the spotting of the ball in football.
Need robot umps for balls and strikes. The human plate umpire wears an earpiece or buzzer and calls what the 3D camera-fed AI registers. Now you remove the possibility of human error whether due to getting fooled by pitch movement or subconsciously favoring veteran superstars over less proven players.
Agree 100% on the lousy strike zone calls in Astros/Rangers games. Variably high, low, and wide is not a strike zone and screws with the batter's head. It's been every game and with every ump. I read a pretty in-depth article about the electronic strike zone being tried out in AAA. The players preference is not for AI to call every ball and strike but for teams to be able to challenge the calls when deemed important/worthwhile and use the AI replay then. There were some surprising reveals and conclusions about the system that I was not aware of.
ah yes... very good point. up front, I am wholly ignorant about baseball. I mostly understand the rules and the game, but don't watch and am not a "fan".
But the strike zone, I assume, falls into a category of rules that are binary decisions. "Yes/No, In/Out"
Like in tennis, the use of HawkEye tech to decide if a ball is in or out, is a wonderful addition to sport, just as Goal Line Tech has been to soccer to decide if a ball has "100% crossed the line" for a goal. Again, remembering I'm baseball dumb - I assume the strike zone is a black and white space and not some vague concept or idea left up to a human to mentally mark out. So, using a computer to make these calls totally makes sense and does solve what is turning out to be a real issue (one I guess everyone has suspected/known about for generations).
If the rules of baseball though, are written for the strike zone to be subjective so that a human can decide what is a strike based on the hitter's size, position, etc - then I think computers calling it becomes a matter of re-writing the rule to match modern times.
I don't understand this part of the game - so take whichever answer I gave as appropriate and run with that as my opinion.
The Newcastle/Arsenal (Arsenal fan here) game just ended and this is what I mean about VAR/SkyJudge not being a slam dunk. We have refs in the EPL afraid of making calls on the field and deferring to VAR to intervene but VAR doesn’t want to intervene and conflict with the calls on the field because “they’re mates” and there are only specific instances when VAR is allowed to intervene.
I agree with you I think in principle that replay is good. And that we should review things. But the guys on the field have to be trying to make the right calls on the field and not afraid to make the wrong ones. If that’s what VAR brings, then it is a net negative in my opinion.
Black and white stuff like strikes and balls, ball out of bounds/in-bounds, give me all the robots and replays you can give me. Judgment calls involve human decision and humans are complicated and conflicted and not objective. If the ref is afraid of making the wrong call on the field and thinks the replay team will bail him out if his no-call is severe enough and the replay team is constricted by where they can and can’t intervene and doesn’t want to make the ref look stupid (which we also saw some evidence of in the challenge penalty year in the nfl), then the system doesn’t work even if it’s objectively a good idea. Doesn’t matter if the parts (people) don’t work.
I also want the record to show I don’t think Arsenal deserved to win or even a point maybe. When you can’t create opportunities, tough to argue you deserve points especially when you fancy yourself a top team. But that game should have finished 11v10 or 10v10 cause head hunting is a coward or whatever. I’m unhappy.
My point is that I am not anti-reply in principle. But in practice it has ripple effects that are potentially more negative because some of these decisions are judgment calls. And I need my referees to be actively making judgment calls, and not passively ignoring them hoping someone else will clean up a mess if I make a mistake while the cleanup crew admittedly doesn’t want to step in and show up the ref on the field. Hope that makes sense. End rant.
One small note on the motion point: the cowboys do use motion but they’re near the lowest in the league at motion at the snap, which unlocks another layer of value to the whole thing. They Turpin deep TD, for example, he was in motion at the snap and the defenders weren’t able to get into his body and press him like they were doing the rest of the game
Fear based/risk averse probably does explain a lot of the offensive scheme and play calling issues. It may be an overreaction to Daks INTs from last season. It also seems MM is dead set on winning TOP. I’d guess our lack of presnap shifts and motions is from fear of presnap penalties. Sigh.
Unfortunately that all limits any real creativity and has us slamming TP up the middle far too often. I heard MM talk about self scouting as a big focus during the bye week so I’m wondering if he’ll adjust.
Bob, your first answer is why I've followed your writing for so long. I think the maddening thing about football for me is that it's such a great casual sport to enjoy, but it also makes some people boil complex systems down to easy concepts like "stale" or "uninspired".
I love that your work makes football more accessible without resorting to hot takes - I hope more people pay attention.
Going to add this here, and it's something I've been blathering on about for years but especially after the launch of VAR in soccer. And it goes like this:
If we’re going to insist on video replay - it should be withOUT slo-mo.
Use all the camera angles you want, but only view replays in real time.
If it can’t be deduce from multiple, at full-speed, replays that something different than what was called on the field (by the trained human rules expert hired to do the job, usually standing just feet away from the incident in question) - stands.
It's my belief this creates a compromise between those insisting on using modern technology to resolve clear and obvious errors by humans and those of us bored and frustrated by "Zapruder'ing" replays to death for so long that full commercial breaks take place.
Interesting take. I will banter your blatherings among my sports-crazed brethren and we will berate, bloviate and bemuse ourselves with the merits of it all. That sounds actually like a pretty fair compromise - in my best Cal Naughton Jr voice.
Also: "But, as I watch these baseball playoffs, I am still not close to accepting the humans calling the strike zones when they are off so often."
So much this. Holy cow, the strike zone calls have been atrocious and clearly have swung momentum in every game. So stupid not to get that correct - almost as bad as the spotting of the ball in football.
Need robot umps for balls and strikes. The human plate umpire wears an earpiece or buzzer and calls what the 3D camera-fed AI registers. Now you remove the possibility of human error whether due to getting fooled by pitch movement or subconsciously favoring veteran superstars over less proven players.
Agree 100% on the lousy strike zone calls in Astros/Rangers games. Variably high, low, and wide is not a strike zone and screws with the batter's head. It's been every game and with every ump. I read a pretty in-depth article about the electronic strike zone being tried out in AAA. The players preference is not for AI to call every ball and strike but for teams to be able to challenge the calls when deemed important/worthwhile and use the AI replay then. There were some surprising reveals and conclusions about the system that I was not aware of.
ah yes... very good point. up front, I am wholly ignorant about baseball. I mostly understand the rules and the game, but don't watch and am not a "fan".
But the strike zone, I assume, falls into a category of rules that are binary decisions. "Yes/No, In/Out"
Like in tennis, the use of HawkEye tech to decide if a ball is in or out, is a wonderful addition to sport, just as Goal Line Tech has been to soccer to decide if a ball has "100% crossed the line" for a goal. Again, remembering I'm baseball dumb - I assume the strike zone is a black and white space and not some vague concept or idea left up to a human to mentally mark out. So, using a computer to make these calls totally makes sense and does solve what is turning out to be a real issue (one I guess everyone has suspected/known about for generations).
If the rules of baseball though, are written for the strike zone to be subjective so that a human can decide what is a strike based on the hitter's size, position, etc - then I think computers calling it becomes a matter of re-writing the rule to match modern times.
I don't understand this part of the game - so take whichever answer I gave as appropriate and run with that as my opinion.
Bob, first, go Rangers. Woo!
The Newcastle/Arsenal (Arsenal fan here) game just ended and this is what I mean about VAR/SkyJudge not being a slam dunk. We have refs in the EPL afraid of making calls on the field and deferring to VAR to intervene but VAR doesn’t want to intervene and conflict with the calls on the field because “they’re mates” and there are only specific instances when VAR is allowed to intervene.
I agree with you I think in principle that replay is good. And that we should review things. But the guys on the field have to be trying to make the right calls on the field and not afraid to make the wrong ones. If that’s what VAR brings, then it is a net negative in my opinion.
Black and white stuff like strikes and balls, ball out of bounds/in-bounds, give me all the robots and replays you can give me. Judgment calls involve human decision and humans are complicated and conflicted and not objective. If the ref is afraid of making the wrong call on the field and thinks the replay team will bail him out if his no-call is severe enough and the replay team is constricted by where they can and can’t intervene and doesn’t want to make the ref look stupid (which we also saw some evidence of in the challenge penalty year in the nfl), then the system doesn’t work even if it’s objectively a good idea. Doesn’t matter if the parts (people) don’t work.
I also want the record to show I don’t think Arsenal deserved to win or even a point maybe. When you can’t create opportunities, tough to argue you deserve points especially when you fancy yourself a top team. But that game should have finished 11v10 or 10v10 cause head hunting is a coward or whatever. I’m unhappy.
My point is that I am not anti-reply in principle. But in practice it has ripple effects that are potentially more negative because some of these decisions are judgment calls. And I need my referees to be actively making judgment calls, and not passively ignoring them hoping someone else will clean up a mess if I make a mistake while the cleanup crew admittedly doesn’t want to step in and show up the ref on the field. Hope that makes sense. End rant.
One small note on the motion point: the cowboys do use motion but they’re near the lowest in the league at motion at the snap, which unlocks another layer of value to the whole thing. They Turpin deep TD, for example, he was in motion at the snap and the defenders weren’t able to get into his body and press him like they were doing the rest of the game
Fear based/risk averse probably does explain a lot of the offensive scheme and play calling issues. It may be an overreaction to Daks INTs from last season. It also seems MM is dead set on winning TOP. I’d guess our lack of presnap shifts and motions is from fear of presnap penalties. Sigh.
Unfortunately that all limits any real creativity and has us slamming TP up the middle far too often. I heard MM talk about self scouting as a big focus during the bye week so I’m wondering if he’ll adjust.
I think risk averse game planning is a great descriptor of this offense.
I also think you said something that most folks don't get. Winning a championship is hard. Really hard