Philosophy of replay on field goals

[jchamp]

I wasn't thinking of a particular case play. In fact, I only recall one close field goal that was ever reviewed where the announcement was something to the effect of the result not being reviewable. I was more interested in what philosophy drove the rule, and it sounds like a cost-benefit thought process, which I understand.

I dabbled in image processing and analysis years ago, and was thinking about a way to build the logic to automatically detect field goals based on the flight of the ball being obscured or not by the goal posts and crossbar. It's a relatively simple logic, and if you use a camera facing the field, the processing should be quick and easy. It could also allow all the officials to stay on the field, in case of a fake, a block, or other shenanigans.

[Canned Heat]

There will always be a degree of human element involved, whether the ball hits a laser beam, a light beam, or otherwise. If the goal posts aren't extended further, someone will have to dictate whether the ball "touching the beam" would be a successful try/FG or not, as we all know a ball hitting the post does not make it a failed attempt if the force of the ball pushes it thru the posts and above the crossbar. And that will be the continued argument if this technology ever hits football fields across America....unless you make any contact with said goal posts at all a failed attempt. Enter the upper and lower crossbar argument.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Canned Heat

If the goal posts aren't extended further, someone will have to dictate whether the ball "touching the beam" would be a successful try/FG or not

They already have:

8-4-1

ART. 1 . . . A field goal is scored as follows:

c. The kicked ball shall pass between the vertical uprights or the inside of the uprights extended and above the crossbar of the opponent's goal.