Philosophy of replay on field goals
 

I'm hoping that someone who calls under NCAA rules can help me understand the philosophy of the replay rule on field goals.
According to the NCAA rulesbook, 12-3-1-b, does not allow a good/no-good review if the ball is above the top of the uprights when it crosses the end line. This situation appears to be a case where the multiple-angles, freeze-framing and time-stitching would provide the best chance to correct a missed call. Does anyone know why this case is specifically excluded from review?

Just a guess, but the best angle to observe the ball's flight is directly under each upright, looking straight up, which is usually where the officials are positioned and there are no cameras.

Just a thought but maybe they could mount a camera on the back of the uprights looking straight up.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

There are any number of ways technology could replace the human element, or improve accuracy, but we already have football video games.

The best possible angle is from someone/something looking directly up the uprights.... which is exactly where you have officials positioned.

If there's truly a problem with this (and, as far as I know, there isn't and hasn't been)... the easiest solution would be to extend the height of the uprights by an additional 10 or 15 feet.

Making this situation reviewable (even if you add cameras on the uprights) would basically add another round of delays to the game, with the only result being more "After review, the ruling on the field stands" announcements.

I would say first that I don't think it is that big of an issue, but I've never lost an NCAA football game by 3 or fewer points with a FG that was above the uprights impact the outcome of the game. It may have to do with never having played at the NCAA level, but that is another story.

Regarding extending the height of the uprights, there are a variety of elements that make this not necessarily the easiest solution. Engineering and cost would be the deciding factors, but schools also have to look at safety issues (can the FG posts be safely and quickly lowered at the end of an upset win over a huge rival), storage capacity (some schools remove and store the FG posts during the off-season), replacement/maintenance (how easily can the posts be replaced if damaged during a game a la Jimmy Graham), etc. Do I think it is impossible or an absurd idea, no. I'm just saying it may not be an easy fix. If I were going to recommend replay on this situation, I think the best solution would be cameras mount on top of the posts themselves. Something like a dome-style camera that hangs from the ceiling for security purposes could be affixed to the top of each post and would provide the best view. Alternatively, you could use some type of laser technology that emits a visible beam along the outer edge of each post. Neither option is perfect, but might be easier than longer posts. Just food for thought/discussion...I don't have data or definite information to support my ideas and no vested interest in being right.

You would need it along the inner edge, not the outer.

That said I don't think replay cameras are necessary on the goal posts. For the expense there is a very low chance that the official on the post is going to miss this call. They're looking right up the post and that is their only job.

Rather than set cameras or lasers on the uprights, I would suggest the Hawk-Eye system that is used in sports like cricket, tennis, and soccer. It uses fixed point cameras throughout the facility to triangulate the path of the ball to within 5 millimeters.

But, this seems like overkill for a single call that rarely needs to be reviewed in NCAA football. If it could be used to determine if the ball broke the goal line or perhaps the line to gain, it may work. But, I'm not sure it could do that when the ball is in a pile of bodies.

In trying to be precise I created a new ambiguity that I didn't think through all the way. I meant it needed to along the outer edge along the inside of the post. I was trying to point out that you couldn't just place it in the center of the post.

Got it.

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.

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.

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.