Justin Tucker Rule in place: Goalposts will be 5 ft higher

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
44,335
deep inside Guido territory
Only the sharpest eyes will be able to notice the subtle difference to NFL fields this season.

The uprights of all goalposts will be five-feet higher, thanks to a new ruled passed during the offseason. Proposed by the Patriots, the "Tucker Rule" -- named in honor of Ravens kicker Justin Tucker -- hopes to eliminate the type of controversy we saw on a 22-yard Tucker field goal attempt that sailed over an upright and was ruled good to beat New England in the 2012 playoffs.

The Ravens' official team site was on hand when the new uprights were installed at M&T Bank Stadium this week. The Ravens were forced to buy entirely new goalposts, rather than simply add five-foot additions, because of wind load. Ravens head groundskeeper Don Follett said the new uprights were tested in winds of more than 100 miles per hour.

The whole process is financially exorbitant. The New York Times reported that a set of new posts will run teams and stadium operators $10,000 and up. Teams must also install the new posts at their practice facilities. Things get even more expensive if teams are forced to replace the foundations that fasten the goal posts into the ground. Thanks, Belichick.

The Ravens' site -- I'm telling you, they were all over this story -- additionally offered up a slide show presentation of the installation process. Check it out for yourself, then wow friends at the next wine and cheese soiree with your bottomless knowledge of pro football minutiae.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000364763/article/ravens-install-new-goalposts-in-wake-of-tucker-rule?campaign=Twitter_atl

The game was in the regular season, but other than that.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,682
02130
So what happens when someone hits a kick over this upright? I'm sure NFL kickers could still clear the thing even though it's 5 ft higher.
 
As I first read on here, the way to solve this and to make kicking field goals tougher and the game more interesting is to have a second crossbar across the top of the uprights, forming a rectangle that must be kicked through.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,811
The whole process is financially exorbitant. The New York Times reported that a set of new posts will run teams and stadium operators $10,000 and up. 
 
 
Financially exorbitant?
 
The Ravens pay Flacco the equivalent of $50,000/day. Cry me a river.
 

LeoCarrillo

Do his bits at your peril.
SoSH Member
Oct 13, 2008
7,876
New York City
Toe Nash said:
So what happens when someone hits a kick over this upright? I'm sure NFL kickers could still clear the thing even though it's 5 ft higher.
 
 
It's like moving first base a foot farther away to eliminate all the close plays.
 

natejohnson

lurker
Sep 2, 2012
14
"hopes to eliminate the type of controversy we saw on a 22-yard Tucker field goal attempt that sailed over an upright and was ruled good to beat New England in the 2012 playoffs."

Wasn't it week 3? This doesn't seem that hard to verify.
 

mascho

Kane is Able
SoSH Member
Nov 30, 2007
14,952
Silver Spring, Maryland
Story has been change to reflect that said kick occurred during week three. Story does not reflect that it also occurred while replacement refs were working the games.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
5,350
Somerville, MA
DrewDawg said:
 
Financially exorbitant?
 
The Ravens pay Flacco the equivalent of $50,000/day. Cry me a river.
 
Seconded.  I was expecting them to say it was going to cost $500k or something like that to do it.  If it's $10k a stadium, it should have been done years ago.  Shit, rugby goal posts are either 50 or 51 feet high if I remember correctly, so extending NFL ones to 35 feet seems like the least they could do.
 

underhandtofirst

stud who hits bombs
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
1,551
Chelmsford, MA
Why do they need to be installed at practice fields?  Is the NFL keeping stats of practice kicks or something?  This almost sounds like something a Ravens official added to the story to make it sound more expensive. 
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
5,350
Somerville, MA
underhandtofirst said:
Why do they need to be installed at practice fields?  Is the NFL keeping stats of practice kicks or something?  This almost sounds like something a Ravens official added to the story to make it sound more expensive. 
 
Typically you will want to make the same adjustments to practice fields as you do game fields just so there isn't any adjustment.  You'd be surprised at what adding a few feet to goalposts makes them look like to a kicker.  Just has a much narrower appearance, and if the first time you're seeing it is a game, it could be a little of a mindfuck.
 

Batman Likes The Sox

Not postscient
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2003
1,587
Madison, CT
Toe Nash said:
So what happens when someone hits a kick over this upright? I'm sure NFL kickers could still clear the thing even though it's 5 ft higher.
 
As I first read on here, the way to solve this and to make kicking field goals tougher and the game more interesting is to have a second crossbar across the top of the uprights, forming a rectangle that must be kicked through.
 
This should be accompanied by a change in the official field goal signal from "arms upright" to "arms forming an upright rectangle".
 

Tharkin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
1,410
Maine
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Yup just confirming.


And does $10,000 seem low to anyone else? Did they leave out a zero?
 
I was wondering this too.  I can't have a contractor replace my deck for $10,000.  Maybe it'll be a cross promotion with Gorilla Glue & Tape or something, and they're just sticking a 5-foot pole up there.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
DrewDawg said:
 
Financially exorbitant?
 
The Ravens pay Flacco the equivalent of $50,000/day. Cry me a river.
 
 
LeoCarrillo said:
 
It's like moving first base a foot farther away to eliminate all the close plays.
 
 
Batman Likes The Sox said:
 
This should be accompanied by a change in the official field goal signal from "arms upright" to "arms forming an upright rectangle".
 
 
Tharkin said:
 
I was wondering this too.  I can't have a contractor replace my deck for $10,000.  Maybe it'll be a cross promotion with Gorilla Glue & Tape or something, and they're just sticking a 5-foot pole up there.
 
 

 
It's a shame most folks never visit the board.  Some of the best work ever is in this thread.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,184
What gets me is why we cannot just maximize the use of technology in sports to enhance the accuracy of the calls. I have one simple request: and that is to have goalposts with fricking laser beams attached to their tops!
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
snowmanny said:
What gets me is why we cannot just maximize the use of technology in sports to enhance the accuracy of the calls. I have one simple request: and that is to have goalposts with fricking laser beams attached to their tops!
 
I don't get the laser beams idea. Sometimes, when the ball hits the post, it still goes in. How would laser beams recreate that?
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,184
Infield Infidel said:
 
I don't get the laser beams idea. Sometimes, when the ball hits the post, it still goes in. How
would laser beams recreate that?
Right now if the ball goes over the goal post the referees have to determine if the ball was outside the posts or not by using their eyes from a slightly off angle. They do not try to guess if the ball
would have bounced off the imaginary extrapolated goalposts of their minds. If the ball is judged/guessed to be exactly above the post I believe the kick is determined to be GOOD! A
laser beam would take the referee out of this equation as in the Ravens FG in question

Edit: maybe you thought I was advocating eliminating the whole post with a laser beam. I meant adding them to the top. They could be pink
For breast cancer awareness one week.
 

LeoCarrillo

Do his bits at your peril.
SoSH Member
Oct 13, 2008
7,876
New York City
I almost posted the laser-beam idea, but now that it's out there, let's go one better.

The dumbest thing about football is that refs are estimating the spot all day long -- but then declare with bogus certainty that a ball is an inch short of the first-down marker on a measurement.

Solution: lasers on the sticks, on the goal line too, set off by a chip type deal in the ball (or implanted in both ends and under the laces, to be safe).
 

RFDA2000

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2005
355
What happens when a player with the ball moves it across the line after being down? There will always be judgement calls on spots.
 

LeoCarrillo

Do his bits at your peril.
SoSH Member
Oct 13, 2008
7,876
New York City
RFDA2000 said:
What happens when a player with the ball moves it across the line after being down? There will always be judgement calls on spots.
 
Laser-disabling ref whistles? I've got nothin.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,991
RFDA2000 said:
What happens when a player with the ball moves it across the line after being down? There will always be judgement calls on spots.
Ya. What's the use, right?
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,632
snowmanny said:
What gets me is why we cannot just maximize the use of technology in sports to enhance the accuracy of the calls. I have one simple request: and that is to have goalposts with fricking laser beams attached to their tops!
Where is the receiver of the laser beam? 
 

RFDA2000

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2005
355
Not sure how reply to a specific post from mobile app, but didn't mean to be dismissive of trying to make marginal improvements in accuracy. Just that "lasers" in the down markers and a chip in the ball doesn't seem like it really solves the problem being addressed. The down markers themselves are estimates. When the runner is ruled down is an estimate. The only place I see chipping the ball as worthwhile would be goal line, and am all for that (goal line plays are a big potential swing in points).

Edit: though if you just had a super accurate gps installed in the ball and forget about the sticks altogether, that could work. Have a computer monitoring down and location (aligned on the axis of the field's length) could get you pretty close to perfection on first down rulings. How big is the smallest gps tracker? Let's do this.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,293
Providence, RI
RFDA2000 said:
Not sure how reply to a specific post from mobile app, but didn't mean to be dismissive of trying to make marginal improvements in accuracy. Just that "lasers" in the down markers and a chip in the ball doesn't seem like it really solves the problem being addressed. The down markers themselves are estimates. When the runner is ruled down is an estimate. The only place I see chipping the ball as worthwhile would be goal line, and am all for that (goal line plays are a big potential swing in points).

Edit: though if you just had a super accurate gps installed in the ball and forget about the sticks altogether, that could work. Have a computer monitoring down and location (aligned on the axis of the field's length) could get you pretty close to perfection on first down rulings. How big is the smallest gps tracker? Let's do this.
There lasers involved with this gps, right?
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,581
Wayland, MA
RFDA2000 said:
Not sure how reply to a specific post from mobile app, but didn't mean to be dismissive of trying to make marginal improvements in accuracy. Just that "lasers" in the down markers and a chip in the ball doesn't seem like it really solves the problem being addressed. The down markers themselves are estimates. When the runner is ruled down is an estimate. The only place I see chipping the ball as worthwhile would be goal line, and am all for that (goal line plays are a big potential swing in points).

Edit: though if you just had a super accurate gps installed in the ball and forget about the sticks altogether, that could work. Have a computer monitoring down and location (aligned on the axis of the field's length) could get you pretty close to perfection on first down rulings. How big is the smallest gps tracker? Let's do this.
 
Thinking about this, the accuracy you're looking for in this "super accurate gps" is likely the crux of the problem. GPS receiver chips with reasonable sensitivity can be made pretty darn small, and I don't doubt they could be inserted in a ball. The difficulty comes from the fact the ball is moving. "Super accurate" measurements (down to a few millimeters) can be done using carrier-phase tracking with diff. GPS, but this is really limited to surveying applications. Probably the best one could hope for using those same methods on a moving football is 30 cm or so.
 
The other concern is reception. For most plays with the size of the receive antenna you could place in the football you would be OK with GPS, but not all. Bury the ball under a pile of bodies, such as you might encounter in a 4th-and-1 play where every inch counts, and you could easily imagine the ball having real problems picking up the GPS signal.
 
Absent some unforeseen improvements in GPS processing, or antenna technology, I don't see how these issues can be overcome using the existing GPS structure.
 
However, I could imagine a LORAN-C approach (operating locally to the football field) working. LORAN-C uses continuous wave transmissions and phase differencing to determine location. I could see such a system having both the accuracy and penetration required, whereas I just can't see how you could do it with a TDOA system like GPS, mostly because the bandwidth you'd need to get highly accurate TDOA is incompatible with the lower frequencies required for good penetration.
 
Hey, if they're willing to spend umpty-ump dollars to add five feet to the goalposts, why not this?
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
TomTerrific said:
Thinking about this, the accuracy you're looking for in this "super accurate gps" is likely the crux of the problem. GPS receiver chips with reasonable sensitivity can be made pretty darn small, and I don't doubt they could be inserted in a ball. The difficulty comes from the fact the ball is moving. "Super accurate" measurements (down to a few millimeters) can be done using carrier-phase tracking with diff. GPS, but this is really limited to surveying applications. Probably the best one could hope for using those same methods on a moving football is 30 cm or so.
 
The other concern is reception. For most plays with the size of the receive antenna you could place in the football you would be OK with GPS, but not all. Bury the ball under a pile of bodies, such as you might encounter in a 4th-and-1 play where every inch counts, and you could easily imagine the ball having real problems picking up the GPS signal.
 
Absent some unforeseen improvements in GPS processing, or antenna technology, I don't see how these issues can be overcome using the existing GPS structure.
 
However, I could imagine a LORAN-C approach (operating locally to the football field) working. LORAN-C uses continuous wave transmissions and phase differencing to determine location. I could see such a system having both the accuracy and penetration required, whereas I just can't see how you could do it with a TDOA system like GPS, mostly because the bandwidth you'd need to get highly accurate TDOA is incompatible with the lower frequencies required for good penetration.
 
Hey, if they're willing to spend umpty-ump dollars to add five feet to the goalposts, why not this?
You know and thought about all of that in that depth, and yet didn't consider the possibility of a local wifi or other localized platform based tracker instead of using GPS?
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
Don't get me wrong--what I mean to say is that you are clearly quite knowledgable about this stuff, so I'm wondering what possibilities there are with respect to accuracy if we ditch GPS and thing NFL specific systems.
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,581
Wayland, MA
Reverend said:
You know and thought about all of that in that depth, and yet didn't consider the possibility of a local wifi or other localized platform based tracker instead of using GPS?
 
OK, I didn't think about WiFi as is, but what I was proposing *is* a local, NFL-specific, system. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
 
LORAN-C is basically gone, I was proposing a LORAN-C-like system that would be local to the stadium (or really just the football field). If you push the LORAN-like signals into the lower 2.4 GHz WiFi band you *might* be OK, though I think I would advocate going even lower (like down into UHF, say around 500 MHz) to really ensure good signaling. The other issue I would want to avoid is interference from other WiFi sources, so that would probably push you away from WiFi as well--if people are bringing uncontrolled transmitters into the stadium, that's pretty much a no-go right there. The UHF band, on the other hand, is still pretty tightly controlled.
 
If you are thinking about using WiFi, in the same way as is currently done for augmentation of GPS (in other words in a time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) kind of framework) then my previous concerns stand. In fact, WiFi as it currently exists is worse in isolation because the signal structure for GPS is designed for localization, whereas WiFi is not. And the quick initialization that WiFi is typically used for to augment GPS wouldn't be needed in a predetermined location like a football stadium, so I'm not sure what it would contribute. (I should note that I am starting to venture outside my area of expertise--I only have a casual knowledge of WiFi-assisted GPS--so if someone is convinced I'm screwing this up, have at it).
 
It's also possible I'm missing part of what you're saying here as well.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
TomTerrific said:
It's also possible I'm missing part of what you're saying here as well.
 
Mostly I was suggesting that given your apparent knowledgeability in the area, you would know if there was some non-gps based system that would work. And it seems so.  :buddy:
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,581
Wayland, MA
Reverend said:
 
Mostly I was suggesting that given your apparent knowledgeability in the area, you would know if there was some non-gps based system that would work. And it seems so.  :buddy:
 
I think my main point is two-fold: 1) existing and envisioned improvements to GPS probably won't cut it, 2) a technological solution could likely be built with what we have now, meaning no research breakthroughs are required. I think it would probably take a similar effort to what was done to produce some of QuesTec's products.
 
Hmmm....
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
snowmanny said:
Right now if the ball goes over the goal post the referees have to determine if the ball was outside the posts or not by using their eyes from a slightly off angle. They do not try to guess if the ball
would have bounced off the imaginary extrapolated goalposts of their minds. If the ball is judged/guessed to be exactly above the post I believe the kick is determined to be GOOD! A
laser beam would take the referee out of this equation as in the Ravens FG in question

Edit: maybe you thought I was advocating eliminating the whole post with a laser beam. I meant adding them to the top. They could be pink
For breast cancer awareness one week.
 
I'd rather they just look at how high the highest kick has gone, and adjust the post to that height. It's ill-conceived to guestimate or use lasers when a kick off a post high enough could deflect in or out of the goalposts. Or change the rule and put a crossbar on top. 
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,581
Wayland, MA
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Why can't they use the system that tennis uses? 
If you're asking about spotting the ball on the ground, line of sight is the problem.

However, if you're talking about using a stereoscopic system to judge field goals, I completely agree. In fact, that's so straightforward I'm surprised they're not doing it already.

Hell, if you gave me three surveyed camera feeds showing the field goal I could do it myself, the processing is that mature and well-understood.

Hey, NFL, what's up here?
 
Re: spotting the ball on the ground, are you aware of the goal-line technology solutions which have been proposed for soccer? 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal-line_technology
 
Check out the section on the "Cairos GLT system", which (unlike the line-of-sight Hawkeye system) uses a magnetic grid - with a chip embedded in the center of the ball - which provides an instantaneous radio alert to the referee if a ball has crossed the line. I suspect it would be very easy to adapt this technology for use in goal-line situations in the NFL, and surely it wouldn't be beyond the realm of science to adapt this for use with first-down markers as well. 
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,334
Tuukka's refugee camp
Would the chip get messed up given the shape of the football and the fact only a portion of it has to cross the goalline instead of the entire ball, as it is in soccer?  I admittedly know nothing about this technology so just spitballing here.