
Why the NFL bans iPads (and other technology) - ericelias
http://blog.ericelias.org/blog/2012/02/17/why-the-nfl-bans-ipads-and-other-technology/
======
Anechoic
This is similar to a discussion we had a couple of months ago:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3364467>

I'll repeat my response from that thread: it's not so much about in-game
computations (as many posters already observed, coaches and staff already to a
lot of the statistical calculations the author describes, it's just all
written on paper and wristbands), it's about gambling, specifically making
sure that all viewers get the same information at the same time so that
particular gamblers aren't advantaged/disadvantaged. Otherwise you have
situations where players may be inadvertently tweeting/messaging injury
information or game strategies. That's all.

~~~
adharmad
In addition, its also possible that the NFL does not want the best possible
and perfect game. The unpredictability and human element makes for more
exciting games. That's one of the reasons why they too so much time to make
video replays standard in games (and mandatory in the last 2 mins).

~~~
checker
I think replay took so long because they had to debate the tradeoff of a more
exciting game pace versus officiating accuracy.

------
waterside81
I think many coaches already do this, however their predictive results are
written on paper and carried around in their binders by assistants. Every
coach has a list of scenarios when going for a 2pt convert is advisable, when
going for 4th down is advisable, as well as dividing plays up according to
yardage & scenario.

Additionally, the amount of film that is analyzed prior to each game, as well
as the amount of free-agency these days means players are so familiar with one
another and opposing team's play books, that the technology already exists -
in their brains.

Maybe it's the football purist in me, but I really don't think iPads would add
much. In the NHL, the Maple Leafs have an iPad or two on the bench during the
game (the NHL has no restrictions) and they stink.

~~~
pwthornton
Yes, this is accurate. The coaches and stats guys do this before the games and
they all know what they want to run in given situations and what they believe
the other team will do. It's just written down on paper.

Trust me, NFL teams have stats and programmers on board.

~~~
ericelias
Yes, they have stats and applications to apply some of the variables prior to
the game. Even at the Division 3 level we had binders with probabilities based
on formations. This was a fun brainstorm to see how far the technology could
be applied.

------
jerf
Whether or not this is true in _every detail_ , I think the point that it is
_essentially_ true is undeniable. And there isn't anything objectively wrong
with it, it's just not what we want to watch. Heck, I'm a computer programmer
and it's not what I want to watch. If I want to see algorithms running against
each other I've got all kinds of other places I can do that.

Let's leave the humans something.

~~~
callil
Where exactly can you watch (as a sport) two algorithms running against each
other? Wouldn't that be an awesome new sport? team algorithms fighting against
each other. Maybe one was written by some random genius team of programmers to
take on the big dog tech companies.

Or maybe a professional robot fight league within google/facebook etc.

~~~
tsunamifury
I'd say the Starcraft AI competitions are a pretty good version of what you
are asking about.

~~~
getsat
They're pretty interesting because there's an APM (actions per minute) cap
imposed by the game itself. IIRC, once you approach 2,000 actions per minute,
the game stops responding to commands properly.

You only have a small (for a piece of software!) amount of actions you can do
for minute, so you have to choose wisely.

------
philwelch
If you watch enough football, you get to see that playcalling isn't
everything. You can call a winning game and the receivers will still drop
passes or the linebackers will still make poor tackles or the quarterback will
still overthrow the receiver.

------
vacri
Play selection is part of the game, and picking the right play under stress is
a fundamental part of the game. Palming this off to machine computation is
taking a fundamental part of the game and tossing it out. If you throw in
runtime updates, it becomes even less about the guys on the field on the day,
and even more about which franchise can afford the best statisticians.

I'm against just plugging tech into games simply because it's there,
particularly if that tech is not available to all comers.

------
yardie
Instead of getting too far ahead of ourselves (battling AIs, hightech helmet
visors, etc.) maybe it's a more mundane reason, they are afraid of having
their playbooks hacked. A physical paper binder goes missing and people
notice. Someone gains a backdoor into your iPad and it might not ever be
reported. Or as Anechoic describes it, they don't want information leaked
before it goes on air.

Humans still play football. They are free to change the play during the snap
(which is what audibles are for) and even invent new ones on the field. I've
never had a chess piece or even a Starcraft trooper decide to just get up and
walk in a different direction. It took a roomful of supercomputer to defeat 1
human in a chessmatch. Imagine what would be required to anticipate the moves
of 22 of them.

------
edderly
What a load of baloney. This is symptomatic of the believe that management
adds overriding value to performance, whereas in practice the best thing they
can do is bring the best and/or most cohesive individuals together.

An interesting factoid for football is that in nearly fifty years of the NFL a
coach has never led a two different teams to a Superbowl win. So why
overestimate the value of what can be done on the sidelines?

~~~
vacri
Coaches do more than just call plays.

------
breakall
This story in the WSJ from back in December adds a lot of context to the issue
of game time technology in the NFL.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020389340457710...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203893404577100683039518086.html)

As others have commented, it's hard to believe that teams aren't already
applying Moneyball-type analytics to the game.

------
jimmytucson
I think the use of technology in football (and sports in general) to aid play
calling would only enhance the sport. For one thing, it's not as much of an
advantage as the author thinks.

For example, in the NFL, there's already a wealth of ongoing research
attempting to predict play calling using various methods. I just recently read
one, published by Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports (see here:
[http://econpapers.repec.org/article/bpjjqsprt/v_3a7_3ay_3a20...](http://econpapers.repec.org/article/bpjjqsprt/v_3a7_3ay_3a2011_3ai_3a3_3an_3a2.htm))
that uses a linear discriminant function with cross validation -- bottom line,
the success rate was only 40.38% (you can read the abstract).

It's an incredibly challenging and fascinating line of research that's grown a
lot in recent years. MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference is one notable
forum where researchers have given talks on everything from speech analysis to
predict quarterback performance, to network analysis explaining Bill Simmons'
"Ewing Theory" in basketball, to motion tracking for collecting richer data on
player performance.

But the other reason I don't think this would have such a "game changing"
impact on the NFL is that there are many more elements to leading a team than
employing the strategy with the highest expected "point value" in any
circumstance. Often, coaches will make the less statistically effective
decision purely based on how it will affect their players' psychology. For
example, by now most coaches know it's often beneficial to go for it on fourth
down -- yet it's still rarely done because in many cases, going for it on
fourth down represents a lack of faith in your defense. I can think of more
extreme cases but the fourth down issue probably plays out the most in the
NFL. It may sound silly but as a coach, you're in charge of rallying your
players, who more often than not are less persuaded by artificial neural
networks than they are bravado.

Practically speaking, it's just not possible to lead a team by calculator, and
that's why I think using tools to improve the "analytical side" of coaching
will enhance the sport more so than change it into something completely
different.

------
antihero
I think the point of sport isn't to be perfect, but to be visual, visceral,
and exciting. Watching actual dudes running along a pitch with a ball is far
more awesome than having a bunch of calculations done and observing the
outcome.

It's the imperfection that is what is interesting to our brains, we like the
analogue, the random, the warm, the fuzzy, the imperfect. Machines are bland
in comparison to the rich inconsistency of our organic selves.

------
donpdonp
"The NFL has banned the use of certain technologies to be used prior the game.
Specifically, iPads cannot be used two hours prior to a regular season game."

Cannot be used by who? The coaching staff? The crowd in the stands? The
journalists covering the game?

~~~
ericelias
Good point, the coaches/players. nytimes article on the subject.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/sports/football/ipads-
repl...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/sports/football/ipads-replace-
bound-playbooks-on-some-nfl-teams.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

~~~
pillbug88
It's to lessen the potential impact of a breach. a) you have a chance to
recover from a hack in that two hours, b) it can reduce the speed with which
leaked data gets to the opposition, and c) it reduces the likelihood of a hack
getting valuable data.

And these are just a few reasons I can think of. There's nothing but benefits
to this policy and very small negatives.

It's analogous to filling the moat before a battle. It's just a defense
intended to slow an enemy. Try to remember that these guys are some seriously
strategic thinkers, they're not morons and they're not technophobes.

------
tragiclos
If there were a computer algorithm proven to give even a slight advantage in
play calling, I'm sure most NFL coaches would jump at the chance to use it.
Using game theory and advanced statistics is already all the rage on most
(American) football websites. While I'm sure most coaches don't follow such
things, enough do that it would soon catch on. And if something successful
catches on, NFL coaches have a proven track record of copying it.

 _Coaches, players and the like are now no longer needed. Okay, this last
portion may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is proven, technology
would, as in other industries, render the current status quo inept and
inefficient. In conclusion, I plan to take the Robotics course from Udacity
this month._

As an avid follower of this sport, I've found that a large part of success as
a team is to be found in coaching the fundamentals. Just like in school, a
good teacher can make all the difference in terms of outcome, even for a
gifted player/student.

~~~
fluorescentLAMP
It's not just a rage on "American" football websites, but the real football
too.

Moneyball has found itself jammed deep into soccer the last few years with
varying degrees of success.

~~~
bricestacey
How so? I played soccer my whole life and my first thought was, "a sport like
soccer makes technology useless in medias res.

------
socrates1998
I am a football coach, and while this article seems logical. I believe there
are too many variables, like stock trading. And even if you could write a
program to identify all useful variables, coaches will often evaluate
themselves for tendencies, and call plays/defenses to go against their
tendencies. I have used breakdown software and it is good, but the sample size
it often too small. Two or three games is not nearly enough plays/situations
to analyze it using algorithms. So, some might say, by the time the post-
season comes along, the sample size would be big enough, but that is also not
the case. Only the last few games are relevant when breaking down games. By
the end of the season, early season games are useless. Also, the team you are
playing might not have played a team with a similar sceme to yours, so you
have zero sample plays that are useful to you.

------
dmsinger
Cheating. New technology = new forms of cheating; and if the league allowed
everything on the sidelines, it'd be near impossible for them to keep up with.

Predicting plays isn't an issue. Predict all you like. Stealing plays (& the
play calls), that's the real worry, as it probably matters most in this sport
than any other. Stealing signs in baseball is the only comparison I can think
of.

The WSJ article linked by breakall mentions it a little, but nowhere do I see
the word 'cheat'. I doubt the league would address a question about it
seriously anyway as that would imply they don't trust teams' staff (which they
shouldn't).

~~~
jjjamiem
Mostly-agree. I think you're right that cheating, above everything else, is
why the NFL is slow to adapt technology. But I do have to point out it's
happening with the technology they're using already:
<http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677>

Newer tech would make that easier, but it's going to happen one way or
another.

------
Yhippa
I've always wondered what would happen in an extreme situation like the author
describes. I can't imagine the type of game that would lead to. I figure at
the end of the day it would come down to the human aspect of it: can the team
execute their high-probability play vs. the expected high-probability defense?

I wonder what kind of race this would lead to in F1? If drivers were replaced
by an apparatus that would drive the car and maximum driver assists and all
telemetry measurements were allowed to be used would the races be boring or
even more exciting?

~~~
dmoy
Robot F1 could be very exciting. Faster races, lighter cars (probably could
drop like <400kg if they opened up the rules), less need for safety
regulations, etc.

------
dfc
Can someone help me out with the introduction to the argument?

    
    
      "The theory is based on protective reasoning and that the NFL
      wants to ensure the monopoly is held as a status quo."
    

What is the monopoly that is being held at the status quo?

    
    
      Anytime we find that the technology and innovation create
      a competitive advantage or an advantage that cannot
      readily be seized by those in power, we see resistance.
    

Who could seize this advantage that is not already in power?

------
pablasso
I have a hard time believing they don't already do this. Having
computers/iPads banned on the field doesn't avoid outsiders using this and
communicating with the coaching staff.

------
______
What they should really be afraid of is simulations of football becoming more
interesting than recordings of the sport actually being played.

People already spend hours and hours playing NFL games... it's only a matter
of time that a virtual league with probabilistic players and teams coupled
with 'better than real' graphics entices more viewers than the actual sport.
Imagine being able to see a great play from any angle, at any time -- the
current NFL can't provide that.

------
kylemaxwell
I can't believe that some teams haven't already started doing this: hire a
data scientist or two and turn them loose with statistics, film, and some
assistant coach to help them make sense of the game and its nuances. Apply
some machine learning and you'd have a really serious tool to apply in
predicting your opponent's play calling.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Not NFL, but a friend told me about this last week:
[http://communityvoices.sites.post-
gazette.com/index.php/spor...](http://communityvoices.sites.post-
gazette.com/index.php/sports/bob-smiziks-blog/30111-arkansas-high-school-
football-coach-has-some-crazy-ideas)

Ack, it appears the original is here, my apologies:
[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/scorecasting/0...](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/scorecasting/09/15/kelley.pulaski/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2)

------
firefox
There's no way to avoid technology, it will catch up to them whether they want
it or not. This is the same mentality that Hollywood has up until now and is
now catching up to them - as we all know too well.

------
fluorescentLAMP
Exactly correct.

There is a particular camera feed (called All-22) that monitors all 22 players
at the same time. This particular camera feed is only available to teams, not
outside data-collection agencies.

------
phzbOx
Meh, aren't them in communication all the time with people who watches the
game 100km from there? Couldn't they print the papers generated all the weeks
before?

------
smokinjoe
You could have the entire playbook of the other team and a list of plays they
will be running, but it's moot if your players can't execute.

------
pkulak
In other news, chess players are not allowed to use iPads either while
playing. The chess association must hate technology!

------
NewUName
Nice conspiracy theory, but it ignores one extremely important point: Football
is a _sport_ , not a technological arms race. They won't allow iPads and LCD
visors for the same reason they won't allow jetpacks and rocket shoes: it
wouldn't be a _sport_ anymore.

Not to mention the fact that iPads don't have the power to analyze such large
volumes of information in a useful time frame anyway. Getting all that info
through an iPad would require communication with some outside computing power,
which they could accomplish with their headsets already if it were allowed.

~~~
dfc
I don't understand why athletic competition precludes technical competition?

As far as the ipad computational power goes I think its safe to assume that
when the author says use ipads he assumes they are a frontend to a big
processing backend.

