NFL to consider putting video on sideline tablets

AP

The NFL’s embrace of tablet technology has been limited, to date. Soon, the bright blue Microsoft Surface devices that show up on sidelines could do more than simply show images of pre-snap formations.

At a Tuesday press conference, NFL executive V.P. Brian Rolapp said that the league will consider allowing players and coaches to view video generated during a given game. Rolapp explained that preseason and Pro Bowl testing has allowed the league to determine that, technologically, it can be done.

Whether the league can permit coaches and players to view video is a different question from whether it should.

“Let’s make sure that whatever we do, that the focus is still the human competition,” Rolapp said after the event, via the Associated Press. “We don’t want it to replace the human competition because that’s what people still want to watch.”

Before video could be used during games, at least 24 owners would have to approve of the change to the rules.

Saints quarterback Drew Brees explained that video was useful during a Pro Bowl game in which he noticed something on a pass route run by receiver Antonio Brown. Brees suggested a tweak to the pattern the next time the play was called, Brown made the adjustment, and the play resulted in a touchdown.

“Without the video I wouldn’t have been able to see that and communicate it with him,” Brees said. “Obviously that directly affected the performance of what we were able to accomplish.”

Paul Burmeister of NBCSN’s Pro Football Talk caught up with Brees following the event. The video can be seen below.

38 responses to “NFL to consider putting video on sideline tablets

  1. When the Patriots had issues with their Tablets on the sideline during the broncos game – I laughed soooo hard because it was just KARMA

  2. So Belichick is called a cheater for years because someone taped sideline coaching signals during a game from an “unauthorized location” – million dollar fine, 1st round draft pick taken away, etc.

    Yet the NFL now wants to leverage technology and considers allowing video to be captured and used in games? Are you kidding me?

    But what about the “Integrity of the Game”???? Roger?

  3. as long as the checks keep clearing, the nfl will follow until more $ comes along, then the “integrity of the game” will dictate a change.

    True with helmet manuf, uniform manuf, sideline headphones, etc.

    Follow the $.

  4. Going to be hard on the trolls that think Spygate was a big deal if they let teams watch video on the sidelines.

  5. Lol! This is actually what the league accused the Pats of in Spygate – most haters/ignorami think it was about the Pats taping but in fact you can still tape today (what the hell else do you think studying film of other teams is?). In 2007 BB had argued that:
    a) the existing rules only prohibited taping from “on the field” (i.e. helmetcams) and not from the sidelines;
    b) he wasn’t using that film during the game in question (which if you read all the rules is what the rules are aimed at stopping, rather than later study) – no evidence was ever found that BB was studying the film during the game;
    c) other elements of article IX regarding film use contradicted the league’s interpretation.
    d) the Pats thought their interpretation was correct because at the previous game (also after the 2006 video memo) the Jets did a lot of sideline-taping of the Pats, which the Pats thought the memo now banned but which the league said was ok (because it was for later training study!!!!).

    Tagliabue would have just told BB, oops sorry we messed up at that game but please do it no more, and reminded all teams what interpretation the league would apply going forward. But Spygate was Goodell’s first frame job, having come in on a ticket to clean up the game and desperate for a big scalp. And after all this PSI-gate being supposedly unfinished punishment for the Pats dastardly “spying” (for one freaking game!!!) the NFL is considering allowing it anyway. Priceless.

  6. Aaaaaand “Spygate” has become null and void.

    Since the events surrounding Framegate were debunked, I guess the Patriots are even-steven.

  7. This is the most hypocritical thing Roger Goodell and the NFL has ever come up with and that says a lot . Spygate was all about video during the game! Now it will be available on tablets? Holy cow!

  8. ipads can only be used for pictures…

    Signed people over 60

    Wow, the NFL is really on the forefront of technology. Do they all get razor flip phones as well? Or is that too advanced too?

  9. the game will be better with video available… harder competition….

    I really don’t see why the NFL doesn’t outright embrace goal line and side line cams, ability to challenge any call and have replay for every call, a professional cadre of full time refs with accountability, and allow teams to use video on the sideline…

    the snail like pace of NFL adoption of new techs and rules is really frustrating to fans who want fair play on every play

  10. Quite the double power move by the NFL “I know we said we were going to run game-day experiments to see if ball pressure deflates naturally, but we decided against that. We tested a few footballs and determined that Tom Brady’s still guilty. Oh yeah, and remember that time in 2007 when we imposed unprecedented penalties – and forever tarnished reputations – because the location of a single camera might allow a team to use video for in-game analysis? We’re working on technology that will allow teams to use video for in-game analysis.”

  11. News just in: The NFL is going to have Josh McDaniels coordinate and administer the program due to his experience in video taping gained from his employment with the Patriots and the Broncos.

  12. Not a good idea. Sure they can see things like poor routes or missed blocking assignments but they can also exploit things like audibles or maybe even play calls/hand signals. There is simply no need to allow this. Just coach/play football guys leave the analytics for prep time.

  13. First of all, why wasnt there already video on the tablets? What the hell were they for if not? They already had pictures down on the sidelines. I dont understand how this would effect the ‘integrity’ of the game one bit.

    As to the Pats fans crying foul, viewing All-22 footage of prior plays is a little different than filming defensive calls, no?

  14. Yay!, add in more temperamental tech! (the Pats’ Surface Pros didn’t work properly at rhe AFCCG, but BB is too classy to cast blame).

    Spygate was essentially an argument about inconsistently applied new camera placement rules for one game – after the 2006 rule memo, the Jets sideline-taped the Pats but when the Pats complained Tagliabue said taping for later team “training” film study purposes was still ok – you just couldn’t review that film during the game. But then when the Pats sideline-taped the Jets at the very next game (with Goodell just taking over as Commish) the league said that actually that 2006 rule memo meant all sideline-taping was illegal, confiscated the film and vilified the Pats, despite there being no actual evidence that the Pats were reviewing film during the game itself. Basically the rules are a tad vague and self contradictory – how they are interpreted is key. Tagliabue would have just revised and reissued the memo making it clear how the rules would be interpreted in future, but Goodell (on a “clean-up-the-game” ticket) was eager for a big scalp. And now he wants the very thing he claimed the Pats were doing.

  15. streetyson
    What am I missing? Or are YOU missing it?

    This is about agreement to watch video during the COURSE of a game.

    Wasn’t “Spygate” about an accusation that the Patriots had secretly taped PRACTICES of the other team? Hence getting information about what was GOING TO BE DONE in a game, hence giving them an advantage BEFORE the game?

    Not sure of the facts, but if I am recalling correctly… APPLE.. meet ORANGE…

  16. Actually 2ruefan, that’s not what Spygate was about. The Jets accused the Pats of taping from the sidelines in the 2007 season opener, which teams had just been told not to do. The rule was in place so that film couldn’t be studied during the game – taping from anywhere else in the stadium was and still is permitted. Pats admitted they did it, and that’s what the penalties were for. Months later and leading up to the Super Bowl, a Boston newspaper reported about taping practices. That was proven untrue and the newspaper printed a page 1 retraction.

  17. 2ruefan says:
    Feb 3, 2016 11:29 AM

    streetyson
    What am I missing? Or are YOU missing it?

    This is about agreement to watch video during the COURSE of a game.

    Wasn’t “Spygate” about an accusation that the Patriots had secretly taped PRACTICES of the other team? Hence getting information about what was GOING TO BE DONE in a game, hence giving them an advantage BEFORE the game?

    Not sure of the facts, but if I am recalling correctly… APPLE.. meet ORANGE…
    ——————————

    Spygate was about taping from the wrong spot on the sidelines. The memo warned against taping, and using that information in the same game.

    The accusation about the Patriots taping a practice was retracted after it was discovered to be a load of hooey.

  18. “Let’s make sure that whatever we do, that the focus is still the human competition,” Rolapp said after the event, via the Associated Press. “We don’t want it to replace the human competition because that’s what people still want to watch.”

    What the hell does that even mean? Well, it came from a league employee, so it likely means absolutely nothing, but still.

Leave a Reply