When we think of football we focus on the men involved: the violent collisions, the skill required to throw a perfect pass, and the dance after the game winning touchdown. But over the past several decades new technologies have been introduced to the game. New technology doesn’t automatically get adopted, however. Those charged with overseeing the sanctity of the game carefully evaluate new techniques and devices and decide whether, how, and when they can be used.
Technologies that change what happens on the field undergo a very rigorous review. Breaking from tradition can be seen as compromising the integrity of the game. Change can and does happen, but only when a strong argument is made for why change is desirable, if not necessary.
The most obvious advancements on the field are the armor-like padding that players wear. Players are covered from head to toe with different pieces of protective gear with the hopes of reducing injury. Whether this is true or not is up for debate. What is clear, however, is that the increase in padding has changed the game. Players now crash into each other with greater force than previous generations now that they know that both they and the poor little running back they’re hitting have protection.
For a very similar reason, a number of new medical technologies have been introduced to the game. Some of these are as simple as large fans or heaters placed near the bench; others are as complicated as cutting-edge diagnosis and treatment centers. Players can be picked up off the field, loaded onto a golf cart, and within minutes have their injury X-rayed. Again, the initial goal is to protect the health of the players, but it has most certainly changed the game. If tests show no major damage, players that would otherwise be sent to a hospital can be back on the field within a few plays—a broken arm can be set in a cast and the player can return to hit the quarterback one more time.
A new technology doesn’t have to further safety to be used. All NFL coaches now are outfitted with microphones so they can not only talk to their staff, but their quarterback and a key defensive player as well. This device allows the coach to call in plays from the sidelines and has made it much easier to run hurry up offenses. The NFL struggled with whether or not to allow this technology. It was introduced in the 1950s by a few coaches, subsequently banned by the NFL, and eventually reintroduced, but with rules designed to keep some of the traditional aspects of the game. The transmissions are cut when the play clock hits 15 seconds, ensuring that the quarterback does the final analysis of the defense himself.
While it can be difficult to put new technologies on the field, if a technology enhances the viewing experience change can come much more quickly. It is the fans that spend the money that make the players, coaches, and franchises wealthy.
The most obvious example of this are the increasing number of cameras placed in stadiums, suspended by wires over stadiums, and floating above stadiums in blimps, planes, and helicopters. This gives the viewer multiple angles and close-ups of the action on the field. In some ways it has made viewing the game on TV better than in person.
For ten years now NFL fans have eagerly watched the magical yellow line that lets them know how far their team has to go to get a first down. The brilliant part about the technology is that it doesn’t exist on the field – only in the computers that generate it and the televisions that display it. It doesn’t change what happens on the field at all. Players must still glance at the sidelines for the orange pylons when they decide whether it’s worthwhile to step safely out of bounds or plow on for another yard. It could, however, change the way the game is perceived for the worse. If the way the referees and the fans see the marker differs wildly, fans are likely to feel cheated. So announcers frequently tell us that the line is not official and TV crews are careful to delete it when showing the official measurement.
Just because a technology enhances the viewing experience does not mean it will necessarily be adopted. Attempts have been made by television producers to mic up players and coaches so that viewers can hear what they’re saying in real time. So far this hasn’t been allowed in the NFL because of concerns about how such communications could be used by opposing teams. Sounds of the game are recorded, but only aired after the play has occurred.
Technologies designed to make the game more
interesting for viewers have most certainly had an effect on the way it
is played. Many viewing technologies are actively used by players,
coaches, and referees. Instant replay and slow-motion video was
initially developed by television producers to let fans relieve
exciting moments or see details that weren’t visible on the first
viewing. With the technology fans could see the small mistakes that the
officials made when calling the game and their acceptance of human
mistakes decreased. The league and officials eventually responded by
giving their officials the same technology to use in certain
circumstances to help ensure that the game is called closer to the way
the fans were seeing it. Fans want to keep the human element in the
process of refereeing, but would like them to be more accurate than
normal humans would be. The NFL struck a compromise – a human makes the
final decision with the help of technology.
In an effort to
make sure that fans didn’t stay at home for the better view, stadiums
introduced the jumbotron. This allowed close up images of players as
well as replays to be shown to the crowds. But of course it’s not just
the fans who want to review the game. Players increasingly turn to the
jumbotron perhaps to see the mistakes they made, but more likely to
celebrate their own glory. Assistant coaches also have the ability to
see the TV’s video feeds which they use to adjust their calls, point
out schemes to players, and suggest when a head coach should challenge
a call made by an official.
For the most part the
technologies in the game today do not themselves generate much
controversy. The NFL and others have done a reasonable job of slowly
integrating new devices to enhance the safety of players and the
enjoyment of the game. But there are a number of new technologies in
the pipeline that will be up for debate in the coming years.
For
instance, advances in biotechnology, like gene therapy, may already
allow players to alter their DNA or other biological processes to
become bigger, stronger, faster. This form of doping is seen as the
logical extension of steroids, a technology that has generated
significant controversy and therefore many efforts to regulate it. But
other forms of body enhancement are widely used in the NFL. Everything
from high compression wraps to cortisone shots are used to allow
players to play beyond their current physical state. Fans have come to
expect that players will be able to play beyond the abilities of normal
humans, that they can, for instance, take a vicious hit and get back in
the game. The ways in which the NFL allows this to happen will require
very careful deliberation.
In the future, instead of using
microphones and headsets, coaches and players may use brain-machine
interfaces. These could be used to simply communicate, or even allow
coaches to program plays into the quarterback’s brain. Currently there
are enough people who like the idea that football is a team sport
rather than a chess game between opposing coaches. But as more and more
viewers learn about football from video games where they literally
program the quarterback, there may be an incentive to allow such
technologies and perhaps even let a lucky or wealthy fan run a call or
two.
It’s hard to argue that technology hasn’t made football better in many ways. Still, on Sunday when we sit down to cheer on our underdog Arizona Cardinals, it will be the cleverness of Coach Whiz and his coaching team, the agility of Fitz and Q, the determination of Darnell Dockett, the perseverance of old man Warner, and the enthusiasm of the team that we will celebrate. Of course we will enjoy this at least a little bit more as we watch the replays recorded by our DVR on our 52-inch plasma screen.
This article was co-authored with:
Jameson M. Wetmore, Assistant Professor, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes and the School of Human Evolution & Social Change
