Certainly like the concept.
But, even if the goal is get folks to make rulings based on full-speed action, the video simply must be MUCH larger.
In the ‘prototype’ down offered, such inconclusive action can, and certainly should, be presented. But, IMHO, we should focus on action that reinforces rule and philosophy knowledge, with action that is clearly recognizable. Judgment can certainly be an element. But, we’d be better served to show action that is reasonably clear. We should not try to ‘trip people up.’ Let’s show examples of procedural rules, and rules regarding the ball. When we show action that requires significant judgment, let’s make sure the action is very visible, and includes all relevant action. E.g., if we want to show a preferred ‘no call’ for a holding action, let’s be sure we can see the location and disposition of the ball carrier, and the neutral zone, as well as the actual suspect holding action.
In the ‘prototype’ down offered, we can’t see the ball, and the cameras views offered don’t provide a realistic ‘officiating’ look at the contact between the Team A player on the Team B receiver. We can easily judge KCI, but we just don’t get a good look at the contact, to rule on possible targeting. If one of the answer options had been, “Illegal non-flagrant contact to the head-neck area of the receiver, number (nn), kicking team, 15 yard penalty, 1st down, receiving team,” then we would have known that that this type of non-flagrant head/neck foul is an option to be considered. Then, based on the inconclusiveness of the video, that option would be reasonable.
Looking forward to seeing how this develops. Good initiative.
