NFL plans to replace chains with Hawk-Eye virtual measurement in 2025

[Gamecock72]

https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/nfl-replace-chains-hawk-eye-virtual-measurement-2025

NFL plans to replace chains with Hawk-Eye virtual measurement in 2025
Updated Feb. 27, 2025 3:33 a.m. ET

The chain gang has been an essential part of the NFL game for as long as one can remember, but it's undergoing a change in 2025.

Beginning next season, the NFL is expected to replace the chains — which are used to indicate the line to gain on a series of downs — with the Hawk-Eye virtual measurement system, NFL executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent told reporters Wednesday.

The chain gang will stick around as needed, NFL Network added.

This would mean that all measurements for the line of scrimmage would be determined virtually, as opposed to by a referee, though the official will still place the ball down on the field. The technology was used during the 2024 NFL preseason.

For example, said technology could overturn a call on the field regarding whether a ball-carrier reached the line to gain for a first down. It's not the same as chip technology, but it could, in theory, have helped with controversial spots like in the most recent AFC Championship Game.

Elsewhere, Vincent said that the league is considering "expanded replay assist" for flags that are thrown in live time.

Vincent also said that the NFL is examining potentially matching the regular-season overtime rules with postseason overtime rules (both teams getting a chance to score a touchdown the first time they touch the ball) and that they "need to do something" about onside kicks; an onside kick attempt had to be formally declared and could only be attempted in the fourth quarter with the team trailing last season.

The NFL Scouting Combine takes place this week in Indianapolis.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Bills got royally screwed on a measurement in the AFC title game against the Chiefs. Blatantly robbed.

 

[muscleknight]

Go ahead and replace the players with virtual ones as well.

 

[Gamecock72]

I do not understand the hesitancy to use the technology available to better call a game. I know some claim they want the keep the "human" aspect of it, but I just do not get it. Why opt for a flawed system when you 100% know there is a way more accurate system available? The more bad calls taken out of games the better the games in my opinion.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I do not understand the hesitancy to use the technology available to better call a game. I know some claim they want the keep the "human" aspect of it, but I just do not get it. Why opt for a flawed system when you 100% know there is a way more accurate system available? The more bad calls taken out of games the better the games in my opinion.

I am generally opposed to too much technology...robo umps and such. However, I've long thought they should use some kind of GPS or other technology for measurements. Particularly on the short yardage 3rd and 4th down plays where there's a scrum of players and it's really anyone's guess as to where the ball is. In general, I don't have any issue with ref measurements. But when you can't even SEE the ball, how in the world are you going to say where the ball is?

 

[Gamecock72]

I am generally opposed to too much technology...robo umps and such. However, I've long thought they should use some kind of GPS or other technology for measurements. Particularly on the short yardage 3rd and 4th down plays where there's a scrum of players and it's really anyone's guess as to where the ball is. In general, I don't have any issue with ref measurements. But when you can't even SEE the ball, how in the world are you going to say where the ball is?

I am just the opisite. I am 100% for any tech that will call a better game, including robo umps. If a robo ump can call more accurate balls and strikes, then we should use it to call them on every pitch in my opinion. I just do not understand opposing a more accurately called game.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

I am generally opposed to too much technology...robo umps and such. However, I've long thought they should use some kind of GPS or other technology for measurements. Particularly on the short yardage 3rd and 4th down plays where there's a scrum of players and it's really anyone's guess as to where the ball is. In general, I don't have any issue with ref measurements. But when you can't even SEE the ball, how in the world are you going to say where the ball is?

GPS would not be accurate to within an inch, which would be necessary. Perhaps a chip in both ends of the ball? Maybe an additional one in the middle?

 

[will110]

Ball spotting is such a hilarious aspect of football officiating. For the vast majority of a game, the officials just stick the ball down somewhere, typically on a hash mark or yard line if possible. It's nowhere close to exact.

Then all of a sudden in short yardage situations they act like it's a precision science.

 

[Gradstudent]

Cant help but think of this and then what happened next

 

[bayrooster]

Ball spotting is such a hilarious aspect of football officiating. For the vast majority of a game, the officials just stick the ball down somewhere, typically on a hash mark or yard line if possible. It's nowhere close to exact.

Then all of a sudden in short yardage situations they act like it's a precision science.

Yeah and the "hawk-eye" measurement will be based on where a ref arbitrarily placed the ball, so it's still flawed.

 

[Piscis]

If the ref is still spotting the ball, the technology used to determine if the play gained enough for a first down really doesn't matter. A chain or a laser or whatever the hawk eye thing is is nothing more than a tool.

I always love when a ref from 30 yds away who views the runner from behind rushes in and "corrects" the spot. With the multitude of camera angles in today's games, getting an accurate spot should be fairly simple.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I am just the opisite. I am 100% for any tech that will call a better game, including robo umps. If a robo ump can call more accurate balls and strikes, then we should use it to call them on every pitch in my opinion. I just do not understand opposing a more accurately called game.

Would you be in favor expanding instant replay in football to cover every play, including all penalties?

 

[Piscis]

Would you be in favor expanding instant replay in football to cover every play, including all penalties?

I'd go the other way. Each coach gets one replay challenge per half with no penalty if the challenge is not upheld. The coach can challenge anything that happens on the field, from spot of the ball to any penalty that is called. Do away with the targeting penalty completely and bring back the penalty for spearing.

Games are becoming painful to watch due to all the play stoppages for video reviews.

 

[Gamecock72]

Would you be in favor expanding instant replay in football to cover every play, including all penalties?

Some but maybe not all. I think it should be able to be used on pass interference.

More replay is not really what I am referring to. I am more referring to technology that can make an accurate call on the fly. Like ball placement and balls and strikes. Fair or foul ball. Things like that.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Some but maybe not all. I think it should be able to be used on pass interference.

More replay is not really what I am referring to. I am more referring to technology that can make an accurate call on the fly. Like ball placement and balls and strikes. Fair or foul ball. Things like that.

And, see, that's where I have a beef with the folks who are pro-technology, particularly when it comes to replay in football. They say we need anything we can to call a better game and that replay is all about "getting the call right" but then they want to exclude penalties which often have a massive impact on the outcome of the game...and can even determine the outcome of the game, as we saw several times this season. Sometimes a penalty call/non-call is the biggest play in a game. It's just a logically inconsistent position.

I think you can also call things TOO precisely, which is a disadvantage of some technology. Like in basketball, if you had robo-refs calling fouls, there's tons of contact that could be called a foul if you're going by the letter of the law all the time, but the human element realizes there is a flow to the game and good refs know when to call a game tightly and when to "let them play". Same goes for football. Depending on the nature of the game, the refs may call things tight or if they sense it's going to be an extremely physical game, they may allow a certain level of contact.

This image below in baseball with the ABS system is similar:

Is that bottom pitch a strike? Well, yeah, if you're going strictly by the book it is by a few nanometers. SHOULD it be called a strike? Of course not. Same as not calling every single contact a foul in basketball. Who in the world actually wants baseball called this way? Might was well just watch a computer simulation.

I know it's popular and trendy to dump on the human element, but the human element has the ability to use common sense, judge the flow of the game, etc. Technology has the advantage of being coldly unbiased, which has advantages, but technology can't discern game flow and situational calls. The best system is human first with technology as a backup for close calls or critical situations.

But the "we need replay in football except for penalties" folks really get me. If the point is to the call right, then just get EVERY call right.

 

[KingWard]

Go ahead and replace the players with virtual ones as well.

Right. That would get payrolls back in line with reality.

 

[adcoop]

I am just the opisite. I am 100% for any tech that will call a better game, including robo umps. If a robo ump can call more accurate balls and strikes, then we should use it to call them on every pitch in my opinion. I just do not understand opposing a more accurately called game.

This slippery slope is going to have many people out of a job in about 10 years. AI is going to replace everybody unless you are one of the people that notice the trend and operate the technology.

 

[Lurker123]

Ball spotting is such a hilarious aspect of football officiating. For the vast majority of a game, the officials just stick the ball down somewhere, typically on a hash mark or yard line if possible. It's nowhere close to exact.

Then all of a sudden in short yardage situations they act like it's a precision science.

Throw in the setting of the chains. Not only does the ref put the ball down, but the guy 30 yards away has to set the initial chain on sight alone.

 

[will110]

And, see, that's where I have a beef with the folks who are pro-technology, particularly when it comes to replay in football. They say we need anything we can to call a better game and that replay is all about "getting the call right" but then they want to exclude penalties which often have a massive impact on the outcome of the game...and can even determine the outcome of the game, as we saw several times this season. Sometimes a penalty call/non-call is the biggest play in a game. It's just a logically inconsistent position.

I think you can also call things TOO precisely, which is a disadvantage of some technology. Like in basketball, if you had robo-refs calling fouls, there's tons of contact that could be called a foul if you're going by the letter of the law all the time, but the human element realizes there is a flow to the game and good refs know when to call a game tightly and when to "let them play". Same goes for football. Depending on the nature of the game, the refs may call things tight or if they sense it's going to be an extremely physical game, they may allow a certain level of contact.

This image below in baseball with the ABS system is similar:

Is that bottom pitch a strike? Well, yeah, if you're going strictly by the book it is by a few nanometers. SHOULD it be called a strike? Of course not. Same as not calling every single contact a foul in basketball. Who in the world actually wants baseball called this way? Might was well just watch a computer simulation.

I know it's popular and trendy to dump on the human element, but the human element has the ability to use common sense, judge the flow of the game, etc. Technology has the advantage of being coldly unbiased, which has advantages, but technology can't discern game flow and situational calls. The best system is human first with technology as a backup for close calls or critical situations.

But the "we need replay in football except for penalties" folks really get me. If the point is to the call right, then just get EVERY call right.

I agree that the human element is important, and this is why I'm torn about the issue. I think a lot of these issues could be fixed with better officials and public accountability.

I think about the LSU game last fall, where several very questionable (at best) calls all went against South Carolina. If just one of those calls is different, Carolina very likely wins the game. And yes I know there were plenty of self-inflicted errors as well, but the officiating was brutal. Why was there never any public accountability for the calls in that game, whether an official explanation for why the calls actually were correct or public acknowledgment that they were incorrect? Why was Angel Hernandez a terrible MLB umpire for decades without demotion to AAA?

I want calls to be correct, but I also hate sitting through endless replays that all too often don't seem to get the calls right anyway.

 

[Lurker123]

I want calls to be correct, but I also hate sitting through endless replays that all too often don't seem to get the calls right anyway.

This is the crux, imo. Handled quickly, I don't think many people would have an issue with replay.

I noted during one of the XFL seasons that they had a camera in the replay booth, and a Mike to hear what the dude was saying. He called for a view, he paused and rewound and fast forwarded, and made a call in a out 15 seconds.

You do that in the NFL and I think most people would be ecstatic.

Use a tracker in the balls (no jokes) to compare to the first down marker or endzone? Sure, just don't stare at the readout for 5 minutes.

 

[KingWard]

This slippery slope is going to have many people out of a job in about 10 years. AI is going to replace everybody unless you are one of the people that notice the trend and operate the technology.

There's no industrial process I can think of the AI couldn't control with minimal operator input. There are industrial processes that require hands-on situational operational involvement and maintenance functions that no robotics can possibly do. But, yes, many folks will be displaced.

 

[Piscis]

There's no industrial process I can think of the AI couldn't control with minimal operator input. There are industrial processes that require hands-on situational operational involvement and maintenance functions that no robotics can possibly do. But, yes, many folks will be displaced.

This is why trade skills are going to be the most in demand skills going forward. AI can't do plumbing, electrical or HVAC work or repair cars or equipment. AI is even going to disrupt medicine. Diagnosis is going to be more and more done by AI with humans only needed to take the samples. All of those people who got computer programming degrees and systems analyst degrees need to be thinking of a new marketable skill to acquire.

Career paths that result in high wages are going to be drastically altered going forward.