[Hank 91]

Chase Thomas was named the Pac-12 Defensive Player of the Week, which is nice, but I particularly enjoyed this line from the conference's press release:

Stanford's defense held Cal, which entered the game averaging 5.0 yards per carry, to 3.86 inches per carry.

Here's the link: http://espn.go.com/blog/stanford-footbal...f-the-week

[Hank 91]

Chase Thomas was named the Pac-12 Defensive Player of the Week, which is nice, but I particularly enjoyed this line from the conference's press release:

Stanford's defense held Cal, which entered the game averaging 5.0 yards per carry, to 3.86 inches per carry.

Here's the link: http://espn.go.com/blog/stanford-footbal...f-the-week

[Hank 91]

Chase Thomas was named the Pac-12 Defensive Player of the Week, which is nice, but I particularly enjoyed this line from the conference's press release:

Stanford's defense held Cal, which entered the game averaging 5.0 yards per carry, to 3.86 inches per carry.

Here's the link: http://espn.go.com/blog/stanford-footbal...f-the-week

[Hank 91]

Chase Thomas was named the Pac-12 Defensive Player of the Week, which is nice, but I particularly enjoyed this line from the conference's press release:

Stanford's defense held Cal, which entered the game averaging 5.0 yards per carry, to 3.86 inches per carry.

Here's the link: http://espn.go.com/blog/stanford-footbal...f-the-week

[Gauss]

I thought it was hilarious. Those press releases try to be dry on purpose to inspire seriousness, but that line seemed to want to rub it in Kal's faces, lol.

Though I must say that the scientist in me cringed when they wrote 3.86 inches with three significant digits, when they probably only have one (perhaps two with large uncertainties)...

[Gauss]

I thought it was hilarious. Those press releases try to be dry on purpose to inspire seriousness, but that line seemed to want to rub it in Kal's faces, lol.

Though I must say that the scientist in me cringed when they wrote 3.86 inches with three significant digits, when they probably only have one (perhaps two with large uncertainties)...

[Gauss]

I thought it was hilarious. Those press releases try to be dry on purpose to inspire seriousness, but that line seemed to want to rub it in Kal's faces, lol.

Though I must say that the scientist in me cringed when they wrote 3.86 inches with three significant digits, when they probably only have one (perhaps two with large uncertainties)...

[Gauss]

I thought it was hilarious. Those press releases try to be dry on purpose to inspire seriousness, but that line seemed to want to rub it in Kal's faces, lol.

Though I must say that the scientist in me cringed when they wrote 3.86 inches with three significant digits, when they probably only have one (perhaps two with large uncertainties)...

[Robbie]

I thought it was hilarious. Those press releases try to be dry on purpose to inspire seriousness, but that line seemed to want to rub it in Kal's faces, lol.

Though I must say that the scientist in me cringed when they wrote 3.86 inches with three significant digits, when they probably only have one (perhaps two with large uncertainties)...

Time to be pedantic.

Sources of error:

• measurement error - (example: recorded as a two yard gain when it was actually a one yard gain)
  
• roundoff error - (example: gained about a foot - recorded as a zero yard gain)
  

Also - measurement error would also include missing plays (There were actually 29 rushing plays, but the statistician recorded 28 plays - I think this kind of error is unlikely - most likely case is trying to figure out if a sideways pass was a pass or a lateral.)

Measurement error is going to be small or none. Statisticians write down the yard line for every play - it's easy enough to measure within a yard of accuracy. Over an entire football football game with dozens of plays the cumulative measurement error is likely to be no more than a yard or two.

Similarly with roundoff error - this is real, but sometimes it will be positive and sometimes negative. My guess is that the cumulative error over a game is perhaps 2-4 yards. Wild guess - but I imagine I'm not way off - and if anything I've erred on the high side.

So the upper bound on yards gained rushing is perhaps 9, and the lower bound is perhaps -3. (Taking 2 yards of measurement error and 4 yards of roundoff error.)

And there were 28 rushes (and I will assume no error on that measurement.)

So the upper bound on inches  per carry is 11.57 inches per carry. Lower bound is -3.86 inches per carry.

[Robbie]

I thought it was hilarious. Those press releases try to be dry on purpose to inspire seriousness, but that line seemed to want to rub it in Kal's faces, lol.

Though I must say that the scientist in me cringed when they wrote 3.86 inches with three significant digits, when they probably only have one (perhaps two with large uncertainties)...

Time to be pedantic.

Sources of error:

• measurement error - (example: recorded as a two yard gain when it was actually a one yard gain)
  
• roundoff error - (example: gained about a foot - recorded as a zero yard gain)
  

Also - measurement error would also include missing plays (There were actually 29 rushing plays, but the statistician recorded 28 plays - I think this kind of error is unlikely - most likely case is trying to figure out if a sideways pass was a pass or a lateral.)

Measurement error is going to be small or none. Statisticians write down the yard line for every play - it's easy enough to measure within a yard of accuracy. Over an entire football football game with dozens of plays the cumulative measurement error is likely to be no more than a yard or two.

Similarly with roundoff error - this is real, but sometimes it will be positive and sometimes negative. My guess is that the cumulative error over a game is perhaps 2-4 yards. Wild guess - but I imagine I'm not way off - and if anything I've erred on the high side.

So the upper bound on yards gained rushing is perhaps 9, and the lower bound is perhaps -3. (Taking 2 yards of measurement error and 4 yards of roundoff error.)

And there were 28 rushes (and I will assume no error on that measurement.)

So the upper bound on inches  per carry is 11.57 inches per carry. Lower bound is -3.86 inches per carry.

[Robbie]

I thought it was hilarious. Those press releases try to be dry on purpose to inspire seriousness, but that line seemed to want to rub it in Kal's faces, lol.

Though I must say that the scientist in me cringed when they wrote 3.86 inches with three significant digits, when they probably only have one (perhaps two with large uncertainties)...

Time to be pedantic.

Sources of error:

• measurement error - (example: recorded as a two yard gain when it was actually a one yard gain)
  
• roundoff error - (example: gained about a foot - recorded as a zero yard gain)
  

Also - measurement error would also include missing plays (There were actually 29 rushing plays, but the statistician recorded 28 plays - I think this kind of error is unlikely - most likely case is trying to figure out if a sideways pass was a pass or a lateral.)

Measurement error is going to be small or none. Statisticians write down the yard line for every play - it's easy enough to measure within a yard of accuracy. Over an entire football football game with dozens of plays the cumulative measurement error is likely to be no more than a yard or two.

Similarly with roundoff error - this is real, but sometimes it will be positive and sometimes negative. My guess is that the cumulative error over a game is perhaps 2-4 yards. Wild guess - but I imagine I'm not way off - and if anything I've erred on the high side.

So the upper bound on yards gained rushing is perhaps 9, and the lower bound is perhaps -3. (Taking 2 yards of measurement error and 4 yards of roundoff error.)

And there were 28 rushes (and I will assume no error on that measurement.)

So the upper bound on inches  per carry is 11.57 inches per carry. Lower bound is -3.86 inches per carry.

[Robbie]

I thought it was hilarious. Those press releases try to be dry on purpose to inspire seriousness, but that line seemed to want to rub it in Kal's faces, lol.

Though I must say that the scientist in me cringed when they wrote 3.86 inches with three significant digits, when they probably only have one (perhaps two with large uncertainties)...

Time to be pedantic.

Sources of error:

• measurement error - (example: recorded as a two yard gain when it was actually a one yard gain)
  
• roundoff error - (example: gained about a foot - recorded as a zero yard gain)
  

Also - measurement error would also include missing plays (There were actually 29 rushing plays, but the statistician recorded 28 plays - I think this kind of error is unlikely - most likely case is trying to figure out if a sideways pass was a pass or a lateral.)

Measurement error is going to be small or none. Statisticians write down the yard line for every play - it's easy enough to measure within a yard of accuracy. Over an entire football football game with dozens of plays the cumulative measurement error is likely to be no more than a yard or two.

Similarly with roundoff error - this is real, but sometimes it will be positive and sometimes negative. My guess is that the cumulative error over a game is perhaps 2-4 yards. Wild guess - but I imagine I'm not way off - and if anything I've erred on the high side.

So the upper bound on yards gained rushing is perhaps 9, and the lower bound is perhaps -3. (Taking 2 yards of measurement error and 4 yards of roundoff error.)

And there were 28 rushes (and I will assume no error on that measurement.)

So the upper bound on inches  per carry is 11.57 inches per carry. Lower bound is -3.86 inches per carry.

[jayasena]

Yes, the whole idea of refs calling the spots as they see at game speed from wherever they happened to be (while trying to dodge players etc.), possibly with  a foot+ of error nearly every time and then talking about inches in ridiculous. But I'm okay with those means if it gets us to ends like this 3.86-inch gem of a stat.

[jayasena]

Yes, the whole idea of refs calling the spots as they see at game speed from wherever they happened to be (while trying to dodge players etc.), possibly with  a foot+ of error nearly every time and then talking about inches in ridiculous. But I'm okay with those means if it gets us to ends like this 3.86-inch gem of a stat.

[jayasena]

Yes, the whole idea of refs calling the spots as they see at game speed from wherever they happened to be (while trying to dodge players etc.), possibly with  a foot+ of error nearly every time and then talking about inches in ridiculous. But I'm okay with those means if it gets us to ends like this 3.86-inch gem of a stat.

[jayasena]

Yes, the whole idea of refs calling the spots as they see at game speed from wherever they happened to be (while trying to dodge players etc.), possibly with  a foot+ of error nearly every time and then talking about inches in ridiculous. But I'm okay with those means if it gets us to ends like this 3.86-inch gem of a stat.

[FarmBoy]

I always laugh at the ridiculous ceremony of walking out with "the chains" to measure whether the runner made it or not. It creates this illusion of precision which is so far from the truth. There's the error in seeing where the ball was when the runner was "down", plus the error made as the line judge walks in from the side, plus the error when the ref places the ball, plus the error of where the chain link is grabbed for anchoring, plus the error in whether you bring the chains to the exact perpendicular to the ball.

Will we ever see a system where sensors in the ball tracked by GPS will tell us if the ball crossed the end zone? Or that the ball placement results in a 1st down?

[FarmBoy]

I always laugh at the ridiculous ceremony of walking out with "the chains" to measure whether the runner made it or not. It creates this illusion of precision which is so far from the truth. There's the error in seeing where the ball was when the runner was "down", plus the error made as the line judge walks in from the side, plus the error when the ref places the ball, plus the error of where the chain link is grabbed for anchoring, plus the error in whether you bring the chains to the exact perpendicular to the ball.

Will we ever see a system where sensors in the ball tracked by GPS will tell us if the ball crossed the end zone? Or that the ball placement results in a 1st down?

[FarmBoy]

I always laugh at the ridiculous ceremony of walking out with "the chains" to measure whether the runner made it or not. It creates this illusion of precision which is so far from the truth. There's the error in seeing where the ball was when the runner was "down", plus the error made as the line judge walks in from the side, plus the error when the ref places the ball, plus the error of where the chain link is grabbed for anchoring, plus the error in whether you bring the chains to the exact perpendicular to the ball.

Will we ever see a system where sensors in the ball tracked by GPS will tell us if the ball crossed the end zone? Or that the ball placement results in a 1st down?

[FarmBoy]

I always laugh at the ridiculous ceremony of walking out with "the chains" to measure whether the runner made it or not. It creates this illusion of precision which is so far from the truth. There's the error in seeing where the ball was when the runner was "down", plus the error made as the line judge walks in from the side, plus the error when the ref places the ball, plus the error of where the chain link is grabbed for anchoring, plus the error in whether you bring the chains to the exact perpendicular to the ball.

Will we ever see a system where sensors in the ball tracked by GPS will tell us if the ball crossed the end zone? Or that the ball placement results in a 1st down?

[yvonne]

That sounds like one if the two methods being considered to verify goals in the other kind of football.

[yvonne]

That sounds like one if the two methods being considered to verify goals in the other kind of football.

[yvonne]

That sounds like one if the two methods being considered to verify goals in the other kind of football.

[yvonne]

That sounds like one if the two methods being considered to verify goals in the other kind of football.

[g1313]

I think the core problem with GPS/RFID in the football is you still have to decide when the knee/elbow is down, so it won't be helpful in all situations.

[g1313]

I think the core problem with GPS/RFID in the football is you still have to decide when the knee/elbow is down, so it won't be helpful in all situations.

[g1313]

I think the core problem with GPS/RFID in the football is you still have to decide when the knee/elbow is down, so it won't be helpful in all situations.

[g1313]

I think the core problem with GPS/RFID in the football is you still have to decide when the knee/elbow is down, so it won't be helpful in all situations.

[washingtonismoney]

I think the core problem with GPS/RFID in the football is you still have to decide when the knee/elbow is down, so it won't be helpful in all situations.

If there were a way for the ref's whistle and the data from the ball to somehow synchronize (maybe in the replay booth?), the issue is solved.

[washingtonismoney]

I think the core problem with GPS/RFID in the football is you still have to decide when the knee/elbow is down, so it won't be helpful in all situations.

If there were a way for the ref's whistle and the data from the ball to somehow synchronize (maybe in the replay booth?), the issue is solved.

[washingtonismoney]

I think the core problem with GPS/RFID in the football is you still have to decide when the knee/elbow is down, so it won't be helpful in all situations.

If there were a way for the ref's whistle and the data from the ball to somehow synchronize (maybe in the replay booth?), the issue is solved.

[washingtonismoney]

I think the core problem with GPS/RFID in the football is you still have to decide when the knee/elbow is down, so it won't be helpful in all situations.

If there were a way for the ref's whistle and the data from the ball to somehow synchronize (maybe in the replay booth?), the issue is solved.