Sorry, but I think this video board is ridiculous

[DallasEast]

Like what? And I'm not asking this in a sarcastic or cynical manner. I really want to know what other stadiums have similar problems.

Example: several posters have already mentioned the adverse effects of playing on the field surface at Heinz Field. That is a stadium related problem which can (and has) caused player injuries, delays in game play, etc. It is also a stadium related problem which the league could instruct the Steelers to correct on their own dime.

 

[DallasEast]

Because people have been persistent in saying it only would have been a 25 yard or 30 yard punt.

I was just pointing out that the ball traveled 27 yards even with it hitting the board.

Once the ball's arc was affected by the impact with the videoboard, it was altered and made irrelevant. Only angle/arc, force and inertia should be considered when questioning how far the ball could have possibly traveled prior to the impact.

How far the ball could have actually traveled can be calculated, but I'm not certain. What I am certain of is that official measurement of punts begin at the line of scrimmage. The ball only traveled 13 yards beyond the line of scrimmage near or at its apex when it impacted the videoboard.

 

[Hoofbite]

Example: several posters have already mentioned the adverse effects of playing on the field surface at Heinz Field. That is a stadium related problem which can (and has) caused player injuries, delays in game play, etc. It is also a stadium related problem which the league could instruct the Steelers to correct on their own dime.

I suppose but theres more to that problem than it just being the stadium.

 

[DallasEast]

I suppose but theres more to that problem than it just being the stadium.

It's a part of that stadium and easily correctable. Why is it then deemed an exception, while the relative height of the videoboard isn't?

 

[Hoofbite]

Once the ball's arc was affected by the impact with the videoboard, it was altered and made irrelevant. Only angle/arc, force and inertia should be considered when questioning how far the ball could have possibly traveled prior to the impact.

How far the ball could have actually traveled can be calculated, but I'm not certain. What I am certain of is that official measurement of punts begin at the line of scrimmage. The ball only traveled 13 yards beyond the line of scrimmage near or at its apex when it impacted the videoboard.

I agree but I think its safe to say that the punt didn't gain any distance from hitting the board.

Who knows what it lost but its pretty much given it didn't gain any distance.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I don't get all the hate. The screen is awesome, it's a nice extra feature, and Jerry Jones isn't at fault on whether it was high enough. They had to have the league approve the building plans before they could build the thing in the first place and the league signed off on it saying 90 feet more than met their requirements for how high it was supposed to be.

So what's all the complaining about?

 

[Hoofbite]

It's a part of that stadium and easily correctable. Why is it then deemed an exception, while the relative height of the videoboard isn't?

I didn't say its the exception, just said that isn't the sole factor in the in problem.

You're basically saying Heinz field should have to go to artificial turf because they can't control the weather. If you make that ruling, you pretty much have to enforce it on all outdoor stadiums.

 

[DallasEast]

I don't get all the hate. The screen is awesome, it's a nice extra feature, and Jerry Jones isn't at fault on whether it was high enough. They had to have the league approve the building plans before they could build the thing in the first place and the league signed off on it saying 90 feet more than met their requirements for how high it was supposed to be.

So what's all the complaining about?

That's the $64,000 question.

 

[DallasEast]

I didn't say its the exception, just said that isn't the sole factor in the in problem.

You're basically saying Heinz field should have to go to artificial turf because they can't control the weather. If you make that ruling, you pretty much have to enforce it on all outdoor stadiums.

It's a problem.

The height of the videoboard is a 'problem'.

Both have been pointed out as factors which could affect game such as creating unnecessary injuries to players for example.

One isn't being questioned.

The other one is.

Why is that?

 

[Boyzmamacita]

I don't get all the hate. The screen is awesome, it's a nice extra feature, and Jerry Jones isn't at fault on whether it was high enough. They had to have the league approve the building plans before they could build the thing in the first place and the league signed off on it saying 90 feet more than met their requirements for how high it was supposed to be.

So what's all the complaining about?

That's the reason for the hate right there. It's awesome and it's property of the Cowboys.

 

[Hoofbite]

It's a problem.

The height of the videoboard is a 'problem'.

Both have been pointed out as factors which could affect game such as creating unnecessary injuries to players for example.

One isn't being questioned.

The other one is.

Why is that?

Because one is largely due to something out of human control. The other is completely due to human error.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Because one is largely due to something out of human control. The other is completely due to human error.

Actually, installing a better quality turf (real or artificial) is completely within human control.

 

[fannypack]

It's a problem.

The height of the videoboard is a 'problem'.

Both have been pointed out as factors which could affect game such as creating unnecessary injuries to players for example.

One isn't being questioned.

The other one is.

Why is that?

Because it's the Cowboys.

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't get all the hate. The screen is awesome, it's a nice extra feature, and Jerry Jones isn't at fault on whether it was high enough. They had to have the league approve the building plans before they could build the thing in the first place and the league signed off on it saying 90 feet more than met their requirements for how high it was supposed to be.

So what's all the complaining about?

For the record, I don't hate the board. Don't get me wrong, I think it's the coolest damn thing I have seen in a long time.

I do however hate the fact that it is in the way.

 

[theogt]

That's the angle I was waiting for from the network, but Fox never showed it. Instead, we got a closeup of the punter and then a closeup of the returner. And it goes without saying that the screen should be "bad punt" proof.

Depends on how bad of a punt it takes. If it's 1 in 200 punts, and raising it has a significant impact on some sort of view from certain seats (i.e., the expensive ones), then I could understand keeping it as is.

If it's going to happen once a game, obviously move it. But considering neither of the starting punters seemed to get close from my point of view in the stands, I can see the argument that it won't be a big issue.

 

[fannypack]

Because one is largely due to something out of human control. The other is completely due to human error.

You're right, human error. The punter TRIED to hit it :/

 

[Hoofbite]

Actually, installing a better quality turf (real or artificial) is completely within human control.

You can't install better real grass. Mud is mud and no matter the quality of grass, enough water will turn any type of grass into soup.

And I knew this point was going to be made. I almost asked my next question in the previous post.

Is it really that great of an idea to use artificial turn in a setting like Pittsburgh. When the weather gets that bad, does it even matter?

I know Boise has fake turn and they are a little north but they don't get weather like Pittsburgh. Not even close. The NE gets a TON of snow compared to what Boise gets.

At most, were talking a game or two per season having less than ideal field conditions because of the WEATHER. Little different than there being a weekly guessing game on the possibility of someone hitting the board because someone is refusing the move the board.

 

[DallasEast]

Because one is largely due to something out of human control. The other is completely due to human error.

Hoofbite. Come on, man. As you yourself have pointed out in the past, other stadiums are exposed to the elements. Other stadiums have had their fields modified accordingly. Is the city of Pittsburgh subjected to weather which is uncommon everywhere else?

Actually, installing a better quality turf (real or artificial) is completely within human control.

Thank you.

 

[Hoofbite]

Hoofbite. Come on, man. As you yourself have pointed out in the past, other stadiums are exposed to the elements. Other stadiums have had their fields modified accordingly. Is the city of Pittsburgh subjected to weather which is uncommon everywhere else? Thank you.

Are there outdoor stadiums with artificial turf? I can't think of any.

 

[Hoofbite]

You're right, human error. The punter TRIED to hit it :/

Even if he did Joe Buck said his re-punt had the height to hit it again but was off to one of the sides. And that punt was every bit as much of a punt as any you will see on a weekly basis.