"Chipped" Footballs

[DCM]

Also, if they knew the 2024 kick balls were going to be chipped, weren't they all practicing with the chipped balls all through TC and PS??  It would seem rather unprofessional to have practiced all this time with the ball you weren't going to use in the game!

"Castillo said chipped balls weren't used during Winnipeg's first preseason game in Regina"

"If I went 60 percent (with the chipped footballs during practice in training camp), that was a great day. When we went with normal balls, (I was) 90-plus percent"

Hey wait, weren't the balls also chipped in 2023?!?  I'm nearly positive we were told they were chipped in 2023 because they put out a notice players weren't allowed to chuck balls in the stands anymore.

On a couple of FG's at PAS that went into the stands I noticed the workers went up and retrieved the balls.  If I was there it'd be under my seat and I'd be saying "what ball?"   

If they were chipped in 2023 then why is this only affecting Castillo now??

Next question: the guys who INT the ball and walk off with it (like Cole)... do they have to give it back too?  Or pay the $500 price to keep it??

"The league began inserting chips into their footballs for select games in 2023, though they weren't used in the kicking game. Castillo credited Winnipeg's player union representatives Adam Bighill, Mike Benson, and Jake Thomas for rebuffing an attempt from the league to use the chipped balls in last year's West Final due to concerns over accuracy, though the prevention was short-lived."

[TecnoGenius]

"Castillo said chipped balls weren't used during Winnipeg's first preseason game in Regina"

Thanks for the clarifications, they are very helpful in sorting this out.

Interesting, they did get to use chipped balls for kicking in TC.  Strange that they noticed an issue then, but waited until week 1 to petition the league?

I fully believe Castillo and MOS, but it seems like all parties dropped the ball here.  Does Castillo get an asterisk next to his 2024 stats when the season is over?

[Waffler]

Should be a poll perhaps but my vote is that 100% the chip will make the ball move on FGs.  When the ball goes end over end with one side heavier it is going to move.

If they ever decide they want less field goals all they will have to do is put the chip back in the kicking game. It sort of is like roulette though and less to do with skill.

[Waffler]

Two things I think would effect how much movement you would get.

1. the spin on the ball
2. the hold. the farther to the side the chip is the more movement

If you got a perfect end over end with the chip dead center would be most ideal. Right now the chip is beside the lace and holders try to put the lace facing forward making the ball weighted off center.

[TBURGESS]

I'd like to see all the FG kickers in the league kick 10 chipped and 10 unchipped balls without telling them which was which to see if the chip makes any real difference or is it just in their heads. 

[Waffler]

I'd like to see all the FG kickers in the league kick 10 chipped and 10 unchipped balls without telling them which was which to see if the chip makes any real difference or is it just in their heads.

So you are trying to prove every kicker in this league and two other professional leagues wrong?

[TBURGESS]

So you are trying to prove every kicker in this league and two other professional leagues wrong?

No. I'm looking for some actual data to show that they are right or wrong. 

If a QB says that the chip causes his deep balls to be inaccurate, would you simply accept it or would you want some kind of proof?

[The Zipp]

I'd like to see all the FG kickers in the league kick 10 chipped and 10 unchipped balls without telling them which was which to see if the chip makes any real difference or is it just in their heads.

The fact they didn't do this before meaningful games started is what is bush league about CFL - Ambrosie and this love affair with incompetent Genius sports

[Waffler]

No. I'm looking for some actual data to show that they are right or wrong.

If a QB says that the chip causes his deep balls to be inaccurate, would you simply accept it or would you want some kind of proof?

I believe physics to be the proof.

[TBURGESS]

I believe physics to be the proof.

Then you shouldn't be against testing your 'proof'.

Lets say you're right. Chips affect the ball. Both teams have chipped balls, therefore... things are equal. It's like playing in the rain or snow or wind or on a bad field. As long as both teams have to deal with the same thing, then equality is reached and that's all that matters. 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Then you shouldn't be against testing your 'proof'.

Lets say you're right. Chips affect the ball. Both teams have chipped balls, therefore... things are equal. It's like playing in the rain or snow or wind or on a bad field. As long as both teams have to deal with the same thing, then equality is reached and that's all that matters.

You're dismissing the additional stress an added uncertainty adds to a very stressful job. Real or imagined, glad the league listened to the kickers and acted promptly to keep them happy.

[TBURGESS]

You're dismissing the additional stress an added uncertainty adds to a very stressful job. Real or imagined, glad the league listened to the kickers and acted promptly to keep them happy.

The kickers who handle the stress and uncertainty better will have better results. That's true, chipped or unchipped. 

As for what the league did.. I'd have liked it better if they made the change after the first week of play, not after the first game of the week to make it equal for all but the bye team.

[TecnoGenius]

Castillo said he ran that the suggested test in TC (though not "blind") and the difference was 60% vs 90%.

So do we believe him or not?  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  Why not?

Would a scientific, blind test be better?  Of course, but are they going to do that?  Probably not, because it's a moot point now.

Now, you want to complicate things: if the chip affects a kick, which has insane force on it, then why wouldn't it affect a thrown ball?  You'd think the latter would be even more susceptible.  Zach's balls were looking like wobblers a lot... then again, they had them in 2023, so who knows anymore.

Why don't they just put the chips dead center in the ball when building it??

[dd]

Castillo said he ran that the suggested test in TC (though not "blind") and the difference was 60% vs 90%.

So do we believe him or not?  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  Why not?

Would a scientific, blind test be better?  Of course, but are they going to do that?  Probably not, because it's a moot point now.

Now, you want to complicate things: if the chip affects a kick, which has insane force on it, then why wouldn't it affect a thrown ball?  You'd think the latter would be even more susceptible.  Zach's balls were looking like wobblers a lot... then again, they had them in 2023, so who knows anymore.

Why don't they just put the chips dead center in the ball when building it??

Why put the chip in at all??

[theaardvark]

When a kicker THINKS there is an issue, there is an issue...  their game is so mental that if he thinks there might be a difference, there will be a difference.