Talk:Chain crew

How accurate is the chain measuring...
No sure how to explain my doubts about the chain measuring without any visual diagram but essentially, when the chain crew walks out onto the field to measure, what is there to ensure that the chain is PARALLEL to the sidelines? What I mean is that what if the chain is a little slanted over a length of 10 yards any degree deviation from the base/sideline can probably cost inches.

I've been watching a lot of football and talked to a lot of people but I never seem to be able to find the answer to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 19:37, 20 July 2006 Dexterbot (talk • contribs).


 * The good news is that a small error doesn't cost much. If you do a little trig, for the chain crew to commit an error of just an inch, they'd have to be skewed by 4°, which is a lot: the lateral positions of the sticks would be more than a 2.2 feet apart. Surely they can do better than that. I'd worry more about spotting the ball correctly. Melchoir 23:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

When we measure there's still a lot of eyeballing and it's not an exact science, but a few steps are made to be sure that it's pretty close: Mishatx 15:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the article, a clip is placed on the chain at a major 5-yard mark. Mechanics will vary by conference/league/crew, but usually the one about 4-8 yards from the line to gain.
 * When the chains are brought onto the field, an official will mark the spot on that yardline that is even with the ball. This isn't too hard to eyeball pretty closely.
 * The chain will be first placed on the field at the clip. It's not too hard to make sure that the chain is perpendicular to the yard line when it is pulled tight.
 * The measurement happens and half the players rejoice.

Forget how accurate it is, but
Let's assume the way it's done is accurate enough to get the job done. Can someone explain why guys holding chains and eyeballing a parallel line from off the field, walking on the field, and then sticking the spot into the ground is any more accurate than a referee eyeballing a paralell line from the spot of the football toward the edge of the field and simply looking at that spot compared to where the stick is already in the ground? Isn't it essentially the same thing except the chain never has to move? Why is bringing the chains out onto the field any improvement over my above idea? Football has a lot of extras that are there to please the crowd, such as a ref explaining a call over a loudspeaker; is it possible that bringing the chains out onto the field is just one of those extra things for the sake of the crowd and the t.v. viewers? Dancindazed (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit: Also, it's silly to have the stick man at the line scrimmage bring out the spot and then the guy in front pull the chain tight from there. As if somehow the guy in back is going to keep better track of the line of scrimmage with his stick but the guy in front can't keep track of where his stick is. Once you realize that's silly, it follows that bringing the sticks out at all is the same because you can just have the guy spotting the ball bring his spot down the same exact type of pretend line that the stick guy is bring his stick down. It's all for show. There's so many things done in sports that are just done without any logic behind them. Dancindazed (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The initial position of the sticks may be imprecise, but it's done without strategic intent to favor one team or the other. Once the clip is attached, the Line to Gain when the chains come onto the field is exactly the Line to Gain when they were on the sidelines.  (The back rod only comes out because he is attached to the forward rod.)


 * During an on-field measurement, the forward rod is not in fact pulled tight from the back rod; it's pulled tight from the clip. (It is only from the clip to the forward rod that you'd have to worry about the chain not being parallel to the sideline, so any error is even less than stated above.)


 * Imprecise clock operation is not a big worry early in the game (at the amateur level). When the game reaches the 2- or 5-minute warning and rules take effect to enable clock management, precise time measurement becomes huge.  Likewise, rough placement of the back rod (the start of the set of downs) is relatively unimportant (barring consistent bias toward one team).  On First Down, it isn't crucial whether the Line to Gain is 9.9 or 10.1 yards away.  When it is Fourth and Inches, the Line to Gain is exact and unforgiving.  (PS--Just added to the article a citation in which a reply by Ben Austro (though he means to say "360 inches") also addresses this point. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC))


 * I've heard more relevant criticism: that the chain is absurdly precise to measure a seat-of-the-pants spot of the ball by the referee. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Where, precisely, is the line to gain?
I had always believed that it was at the center of the rod. However, I have often seen a new series of downs granted when the nose of the ball was _clearly_ well short of any part of the rod - even short of the loop on the bottom of the rod to which the chain is attached. I have been perplexed on seeing this surprising sort of first down in pro, college, and high school football. There must be some detail about the rules of which I am unaware. What is it? DrHow (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a notorious call in the New England Patriots' telecast last Sunday in which the officials ruled (but did not signal) first down, the chain crew stayed put, and the TV crew did too, eventually showing the ball an inch short. The explanation there, I think, was the camera angle, and perhaps a producer selecting a view that would not show up the referees but would reinforce the call (no first down) he believed they had made.  For a more comprehensive answer, I defer to Wikipedians with a more current rulebook.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 0:43, 28 December 2014‎ (UTC)
 * PS--Since I wrote that, I've gone through the rulebook, and see nothing to confirm that there is any "surprising sort of first down." My best guess is that what you observed was miscommunication or error.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No time left in the half
has added, I have rephrased, and has called for a citation on, the situation where the ball is snapped with the game clock reading 0:00 in the half after a penalty against the defense. I do not find this in the Official Rules of the NFL, though perhaps it is in the game operations manual. In my service in semi-pro football (there is no game operations manual), we would surely be yelled at for signaling the Line to Gain (Necessary Line) before any play where the concept is meaningless. There is no point showing the players how far they have to go to get a first down in this case, like the other cases listed, as any result of the play other than a score is meaningless. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Spike-from-NH: What about from the quarterback and/or offensive coordinator who might feel cheated out of a first down in the statistics if a subsequent play and defensive penalty would have resulted in a first down by yardage?
 * In a goal-to-go situation, the chains are meaningless and unnecessary (although there was a time, at least in college football, when they were set up, even though the would-be line to gain was in the end zone). On a kickoff, there is no line to gain, so the chains really aren't needed (though in some free kick situations, I could see using the chains to help set the receiving team's line). On an untimed but numbered down to end the half, the line to gain is a relevant concept, even though it would probably not affect the game situation if it weren't used. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Cripes! it's possible a contract clause could even be triggered by achieving this meaningless first down as time runs out. All right, let's see if proposer can find a citation. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PS--I asked Quintin3265 to join the discussion on 12-Jan and, in my opinion, it has timed out. I have reverted his edit and our post-edits. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Try after touchdown
As the box man, various people have told me to handle a try after touchdown (when there is no down number) in the following ways:
 * Hold the box sideways to minimize visibility of the meaningless down number
 * Put "4" on the box to emphasize that there is no second chance.

Is there an official right way to do it? Is there a citation? Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Spike-from-NH: I've always been told (or told my box man) to put "1" on the box. I just checked my most recent Georgia High School Association mechanics manual, and it does not address this. —C.Fred (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)