内容来源：https://www.geekwire.com/2025/for-petes-sake-what-does-ai-think-of-the-play-that-haunts-seattle-seahawks-fans-run-or-pass/

内容总结：

【NFL新赛季启幕：AI成为场边新工具，但关键决策仍属人类教练】

新赛季NFL（美国职业橄榄球大联盟）与微软合作推出人工智能技术，引发广泛关注。联盟强调，AI仅作为辅助工具用于赛场边和教练席的微软Surface设备，通过数据筛选和图像关联功能快速调取比赛片段，提升复盘效率。此外，AI还用于教练席分析设备的公式校验和数据可视化，但明确禁止其参与实际战术决策。

联盟电子设备政策规定，仅允许使用官方认证技术设备，智能手表、手机等个人设备均被禁用。教练和球队管理层委员会专注于确保技术公平服务于所有球队，并强调AI只能优化流程，而非替代教练的临场判断。

尽管AI在日常生活中的应用日益普遍，但NFL教练暂未将其用于关键战术选择（例如第四档进攻决策）。不过，人们仍尝试用AI复盘历史争议瞬间——例如十年前西雅图海鹰队超级碗的“一码线传球”失误。当时球队在最后26秒选择传球而非交给明星跑卫林奇，导致被拦截错失冠军。这一决定至今仍是球迷和AI分析的焦点。

OpenAI的ChatGPT-5和谷歌Gemini 2.5均认为，从胜率和风险角度看，选择冲球是更稳妥的方案。AI与多数人类分析师的结论一致：尽管传球战术存在理论合理性，但实际结果证明其堪称“NFL史上最受质疑的决策之一”。

随着AI技术更深度融入体育领域，球迷期待未来球队能借助工具减少遗憾，作出更明智的选择。

中文翻译：

随着美国职业橄榄球大联盟（NFL）与微软达成合作，新赛季开始前各界热议不断：人工智能将成为教练和球员极具创新性的场边辅助工具。我们再次向NFL求证人工智能在赛事中的实际及预期应用范围，旨在确认人类而非聊天机器人仍将是战术决策的主导力量。在此过程中，我们不禁想重温西雅图海鹰队史上最令人痛心的战术选择——抱歉了！

首先需要明确的是，NFL强调其搭载微软GitHub Copilot新功能的场边观赛系统（Sideline Viewing System）本质是过滤工具，用于处理球员教练在场边和包厢内使用的Surface平板电脑数据。该过滤功能将比赛数据与静态图像关联，帮助用户快速调取特定类型或细分战术片段进行复盘。

Copilot同样应用于教练包厢的分析设备中，各战队可通过定制版Microsoft Excel获取专项比赛数据。联盟表示，该功能能协助校验公式准确性并生成数据可视化图表。关于技术使用细节，NFL进一步补充说明：

"比赛日教练组使用的技术工具主要遵循联盟电子设备政策——仅允许在场边/教练包厢使用联盟统一配发的设备（禁止智能手表、手机及个人电脑）。设备审批流程由俱乐部委员会监督，确保配发标准统一。由教练、管理层和球队老板组成的委员会历来关注能公平惠及所有俱乐部的创新技术，重点优化流程而非干预比赛结果。我们相信与微软合作的人工智能可提升流程效率，但绝不能替代或辅助教练制定比赛日的战术调整策略。"

换言之，当普通人用AI撰写工作邮件或孩子用它完成数学作业时，NFL教练们（至少目前）不会依靠AI来决定在第四档进攻剩余五码时选择传球还是弃踢。

但这并不妨碍我们借助AI进行事后剖析——至少能重新审视互联网上的诸多马后炮言论。西雅图橄榄球史上最值得回溯的战术，莫过于十年前让海鹰队与第二座超级碗奖杯失之交臂的那次选择。

若您对橄榄球不甚关注或岁月已冲淡记忆：超级碗XLIX终场前26秒，海鹰队28-24落后新英格兰爱国者队，面临距对方端线1码处的第二档进攻且仅剩一次暂停。主帅皮特·卡罗尔未选择让跑卫马肖恩·林奇冲球，反而采用传球战术，结果四分卫拉塞尔·威尔逊的传球被截击，比赛终结，王朝梦碎。

如今海鹰队已易帅重生，早已走出未能卫冕的阴影。但鉴于人工智能当前的热度，用它来解析这个著名战术显然具有启示意义。与剖析过卡罗尔决策的人类分析师、球迷和球员一样，AI同样认为当时应该选择林奇冲球。

我们向OpenAI的ChatGPT-5和谷歌的Gemini 2.5输入了以下指令："西雅图海鹰队是否应该在对阵新英格兰爱国者队的超级碗XLIX中选择冲球致胜？"

两款模型均出色快速生成了该战术的背景事实分析，并评估了林奇在此情境下的冲击力。随后它们分别阐述了选择冲球或传球的合理性，但ChatGPT的"裁决"与Gemini的"结论"均倾向支持林奇执行冲球。

"事后看来——甚至在当时——选择冲球是成功率更高的决策，"ChatGPT表示，"在拥挤的端线区域采用短距离斜线传球的风险与潜在收益不匹配，这仍是NFL史上最具争议的战术选择之一。"

Gemini则分析道："虽然该战术在策略层面具有合理性（特别是考虑最坏情况），但直接导致比赛终结的拦截结果使其成为重大失误。球迷和 analysts 的普遍共识是：结合球员能力和比赛态势，海鹰队理应选择冲球。"

当NFL开启新赛季征程，当人工智能更深融入球队决策的某些环节，我们期待西雅图球迷能获得更多对未来战术选择的积极期待。

英文来源：

There’s been a lot of chatter heading into the new NFL season about how artificial intelligence will be an innovative new sideline tool for coaches and players, thanks to the league’s partnership with Microsoft.
We checked back in with the NFL to clarify just how AI can and will be used during games, just to make sure humans and not chatbots will still be the deciding force when it comes to calling plays. And along the way it made us want to revisit one of the most painful plays in Seattle Seahawks history — sorry!
First, the NFL stresses that its Sideline Viewing System, with a new GitHub Copilot feature from Microsoft, is mainly a filtering tool for the sideline and booth Surface tablets used by players and coaches. The filtering function connects play data to still images, allowing users to rapidly reach a category or subsection of plays for review.
Copilot is also enabled in analytics devices used in the coaches booth, where teams have access to specific game data within a “bespoke build” of Microsoft Excel. The Copilot function offers a sounding board to check the accuracy of formulas and generate visualizations, according to the league.
Here’s more nitty-gritty from the NFL regarding the use of tech:
“The technology tools coaches use on game days are primarily governed by the NFL’s electronic device policy which states that only league-issued technology can be used by team staffs on sidelines/the coaches booths (prohibiting devices like smartwatches, cellphones, and personal computers). Club committee guidance informs the approval process of what is league-issued. Our committees of coaches, front office executives, and owners have historically focused on innovations that serve all clubs equitably and emphasize enhancing processes over determining in-game outcomes. Through our Microsoft partnership, we feel AI can streamline these processes, but cannot be a substitute or supplement for coaches developing adjustments and strategies on game day.”
So while you might be using AI to craft your next clever work email, or your kid is using it to cheat on his math homework, NFL coaches won’t be using it (yet) to decide whether to pass or punt on 4th and five.
But that doesn’t stop us from using AI to second-guess — or at least revisit how the internet summarizes all the second-guessing.
And there’s no bigger play in Seattle football history to revisit than the play that cost the Seahawks a second Super Bowl title 10 years ago.
If you don’t pay attention to football, or time has successfully erased that memory, it’s the play where the Seahawks were trailing 28-24 against the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLIX. There was 26 seconds left in the game. It was 2nd-and-goal at the 1-yard line, and the Hawks had one timeout remaining.
Rather than hand the ball to running back Marshawn Lynch, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll opted for a pass play, and quarterback Russell Wilson’s throw was intercepted. Game over. Dynasty denied.
The Seahawks have a new coach now and the team has come a long way from not being back-to-back world champs. But AI is such a hyped commodity now it makes sense to use it for its take on that play, and much like the human analysts, fans and players who have dissected Carroll’s decision, AI wishes he would have run it to Lynch, too.
Here’s the prompt we fed to OpenAI’s ChatGPT-5 and Google’s Gemini 2.5:
Should the Seattle Seahawks have run the ball with a chance to win Super Bowl XLIX against the New England Patriots?
Both bots do a good job of quickly generating the facts around the play and analysis of Lynch’s power in such a situation. The bots then offer arguments for why running the ball and passing the ball both could have made sense.
But the “verdict” from ChatGPT and the “conclusion” from Gemini both lean toward Lynch and the run.
“In hindsight — and even at the time — running the ball was the higher-percentage play,” ChatGPT said. “The risk of an interception on a short slant in a crowded goal-line situation didn’t justify the potential reward. It remains one of the most second-guessed play calls in NFL history.”
“In the end, while the play call was strategically justifiable, especially in a worst-case scenario, the immediate result — a game-ending interception — made it seem like a monumental mistake,” Gemini said. “The universal consensus among fans and many analysts is that, given the talent and the game situation, the Seahawks should have simply run the ball.”
As the NFL kicks off a new season, and AI becomes even more ingrained in certain aspects of team decision making, here’s to hoping Seattle fans have reason for more positive prompts about future play calls.