The Technology Behind the NBA Finals

BobB-nw brings us NetworkWorld's behind-the-scenes look at the technology supporting the NBA Finals. They primarily use Lenovo ThinkPads which run an automated statistic-gathering system. The NBA eschews Wi-Fi due to security concerns, and it abandoned attempts to use touch-screen technology because of durability and ease-of-use issues. Whether or not basketball is your sport of choice, it's an interesting view of how modern sports presentations come together. "Other courtside systems with proprietary software synch up with compact belt packs worn by the referees, who automate clock stoppages by blowing their whistles. Hellmuth noted that he oversaw an effort to ensure that clock stoppages could be seen from any angle in the arena by having lights on the backboard and elsewhere all flash at once."

Comments

Hmmm

[takaznik]

Do the celtics still play in that REALLY old arena? I'm wondering if some of the new ones would be even more sophisticated... like the arena here in Indianapolis

Re:Hmmm

[drdaz]

No, the Boston Garden closed following the 1994-1995 NBA season. They now play here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TD_Banknorth_Garden

Re:Hmmm

[sconeu]

No. The old Boston Garden closed years ago.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If you mean the old Boston Garden (built 1928), then no. The current building opened in 1995 - and after way too many names to post, is called the TD Banknorth Garden. (It's probably has had an upgrade or two since it was built)

Re:Hmmm

[takaznik]

you can tell how long it's been since i've been following professional sports outside of my own state, haven't been a Celtics fan since the Bird era

Communication speeds

[arnoldo.j.nunez]

The part that shocked me was:

The laptops feed into a 100Mbps Ethernet network and send data back to a central NBA database via a T-1 so that updated information can be displayed at the NBA.com Web site, which broke its record this season by attracting more than a billion visitors (not unique) for the first time and that uses services such as those from Akamai to keep up with the demand.

The majority of the text concerned itself with pure statistics, so insignificant amounts of data move around, but how about video clips that supplement the outliers in the data? Is that being sent over as well? If so, how does a puny little megabit Ethernet network fit? How will it scale in the future?

Re:Communication speeds

[joseph.bartolotta]

As a broadcast engineer for the company who provides the technical facilities to ESPN/Turner for the broadcasts of NBA games, I can say this network is only used for the statistics data.

the live webstream is generated by an entirely separate entity who derives their video from our cameras, but as for their transmission, i believe they transfer from site to NBA.com offices via the house WAN (typically t3 trunks)..

networking in television production trucks, while rather basic, employs some pretty interesting technologies... the EVS machines (basically really advanced dvr's that allow for "live slowmo", and creation of clips from the incoming video signals instantaneously, for all those instant replays) transmit all audio/tvideo to a proprietary dataserver located inside the truck by use of a proprietary coaxial network (called sdti)

as for your hd broadcasts, those still go out the old fashioned way, via satellite...

and i gotta tell you.. if you own an hdtv, you're getting hosed by your service provider. it's crazy how bad the signal you get at home is in comparison to what gets beamed to/from that satellite.

Re:Communication speeds

[drgruney]

Just to clarify.. he's talking about the satellites that providers use to get the content... not satellites like Dish and DirecTV. I wish more people knew about free over air satellite transmissions. Receivers are cheap.. like $100. The trick is setting up the dish right and being patient enough for the dish to aim each time you change the channel.

Re:Communication speeds

[antdude]

How easy is it to set up one up? And can it be done indoor like a rabbit ear/bowtie antenna like I have set up for both analog and digital feeds (HD too)?

Re:Communication speeds

[drgruney]

Did I ever say it was as easy as rabbit ears? Damn... some one is argumentative today. Easy to set up as in plug in a receiver and get a used dish... it's not for the faint of heart but the average /. user should be able to handle it.

Re:Communication speeds

[drgruney]

I also meant to include the fact that cable channels are broadcast for free over c/ku-band satellite.

Re:Communication speeds

[Anonymous Coward]

I use indoor rabbit ears exclusively to view HD content over the air. I had to purchase a converter box since my HDTV is older than most and doesn't include a tuner. Then I got a cheapo digital/HDTV antenna from Radio Shack. I get most of the local channels most of the time, quality is pretty good. I was tired of paying the cable company for lots of channels I never watched, and couldn't be happier with my current setup.

Re:Communication speeds

[everphilski]

I've heard about this, but wheres a good place to get a receiver from?

Possible to get NFL games? :)

Not really "automated"

[compumike]

Let's just be clear here... while the article and summary are calling it "automated" stats collection, there's still very much a person in the loop at every data collection instant. That is, a human still has to indicate and record any sort of statistically-relevant event. All they've done is to make it so that can go instantly right into a digital form rather than onto a piece of paper.

What would be cool is if the data collection were to be truly automated! Detect all sorts of things unobtrusively, whether through cameras, positioning systems for the ball or the players, etc.

--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics!

Re:Not really "automated"

[moosesocks]

Why?

I'd rather have a human operating the scoreboard, given that it's far more likely to be accurate (or if not, catch the errors right away)

It can't be terribly expensive to hire somebody to push a button every time a player scores. What exactly would an "automated" stats collection system achieve that cannot already be done?

Re:Not really "automated"

[legirons]

like horse-racing, where the racers continuously upload GPS? (statistics being created mid-race for use by late betters)

Re:Not really "automated"

[preem]

agree about the accuracy, but should we create a very low margin for error system, that would be irrelevant. and the stats that are collected on each game? there has to be at least 3 people watching every move of every player to catch em all. perhaps it would be easier to automate it, but at the end, you'd still need a supervisor, so it's a question if advantages can pay off developing costs.

high tech

[trb]

maybe this is off topic, but i'm amused that in an article about high tech, they include 5 photos that are each about 2 megabytes that they shrink to about 2% of their original size for display. not very technically astute.

The real technology...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is chemistry. As in steroids, human growth hormone, etc.

Referee belt packs

[2phar]

Other courtside systems with proprietary software synch up with compact belt packs worn by the referees, who automate clock stoppages by blowing their whistles. Yeah those belt packs are amazing - especially the virtual reality part that lets NBA Refs see those game changing fouls that all the TV cameras and fans somehow miss.

Re:Referee belt packs

[Hawthorne01]

I take the greatest possible exception to your comments. The quality of the officiating the NBA has always been above reproach, and represents the highest ethical standards in any professional sport. The NBA is known world-wide for having the most ethical, most accurate and most honest officials, and we work hard to maintain that standard.

Sincerely,

Tim Donaghy

Re:Referee belt packs

[2phar]

I stand corrected.

Really, few of us can imagine the incredible skill and knowledge required to consistently perform such a difficult job, on such a big stage, night in night out. Especially with that electro-shock device built into your belt pack being remotely operated by the Sternmeister.

Technology of the NBA

[pcolaman]

All that technology and they can't use replay to correct the mistakes of inept refs. This is why the NFL is more popular than the NBA.

Re:Technology of the NBA

[rob1980]

Hey, those aren't mistakes! That's the refs "allowing the game to be played" ;)

NBA: Irrelevant since Michael Jordan retired (from the Bulls, that is)

Re:Technology of the NBA

[siwelwerd]

No, the NFL is more popular than the NBA because people have time to get another beer between every play.

Re:Technology of the NBA

[DerekLyons]

Pandering to the crowd is one of the easiest ways to get popular after all.

Soon to be slashdotted

[markild]

Off-topic, but I find it kinda amazing that a relatively big site like this manages to embed five 2MB~ish sized images into the article.

I'm predicting a soon-to-come slashdot effect, and when it does, coral cache could come in handy...

Referees

[sjbe]

All that technology and they can't use replay to correct the mistakes of inept refs. If you think those referees are so "inept", why don't you get out there and officiate? Might give you some badly needed perspective.

Fact is the NBA refs are extremely good at their jobs. You just notice when the occasional, inevitable mistake crops up. Funny how when LeBron James makes a bad pass or Kobe Bryant makes a bad shot no one calls them "inept". I have no problem with the use of replay in important situations, especially in the pros where they have the money to do it right, but to call the refs "inept" is just ignorance at its finest.

And in the interest of disclosure, yes I officiate sporting events and have for some years. Yes it is a LOT harder than most people even remotely realize.

Re:Referees

[Kjella]

You ahouls see the discussions going on in soccer - where there's only a few goals per match and a red card, an extra penalty or lack of one can be utterly decisive. Funny how everyone thinks the refs are inept (or blind, or paid off) who can't reach the right decision when there's a dozen camera angles, telezoom, slow motion and endless replays. Now try doing the same when you got one angle, no zoom, no slow motion and one chance to even notice that there even is a situation, far less what the decision should be. And yet anything less than perfection is not acceptable.

Re:Referees

[sjbe]

Now try doing the same when you got one angle, no zoom, no slow motion and one chance to even notice that there even is a situation, far less what the decision should be. And yet anything less than perfection is not acceptable. What is amazing is how often the refs get it right despite their sensory limitations. Even in the most critical situations the referees are right FAR more often than they are wrong. That said, a referee may know perfectly well that something occurred but cannot call something unless they see it with their own (admittedly imperfect) eyes and as you say, they only have the one perspective to go by. A lot of that is experience and knowledge of the game. Many have been officiating longer than many of the players playing have been alive.

I've been around sporting officials most of my life and I'm speaking from direct experience here. While there are occasionally corrupt or incompetent officials they are extremely rare, especially at the higher levels of play. Most officials don't give a rat's ass who wins, they just want a fair contest with no controversy. Ron Luciano wrote some entertaining books that are worth reading though perhaps not universally applicable. Most refs are talented, hard working, and get way more abuse than they are actually paid to take by fans who generally have a very incomplete understanding of the rules of the game.

Re:Referees

[drinkypoo]

That said, a referee may know perfectly well that something occurred but cannot call something unless they see it with their own (admittedly imperfect) eyes and as you say, they only have the one perspective to go by.

All the more reason to eliminate referees entirely, and simply automate them out of existence: a computer can do their job better.

Of course, you're still going to have to have them in minors etc, because the machines will cost too much for a while.

Re:Referees

[sayfawa]

Well maybe inept is the wrong word to use. How about this:

All that technology and they can't use replay to correct the mistakes of human refs.

Also, your analogy is bad. The players aren't expected to make good plays all the time. Refs are expected to make the right call all the time. That's their job. Anything less and it's not a fair game. Fans are sick and tired of the outcomes of games being decided by people who aren't even playing. And that's what happens when a ref screws up; they help determine who wins.

But fine, refs are hard working, brilliant human beings. But they're still not good enough. Why should a fair game be sacrificed just because refs have limited sensors and time resolution? Time to modernize the game, not just the broadcasts.

Re:Referees

[sjbe]

All the more reason to eliminate referees entirely, and simply automate them out of existence: a computer can do their job better. While there are some tasks that can be automated at the pro level (I've long wondered why balls and strikes are still called by a human in MLB for example) most of what an official does cannot be automated. There is NO substitute for having an experienced official on the field. You have to remember officials not only judge disputed calls but in most contests they also ensure smooth and orderly flow of the game. You could not have organized sports without them. If you could, don't you think the athletes would LOVE to have the refs taken out of the equation?

You don't have to believe me. Sign up to officiate high school sports in the sport of your choice. You'll find it VERY enlightening.

Re:Referees

[drinkypoo]

You have to remember officials not only judge disputed calls but in most contests they also ensure smooth and orderly flow of the game.

They won't be referees any more, they'll just be there to make sure that players don't beat each other up. They can still flip a coin and handle the balls. :P

Re:Referees

[sjbe]

Also, your analogy is bad. The players aren't expected to make good plays all the time. Refs are expected to make the right call all the time. That's their job. That is also impossible and every athletic rule book I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of them) makes allowances for imperfection in play calling. Doctors are ideally expected to be perfect too but they aren't and never will be. Expecting unattainable perfection is stupid especially in the context of a game.

Make no mistake, I highly encourage the use of technology wherever it might make play calling more accurate. Just understand that perfection is unattainable in judging any sport.

Oh, and athletes ARE expected to be perfect too, they're just not expected to be impartial. Their mistakes only hurt themselves or their team. Tell Bill Buckner or Earnest Byner that it's ok to be imperfect sometime. Both were castigated and remembered for a single bad play despite a career of outstanding play.

Fans are sick and tired of the outcomes of games being decided by people who aren't even playing. That's the most self contradictory thing I've read in a long time. Using technology to assist officiating will NOT make the calls perfect. The game will still be decided by the calls made which will not be by the individuals playing. EVERY contest is decided by the players on the field - sometimes the officials play a role too. If the contest happens to be so close that a referee's call can make the difference between winning and losing that is simply part of the game. Don't like it? Too bad. It's never going to change. There simply are always some situations that are ambiguous in any athletic contest.

Furthermore if the "fans" (and I'm presuming you are one) think they (or you) can do better they are welcome to try. I'm not aware of any sport that could not use more officials. Grab a whistle and get out there if you think you could do it perfectly.

Why should a fair game be sacrificed just because refs have limited sensors and time resolution? Time to modernize the game, not just the broadcasts. I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. The possibility of incorrect calls is unfortunate but impossible to eliminate. It is simply a part of the game and no amount of hand-wringing will make it otherwise. Can't deal with it? Don't play or don't watch. It is just a game after all.

Re:Referees

[GodfatherofSoul]

The NBA is THE most difficult sport to officiate because of the constant pace of action and breadth of rules (3 second violations are physically impossible to monitor precisely).

However, the league has definitely hurt itself with the loose interpretation of rules. Plus, crap like fudging calls based on reputation and superstar status really detracts from the game.

But, that's been the status quo for I bet 20 years. My opinion is that the NBA went downhill when they decided to price the little guy out of access to the game and turned into PR sluts. It's starting to happen to the NFL as well.

Re:Referees

[PawNtheSandman]

Guess you didn't watch last nights game.

Re:Referees

[sjbe]

The NBA is THE most difficult sport to officiate because of the constant pace of action and breadth of rules (3 second violations are physically impossible to monitor precisely). You'll get no argument from me that basketball is a hard sport to officiate. It's loaded with rules that are illogical, difficult to monitor and rarely or (worse) selectively enforced. It's allegedly a non-contact sport but it certainly isn't played like one.

However, the league has definitely hurt itself with the loose interpretation of rules. Plus, crap like fudging calls based on reputation and superstar status really detracts from the game. If I remember right Michael Jordan never (or almost never) fouled out of games which I find ridiculously unlikely to have happened without a lot of referees looking the other way. I can't begin to count the number of extra steps superstars get to take when "dribbling" the ball. It's not right and it detracts from the game. If the superstars really are better they don't need special treatment.

A lot of that is the referee's fault for not calling the rules as written. If the rules need changing that's fine but the rules should be enforced as they are in the rulebook, without exception. The league bears some responsibility too for not enforcing the rules or changing them appropriately. "Let them play" is a tired and illogical argument against enforcing the actual rules of the game. If a rule shouldn't be enforced at all times then it shouldn't be a rule.

NBA GamesStats

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for IDS (http://ids-sports.com), specifically writing and supporting the GameStats system and it is nice to see them mentioned for writing the system rather than IBM taking the credit.

As for a truly automated system, there were rumors years ago about putting sensors in the floor, around the rim and backboard, and in the ball. Unfortunately, that is an expensive proposition and some people complained about sensors in the ball would be tampering.

Seattle SuperSonics

[despeaux]

I worked for the Seattle SuperSonics this year, and I can vouch for the amount of setup that goes into games. Even if the court doesn't need to be converted from a concert or something, crews arrive several hours before every game.

It's worth it though. You get to play Horse before the fans arrive.

Re:What is this 'NBA' of which you speak?

[mazarin5]

I think it's the one where they kick the puck into a hoop and get a homerun. Right?

Two blasts from the past: "NBA" and "NetworkWorld"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Wow - leave it to a slow news day on Slashdot to give us TWO blasts from the past. The NBA: Remember when Jordan was still in the league (and there was a reason to at least tune in to a couple of playoff games)? "NetworkWorld" Magazine: I thought all the old timers who still read on this rag had early-retiremented their way out of the industry. Nice to see they have a website now - I wonder if they'll make a play for relevance in this decade.

New technology?

[peektwice]

Not gonna read TFA because NBA is irrelevant, but I'm guessing their return to relevancy might involve some new technology that will help the referees call a "traveling" violation every now and again.

Re:New technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I suppose the NBA is relevant despite the fact that it is an ever increasingly popular league around the world thanks to the influx of foreign talent. It remains the best league in the world for the top 3 most popular sports. That and Yao Ming is picked to be _the_ face of the entire Beijing Olympic effort.

Man you need to get out more.

Re:New technology?

[TheQuantumShift]

They do call one occasionally invariably against the less marketable team... I'm more interested in getting rid of the "Not Being Kobe Foul", of course it'll have to stay until the finals are over otherwise the better team actually might win...

Heh

[DesScorp]

I'll ask mom when she comes down with the laundry. Maybe she's heard of it. Judging from A) your troll rating, and B) the small number of responses to this story (42 at present), I'd say you're probably closer than most readers here would want to admit.