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

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.

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

[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

[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.