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

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: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

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!

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.

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

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.

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: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?

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.