Slashdot Mirror
The Sports Footage You Won't See Today On TV
Hugh Pickens writes "As sports nerds settle in today after Thanksgiving dinner for NFL and college football Reed Albergotti writes that there is some footage you will never see as he argues that the most-watched game in the US is probably the least understood. During every NFL game there are cameras hovering over the field, lashed to the goalposts and pointed at the coaches, but you will never see a shot of the entire field and what all 22 players do on every play which is considered proprietary information available only to teams and coaches. For decades, NFL TV broadcasts have relied most heavily on one view: the shot from a sideline camera that follows the progress of the ball. Anyone who wants to analyze the game, however, prefers to see the pulled-back camera angle known as the "All 22." While this shot makes the players look like stick figures, it allows students of the game to see things that are invisible to TV watchers: like what routes the receivers ran, how the defense aligned itself and who made blocks past the line of scrimmage and gives fans a 'bird's eye view' of the game to dissect team strategies, performances, and keys to success. Without the expanded frame, fans often have no idea why many plays turn out the way they do, or if the TV analysts are giving them correct information."
How do they keep the 50,000 fans who attended the game from seeing the full 20?
Reasons for not showing it on TV are poor at best.
All 3 comments so far are AC whining about a football article on his precious slashdot. If you don't like it, don't read it. It's really that easy.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
John Madden said once that the TV people wanted their coverage to look more like his video game, and the video game people wanted the game to look more like TV coverage. This led to the use of the wire-suspended camera for most kicking plays.
ESPN's daytime SportsCenter block has a system they call ESPN Axis which is based on a 3D composite taken by multiple cameras that the TV crew that does the game doesn't have time to compute, these things show up on Monday and Tuesday based on when the computers finish the rendering.
When broadcasting a chess match, the camera should only zoom in on the piece the player is actually touching at the moment. Allowing a bird's eye view of the board will expose the various strategies the player uses and is considered proprietary information by the player and his or her team.
Well, it is Thanksgiving, so I guess it's forgivable. And I heard the Packers scored lots of home runs today.
I can say, with no reservation whatsoever, that I don't care about this article in any way, shape or form.
You at least cared enough to post this.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I'm Canadian, Thanksgiving was last month!
Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
...this one has to be the single least important.
Don't leave us in suspense, any grand slams?
Learn to love Alaska
It's not any better in person. My wife likes it, but it's even more boring to watch than golf (live or TV).
Learn to love Alaska
Isn't this also the same game where the players stop playing the game during commercials? Yeah, paint me surprised.
I will stick to watching a really tough hitting football game where the althetisism of the players is second to none.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Well, one big difference is that video gamers don't generally get millions of dollars in tax money to build enormous facilities to play video games in.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Just to piss you off.
You know what you should do? You should give it a clever name like "handegg" and then pat yourself on the back for being so amazingly observant.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
They lost them in the wickets during a power-play caused by a penalty kick, if only they had done a better job protecting the blern.
a writer for the WSJ is giving opinions on viewing NFL games??
OK. here's the deal for those of you, including Reed Albergotti, who don't *really* watch NFL or NCAA football.
As the players line up for a play, the camera typically shows all 22 players. As the ball is snapped, the camera begins to zoom in slowly (allowing for some lead room by putting the ball in the rear third of the frame, as it relates to the direction of play) and as the play progresses it may or may not zoom in closer depending on how the play develops. The players can become so spread out during the course of action that to watch it all on a screen would not show much detail, including who has the fucking ball, or the path the ball takes through the air during a pass play. Some quarterbacks can throw the pill for 70 yards, for fucks sake. Pull the camera back to show the entire field and see how easy the game is too watch. You will lose sight of the ball, and won't be able to tell if the reciever caught the ball for a completion, or was nabbed by the defensive back for an interception. The camera operators even lose sight of the ball every once in awhile as it is.
As for being a "student" of the game, there is plenty of opportunity for those who care. Every network that broadcasts football has a staff of former coaches and players who's job it is to teach fans about how the different teams operate on the field, and how effective they are against opponents. There are hours of shows dedicated to this. The film used to dissect play often shows all 22, but it sometimes isn't necessary as some on field play isn't relevent. Sure, downfield blocking by wide receivers on run plays is important, but on a 3rd and 1 attempt, they are sometimes just going through the motions; it's basically a scrum in trying to move the ball forward a yard.
Ok, I'm done being pissed, back to the games!
That's a very good point. I never played myself but my nephew captained his nation at the World Cup (he's a lock forward) and I doubt that he misses anything from the TV broadcasts. When it is all forward play then the coverage is really pretty good. What I miss though is seeing why the back chose to kick here instead of there or, less often, why he jinked left instead of right or why they didn't pass or why they did. Some TV stations are better than others and rugby is a layered game that is hard to fit into one size so I shouldn't complain. Especially when you get games like the recent New Zealand Nude Male team playing the Spanish Nearly Nude Female team as happened two months ago in Dunedin, New Zealand as part of the recent World Cup party.
I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
Even if every single major league team in the Big 4 sports was the financial equivalent of the Yankees (which most don't even come close to), you'd be looking at less than 50 billion a year - an amount comparable to highway maintenance alone.
Countries are expensive.
Because it is descended from the same game as association football(originally called soccer by the British--the people who invented the game--it only reverted to being called football when other countries started playing it) is. The roots of american football are the rules variations that the 19th century founders of association football chose to reject.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Do you hear that? That's the sound of me not giving a fuck.
Next best thing.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
This is Slashdot. We generally don't care about sport, but we're always up for a meta-argument.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Anyone who has watched for any length of time knows the plays anyway and knows when a given team is running one of them. Its not like the routes the receivers run are somehow more interesting than the blocks. If you watched the game with a full field view showing all of the players, you wouldn't see any close-up drama at the line of scrimmage. Football is more complicated than any one camera angle can show. If all you know about a sport is what you have seen on television, then you really don't know that much about it at all.
if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
There are most certainly MMA nerds. If you ever take a class on that type of thing you'll probably meet them. They know every fight in the history of MMA and study the strategies used. I recently went to the video store and looked at the sports section. There were one or two boxing DVDs, a couple for other sports, and a whole rack of MMA fights. If you just want to see a guy get kicked in the face, I'm pretty sure you can find it on youtube. These people actually study it.
As much as I'd like to make fun of American Football some more, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good possible explanation for it ("possible", because like many historical things, it can't be known for sure as the records for many historical things are sketchy). Basically, it has nothing to do with the ball being kicked, it's about the game being played on foot, as opposed to on horseback like sports that aristocrats in Medieval times played. Basically, "football" could be any sport played by peasants, since they couldn't afford fancy horses to play totally idiotic games like tilting (jousting).
...for the no-fly zone over the superbowl.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
But at least to some extent, sex IS a "stick and ball" game.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
But more importantly, why the fuck do you consider it a selling point that people get hit hard in a sport with no padding?
Because AFL is a contact sport. The idea of a contact sport is to have a challenge between the opposing players. It is challenging other players to be as fit, as nimble and as athletic as you are. Yes, AFL has more injuries then other forms of football. That's the game that has been played here, and that's the game that will continue to be played here.
Aussie rules always ruled higher in the opinion of parents’ when compared to rugby-codes. But this opinion stands challenged, as new research has pointed out that Australian football accounts for the highest injuries as compared to all other types of football. // The aussie code seems to have topped the charts of contact sports injuries, the second place being occupied by league , the third by rugby union and the last , being soccer.
A report published today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that among Australian rules players who are 15 and above, there were 734.3 cases of hospital treatments per 100,000 participants, compared with 677.9 for rugby league. Union and Soccer were way behind to even compete – on 316.9 and 242 hospital treatments per 100,000 participants. Touch football was by far considered the safest, with 121.2 per 100,000 participants. The frequent type of injury was Fractures.
Having said that, do yourself a favour and watch the second video, it forcuses much more some amazing plays rather than big hit ups.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
I understand the point of a contact sport. But usually contact sports involve padding so that the players don't receive any permanent, life-altering injuries. I see no reason to have a contact sport without protective gear, unless the goal of the sport is to satiate fans' bloodlust.
I don't understand why the NFL isn't selling access to video libraries containing all these streams. With all the football fans, fantasy football and otherwise, obsessively analyzing the game, don't you think they could sell subscriptions? I'd buy. Give me a searchable archive. Let me find all targets at a receiver in a given year, or all fumbles of a players, or all INTs, etc.
The problem of delivering video on demand is already solved. They've got the content. It's just money in the street, waiting for them to pick up.
If you just want to watch people get career ending broken bones and possibly fatal concussions..
Aussie rules and Rugby have less injuries than American Football because you don't have padding. You learn to wrap and tackle properly.
I once had upper deck seats to a Greg Maddux game, where I was lined up directly with home plate, the mound , second base, and the center field distance marker. I was behind a camera well that wasnt in use, so there was no obstruction at all. I was looking straight down, and could possible call balls and strikes better than the ump. This was an amazing way to watch someone who has that level of control.
don't they use hands to carry whatever that thing they call 'ball' around? Why is it called 'football'?
Because it's the only major professional sport in the USA where the ball is *ever* allowed to touch the foot. That's how American sports are named: they go with what unique thing the ball does only a tiny fraction of the time.
Basketball gets its name because it is the only sport where the ball sometimes goes in a basket, even though 99.9% of the time it's being bounced around the court with the hands. Likewise, baseball is named after the bases, even though the ball is only very rarely actually on a base.
Haha, AFL and 'really touch hitting' in the same sentance - ROTFL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66wK9zAppHc
...there is no sig...
They are far more important than senors, and hence why even back in the days of SDTV professional companies used big cameras.
Even once you go past cell phones, lenses are often the limiting factor. At work we have a couple of Panasonic HDC-TM900s for videoing classes and so on. Not professional cameras, but not cheap things either. About $1000 each when we got them, full 1920x1080 60p recording at 28mbps and so on. A good bit of their cost are in their Leica lenses.
Well for all that, they aren't good enough for 1080 resolution. When you downsample their video to 720p it looks flawless. You can examine it very close up and everything looks as clear and crisp as the pixels allow. The resolution is the limiting aspect, not the source. However when you view the full 1080p stream, well you can see some minor defects. It isn't huge, it still shows more detail than the downsampled 720p version, but you can see that the resolution is capable of more detail, the source is limiting it (and to a lesser extent, the compression).
To truly get 1080p it would take better lenses (and less compression).
You need a large, quality, lens if you want to get truly high resolution photos, where each pixel actually shows distinct detail.
And they don't hit as hard because they don't use padding. In American Football you have idiots running into each other full tilt because they're wearing so much padding. But in that 1/20 chance that you hit wrong you get a serious injury.
If I told you to run into a wall as hard as you could and I'd give you $10. You'd do it at a certain velocity wearing no padding. If you strapped on a helmet and shoulder pads you wouldn't hit just as hard as you had been hitting, you'd start hitting it harder. And most of the time you'd be fine, but occasionally you'd hit it wrong or have your hemet at the wrong angle and hurt yourself. Or in Football you'd hurt the other person because you were hitting that much harder.
In addition there are rules to how to tackle in Rugby (Not sure about Aussie Rules). You HAVE to wrap in a tackle. You can't just body check someone out of bounds. You also have to do something the entire game. American Football you burst for 10 seconds then rest for 60. You don't have people hitting as hard because you have to get up and ruck. You have to be there for the next play because play hasn't stopped.
I'd say almost none of these tackles are legal. You have someone picking up and dumping, body checking, leading with the head, etc. They have fewer injuries because of the laws of the game AND because they don't use padding. If they started using more padding they'd hit harder.
Actually having read through these comments and actually spent more time thinking about it today than probably ever in my life, I think Aussies just generally like a tougher game of football than most other nations. It's not about hurting the other players, it's simply about playing with all your heart. It's a cultural thing, I had a quick look around and found a few insightful comments that might make more sense.
The Australian national character has been forged by the difficulty of subduing the land. Unlike other cultures based on a nurturing landscape that they seek to protect from others, Australian settlers experienced great hardship and had to support each other in order to survive. The battle against the elements led to the nickname of a member of Australia's working class being the 'Aussie battler'.
The need to laugh in the face of danger while battling the landscape has provoked a strange view of the world, with a distinctive upside-down sense of humour. Times of hardship or even disaster are ridiculed, and this extends to the Australian delight in dubbing a tall man "Shorty," a quiet one "Rowdy," a bald man "Curly" and a redhead "Bluey".
As well as the prevalence of the tall poppy syndrome bringing back to Earth the high fliers, the egalitarian Australian society has a traditional Australian support for the "underdog". Australians will show support for those who appear to be at a disadvantage even when the underdog is competing against fellow Australians.
This underdog attitude is most evident in sport, as sport is also a large part of Australian culture. Should an Australian be asked to choose between two unknown competitors, very often they will choose the one least likely to win, such as swimmer Eric the Eel during the 2000 Olympics. The success of Steven Bradbury in the 2002 Winter Olympics who won a skating gold medal after all his competitors crashed has coined the expression 'doing a Bradbury' which underpins the spirit of the underdog, positive thinking and never giving up.
During the 2003 Rugby World Cup, the Georgian rugby team arrived in Perth with a crowd of Perth residents welcoming them with colourful support, and a similar occurrence was noted in Townsville, Queensland where the Japanese rugby team was preferred to that of the French.
And lastly, this little gem from Wikipedia:
Australian rules football culture - Injuries, Health Issues and Prevention
Australian rules football is known for its high level of physical body contact compared to other sports such as soccer and basketball. High impact collisions can occur from any direction. Unlike gridiron, padding is not mandatory and is rarely worn. Combined with the range of activity including jumping, running, kicking, twisting and turning this means that injury rates are relatively high in comparison to other sports.
Australian rules football does not have the range or severity of health issues of American football however players have been known to die whilst playing Aussie Rules, though the most common cause is heart failure. The Victorian State Coroner reported five sudden deaths in that state among Australian rules footballers aged under 38 years between 1990-1997. Three of these deaths were attributed to Ischaemic heart disease (mean age, 31.7 years), and the other two to physical trauma.
(Emphasis mine)
Aussies have a "Harden Up" attitude when it comes to adversity. There are some hilarious comedy sketches that aussies love becuase they are so on the mark for aussie culture. A person who is seen to overcome difficult odds is generally championed. A tough guy (good or bad) can end up being an Australian Icon such as Ned Kelly who we even depicted during the opening of the Sydney Olympics in 2000!
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
I think this idea should be applied to automobile safety. People are idiots on the road because they feel so safe inside their cars with high crash safety ratings. If light contact between cars were very likely to be fatal, people would be much better drivers.
I only watched a few minutes of the first video, and that was pretty pathetic. Most of those hits aren't even as bad as a home plate collision in baseball.
But more importantly, why the fuck do you consider it a selling point that people get hit hard in a sport with no padding? If you just want to watch people get career ending broken bones and possibly fatal concussions, go watch MMA or boxing. Stop pretending you care about the skill and athleticism, and accept that you'd have been happier living in Roman times.
Having all the padding/armour, helmets or whatever it is that American Football players wear actually makes it a lot more dangerous in the long run. The more ridiculously hard challenges you receive without immediate injury, the worse you will potentially suffer over your career.
My understanding is that there are a lot of American football players with brain damage, as their (well protected) heads get sloshed about a lot more than in a sport like AFL or rugby where an equivalent hit would probably take you out of the game and is therefore better regulated
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You are amusingly knowledgeable about 1970s gay porn.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Here's a distinction that we can all understand:
Rugby is an RTS.
American Football is turn-based.