[Football] Is football on TV done wrong?

[kuzushi]

As for the original question, as TV is two-dimensional, viewing from behind the goal in real time can make it very difficult to ascertain distances. Sometimes, at full speed, we can’t initially pick up whether the ball is travelling towards or away from the camera. The traditional (and only sane) angle offers our brain more information to resolve that ‘lack of 3D’ problem and also gives a much better understanding of patterns of play, players’ positions etc

I'd like to congratulate you on being the first person to attempt to give a reason for your preference for the traditional angle, although it seems to me your argument is flawed since it's not true that you can't tell which direction the ball is moving (have a look at the two videos I've posted and tell me whether you don't know whether the ball is moving towards or away from the camera), and in any case even if what you are trying to say were true then it would apply just as much to watching the game from the traditional angle since the TV would still be 2D. It does raise the interesting idea 3D football on TV though.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

have a look at the two videos I've posted and tell me whether you don't know whether the ball is moving towards or away from the camera

I can confirm, that viewing straight down the pitch makes it more difficult to tell how far down the pitch the ball is, whether it's moving away from or towards the camera, and how quickly.

 

[PeterT]

Is there a prize for the most loaded poll questions ever on NSC?

How about conducting a poll to see what others think?

 

[Greg Bobkin]

If it's so good for watching/analysing the game, why are the dugouts not located behind the goals?

 

[kuzushi]

I can confirm, that viewing straight down the pitch makes it more difficult to tell how far down the pitch the ball is, whether it's moving away from or towards the camera, and how quickly.

If this were true it would apply equally with regard to judging how far the ball was across the pitch when watching from the traditional location at the halfway line. It also depends on the height of the camera. If it is at the right height, there is no problem.

If it's so good for watching/analysing the game, why are the dugouts not located behind the goals?

Probably for communication reasons, so the coach get his instructions easily to all his players. We're discussing watching it on TV, not as coaches who have to communicate with the players.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

If this were true it would apply equally with regard to judging how far the ball was across the pitch when watching from the traditional location at the halfway line. It also depends on the height of the camera. If it is at the right height, there is no problem.

Probably for communication reasons, so the coach get his instructions easily to all his players. We're discussing watching it on TV, not as coaches who have to communicate with the players.

So sorry. I didn't realise the list of topics within the thread was restricted

 

[kuzushi]

It might be worth doing some research into the way football is broadcast. Researchers could do it with control samples in pubs, with different screens showing different angles, and observe which screens people preferred to look at at different points in the game. The attitude of NSC members appears to be very conservative with regard to this question, which is fair enough (albeit a bit surprising, I thought people here would be more open to alternative ideas) but the traditional angle is definitely not without problems. With spider-cams, zoom lenses, and the possibility of giving viewers a choice of angles, there's no reason why we have to be limited to the traditional way of showing football. It would be interesting to see which screens some of the vocal proponents of the trad angle would opt to watch if, as per the research idea, they were actually presented with the choice. They might find that what they say and what they end up doing do not coincide.

 

[boik]

How long is a piece of string?

We once worked that out on a very boring nightshift. There was a piece of string lying around, someone asked the obvious question, so we decided to work out how long it was in light years, just to kill some time. There were an awful lot of zeroes as I remember.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

This is one of the oddest threads I've ever seen on NSC. And there's some SERIOUS competition.

 

[GT49er]

How about conducting a poll to see what others think?

How about answering the question?

 

[MattBackHome]

Why the f*** was there a third option added to that poll? Imagine doing that halfway through a referendum; there would be absolute uproar.

 

[kuzushi]

Exclusive! Official announcement imminent!

Following a review of compelling new evidence, Albion have taken the unprecedented step of reviewing season ticket prices for the upcoming 2023/24 season.

Adult tickets in the North Stand will be repriced from the current £565 to a new level of £1,026, reflecting the recent discovery of their unparalleled views of the action across the whole playing surface.

Tickets in the sections closest to the centre line of the pitch, including 1901 Club, Tunnel Club and all hospitality will be repriced at a discounted rate of £1 per ticket, with all affected seats marked as "Restricted View".

All impacted Season Ticket Holders will be contacted in the upcoming days with further instructions.

Edit: Further details can be found at the following link: Https://https://www.brightonandhovealbion.com/news/353040...

Watching the game on TV and at the stadium are two different things. At the stadium, being behind the goal is good when the action is at your end of the pitch, but bad when it's up the other end. This does not have to be a problem for TV. You can in fact have more than one camera, so you could switch between cameras if that were to prove better.

But even if you didn't switch between cameras, in the screenshot below, you can see everything clearly, pretty much the whole thing, 20 out of the 22 players, the goalposts of the defending team at all times, and any runs made by any of the players off the ball. And thanks to the zoom, the distance of the camera from the goal is no further than it would be from the halfway line anyway. Plus it's a bonus to actually be able to see it.

Let's compare this with the traditional angle, shown below. Oh look, the ball is in the penalty area, the goalie has come running out of his area and it looks like the player in the white shirt is about to score. But where are the goalposts? Well, I don't suppose we need to see them yet. We know they'll be over on the right hand side somewhere. What's the rush? They'll come into view when the ball gets a bit closer. We can see 6 players. The pitch is skewed at a funny angle.

All I'm actually trying to do here is pose the question. Is the status quo really the best way to do it? A lot of people seem to be very quick to jump to saying it is.

 

[PeterT]

How about answering the question?

What was the question again?

 

[kuzushi]

Why the f*** was there a third option added to that poll? Imagine doing that halfway through a referendum; there would be absolute uproar.

Don't worry about that, and anyway I see the second option is starting to gain traction. Perhaps it's going to be like that film "Twelve angry men," where Henry Fonda manages turn around the verdict of all the other jury members.

 

[trueblue]

I'd like to congratulate you on being the first person to attempt to give a reason for your preference for the traditional angle, although it seems to me your argument is flawed since it's not true that you can't tell which direction the ball is moving (have a look at the two videos I've posted and tell me whether you don't know whether the ball is moving towards or away from the camera), and in any case even if what you are trying to say were true then it would apply just as much to watching the game from the traditional angle since the TV would still be 2D. It does raise the interesting idea 3D football on TV though.

Raise the idea? A lot of money was spent making the World Cup way back in 2010 available in 3D. The effect only really worked well for low angle close-ups so it was quickly canned. As a way of following the game properly it was a bit crap and didn't work - a bit like, say, watching whole matches from a camera behind the goal.

The high behind goal shot you've used in your example above is a tactical camera. Most people don't want the players to be reduced to tiny stick men so they can see the whole field at once. It would also become virtually unwatchable when cutting to and from close-ups.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Don't worry about that, and anyway I see the second option is starting to gain traction. Perhaps it's going to be like that film "Twelve angry men," where Henry Fonda manages turn around the verdict of all the other jury members.

I'm not sure I've ever heard of THREE votes – or 8.6% – described as something that is 'starting to gain traction'

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I'm not sure I've ever heard of THREE votes – or 8.6% – described as something that is 'starting to gain traction'

On the plus side, it's useful to have a convenient list of posters whose views can safely be ignored as the product of insanity.

 

[AmexRuislip]

I am always baffled why they choose to do a close up of the player taking the corner, the balls whipped in and bang it's in the net like a sudden surprise when, only then do they show the clever intricate blocks and runs.

Whenever Pascal Groß is ever on camera taking a corner, it always reminds when he puts his arm up, its like he asking to go for a tinkle

 

[kuzushi]

The high behind goal shot you've used in your example above is a tactical camera. Most people don't want the players to be reduced to tiny stick men so they can see the whole field at once. It would also become virtually unwatchable when cutting to and from close-ups.

The players on the ball are about the same size in both cases.

Here's Son about to score against Burnley. He's about to enter the Burnley penalty area. Where are the goal posts?

Here he is again, still in his own half, but look, this time we can already see the Burnley goalposts, even though he's still in his own half!
Can't see the goalposts (above) even though he's level with the D, versus can see them when he's still in his own half. Which do you prefer, to see or not to see? Such insanity!

Here we see that he's reached the D in the view from behind the goal. Does he look really teeny compared to the trad view? Well, er, no he doesn't.

He's about the same size in both screenshots, but in one we can see where he's shooting and in the other we can't.
I wonder whether the goalie is ready to face the shot? I wonder whether the goalie is there at all in fact.

Oh yes, look, he is there:

 

[schmunk]

What is this fetish for goalposts...?