×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Sports Footage You Won't See Today On TV

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the or-on-the-e-channel dept.

Businesses 277

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

277 comments

Wow (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161458)

I thought that was part of what would make it fun to watch a game. But I have never really watched American football.

Re:Wow (2, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 2 years ago | (#38161656)

Isn't this also the same game where the players stop playing the game during commercials [wikipedia.org] ? Yeah, paint me surprised.

I will stick to watching a really tough hitting [youtube.com] football game where the althetisism of the players [youtube.com] is second to none.

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38162002)

Do you hear that? That's the sound of me not giving a fuck.

Re:Wow (1, Flamebait)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38162040)

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.

Re:Wow (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161726)

Most American football fans don't watch for the "sport" itself. It's mostly a cover, or a deception. Many of these fans are closeted homosexuals, but are conflicted because they often grew up in extremely religious and homophobic households. Football is touted as the "manliest" of sports, so they play it and worship it in some twisted attempt to crush and obscure the raging penis lust that consumes them.

However, anyone who has watched the game knows that it's blatantly homosexual. Much of it involves men in tight pants kneeling in front of one another, asses in the air. Then they run directly into each other, touching all the way. A small number of the players will be ball handlers (the football perhaps representing a scrotum), and a small number of players on the opposing team will try to grab them and pull them to the ground. The rest are just fat men who run into one another and proceed to grope and touch their opponent.

That's just what happens on the field. Before and after the game they get naked in the locker room, and shower with one another. Who knows what sort of shenanigans might go on during this time! There is a whole lot of penis, and no pussy, so it's hard to consider it a "straight" activity.

(I'm a woman, by the way. The football jocks never picked on me, so I really have nothing against them. I just think they should come out of the closet and be open about their true sexual preference.)

Re:Wow (0)

reboot246 (623534) | about 2 years ago | (#38161796)

Wow! Sounds like you need a shot of vitamin D.

I actually have mod points, but slashdot doesn't have one called "bitter".

Re:Wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161830)

The GP's post doesn't sound bitter to me. It's actually one of the best critical analyses of football that I've ever seen. All in all, it's a pretty damn accurate description of the game!

Re:Wow (-1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38162034)

This seems like a pretty good analysis; I'm just wondering why American Football hasn't caught on in the Muslim countries. Just like the Americans, they're all about extreme religious fundamentalism and homophobia, so it seems they'd love a sport like this where they can be homos without having to actually admit it.

So what? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161468)

I can say, with no reservation whatsoever, that I don't care about this article in any way, shape or form.

Hugh Pickens appears to be the heir apparent to Roland Piquapaille, and, as he is of an age, we can only hope that he will pass as well.

Re:So what? (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#38161538)

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.

Re:So what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161628)

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.

I did it as a service to Mankind. Please, do the same, and kill yourself.

Thank you in advance for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

The rest of us

Re:So what? (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#38161714)

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.

I did it as a service to Mankind.

Yeah, mankind got so much better from knowing that some random AC doesn't care about sports footage.
</sarcasm>

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38162060)

This is Slashdot. We generally don't care about sport, but we're always up for a meta-argument.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161560)

Hugh Pickens appears to be the heir apparent to Roland Piquapaille

Hey, that's hardly fair - Roland at least came from a technical background. Hugh appears to be just slamming articles into Slashdot, to supplement his SSI. Anyone know if he's doing the same elsewhere on the 'Net?

Re:So what? (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38162018)

I can say, with no reservation whatsoever, that I don't care about this article in any way, shape or form.

And it does not care about you.

See how nicely that works out?

This is /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161470)

Not ESPN.

Re:This is /. (5, Funny)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#38161534)

Well, it is Thanksgiving, so I guess it's forgivable. And I heard the Packers scored lots of home runs today.

Re:This is /. (5, Funny)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#38161574)

Don't leave us in suspense, any grand slams?

Re:This is /. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161686)

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.

proprietary? (3)

pinfall (2430412) | about 2 years ago | (#38161480)

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.

Re:proprietary? (2)

MachDelta (704883) | about 2 years ago | (#38161504)

Because it's easier to PVR something than it is to sneak in a high quality video camera with a wide angle lens?

Re:proprietary? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | about 2 years ago | (#38161596)

The point is that the TV coverage is focused on the ball, while there is a lot outside of the 16:9 frame that affects where the ball is going. There are many "official" cameras pointed at static locations that could show all 22 players and all in bounds territory at once, but those aren't available to the fans at large.

Re:proprietary? (2)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#38161690)

We got that. Most people only care about following the ball. Anyone who wants more for "tactical" purposes, can go watch and even record a game for themself. This is a dumb conspiracy theory

Re:proprietary? (0)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38162058)

We got that. Most people only care about following the ball. Anyone who wants more for "tactical" purposes, can go watch and even record a game for themself. This is a dumb conspiracy theory

I dont know about Grid Iron, but in Aussie Rules Football (the only true football) being able to see the entire field is very important in understanding what is going on. When a player kicks a ball over 70 metres you need to be able to zoom out and see where the ball is going. As someone who watches an AFL game maybe twice a year, even I understand this.

Re:proprietary? (1)

Entropius (188861) | about 2 years ago | (#38161506)

More generally, how do they keep somebody from livestreaming it -- or, at the very least, recording it and streaming it later.

We have cameras that are the size of a pack of cards that record very high quality 1080p video, after all.

Re:proprietary? (4, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 2 years ago | (#38161640)

More generally, how do they keep somebody from livestreaming it -- or, at the very least, recording it and streaming it later.

We have cameras that are the size of a pack of cards that record very blurry 1080p video, after all.

You can put as many megapixels as you want into a camera, but the 1/4" lens is still going to make it look like it was taken by a disposable camera and digitized at the local 7-11.

Re:proprietary? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 2 years ago | (#38161546)

Ultimately, it's silliness. It would change things if coaches had access to other games, but before long things would reach a new equalizer and things would be fine.

Re:proprietary? (3, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38161926)

What truly makes it silly, is that the coaches do have access to those other games. It is only the fans who don't have access.

Re:proprietary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38161880)

What stops someone with a RC helicopter and a camera from getting it? Oh, yeah, not caring.

Whiners (2, Insightful)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | about 2 years ago | (#38161482)

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.

Re:Whiners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161492)

BOOOORIIIIIINGGG

Re:Whiners (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161544)

News for Nerds, not news for jocks. I guess calling them sports nerds somehow makes it OK.

Re:Whiners (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161604)

Wow man what are you, 12? The rest of the world got over the nerds/jocks distinction within a few years of escaping high school once they grew the fuck up and realised other people are people too, and that dumping them into binary categories is completely ridiculous. We'd love it if you could join us someday.

Re:Whiners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161614)

Yeah, I figured the only reason this was shoehorned onto Slashdot is because of the inclusion of the word "nerds".

But then, it IS an absolutely ludicrously slow news day, so they had to put SOMETHING up I guess. On days like today, you kinda gotta scrape up the dregs at the bottom of the barrel to at least have ANYTHING show up, no matter what.

Re:Whiners (3, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 2 years ago | (#38161652)

It always confused me that a website that notoriously posts articles that are at least a week old can possibly have "slow days".

Re:Whiners (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 2 years ago | (#38161636)

I know you're trolling, but what about us nerds that were jocks? Having played highschool football, I'm always interested in this stuff.

Oblig. John Madden story (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | about 2 years ago | (#38161488)

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.

this is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161490)

common knowledge, but geeks don't have an f'ing clue, so it's news

And in Rugby too (1)

Sussurros (2457406) | about 2 years ago | (#38161494)

The same thing happens in rugby. Don't know if it's for the same reasons though. The whole field shot is something that I'd very much like to see from time to time.

Re:And in Rugby too (1)

JSG (82708) | about 2 years ago | (#38161740)

Well I played rugby (prop - loose and tight head) for 15 years and I've never thought I was missing something when I watch coverage on TV. I can see exactly what is happening. Also there is plenty of analysis with overhead and "reverse angles" etc.

Nowadays, I can compile my own distro ...

Cheers
Jon

Re:And in Rugby too (3, Informative)

Sussurros (2457406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38161850)

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.

Re:And in Rugby too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38162036)

The article IS about rugby. In American English, football means rugby, and they call football soccer.

Sports? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161508)

True nerds don't watch sports

Re:Sports? (0)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#38161578)

True nerds don't watch sports

Stick and ball games are hardly "sports", when compared to things like motor racing, martial arts, or rodeo. Just sayin'.

Re:Sports? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161626)

Sports are sports, and real nerds don't watch any of them.

Re:Sports? (1, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | about 2 years ago | (#38161654)

I guess you've never heard of Penn State football! It takes a lot of skill to avoid being raped by Jerry Sandusky.

Re:Sports? (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 2 years ago | (#38161668)

...and sex. Don't forget sex. Best sport there ever was, or ever will be. If done right. Warmups at dinner, pre-game show, endless rematches, mid-game show, after game party, it can even involve cheerleader outfits if you're so inclined... much better use of spandex, lace and leather, oooooh yeah.

Re:Sports? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161642)

"The only sports are motor racing, mountain climbing, and
bull fighting. All the rest are games."

                                                                        - Ernest Hemingway

And in case you need any further clarification, American football
is a game only idiots could love. Of course there are an awful lot of
idiots. Makes me wish for a global pandemic of a fatal disease, it does.

Re:Sports? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161786)

Makes me wish for a global pandemic of a fatal disease, it does.

We await news of your new status as "patient zero".

Re:Sports? (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38162052)

"The only sports are motor racing, mountain climbing, and bull fighting. All the rest are games."

Translation: The only thing that are sports are the things that I like. Besides that, bull fighting is ritualized slaughter, not a sport.

Of course there are an awful lot of idiots. Makes me wish for a global pandemic of a fatal disease, it does.

Just remember that you're an idiot in somebody else's eyes, and they'd be just as happy to see you die in your pandemic.

Re:Sports? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38162070)

"The only sports are motor racing, mountain climbing, and
bull fighting. All the rest are games."

                                                                                                                                                - Ernest Hemingway

Despite his being a writer of some talent, Hemingway is notable to me for being someone whose opinions are almost entirely misguided.

So why in the world would I take his word on sports?

Re:Sports? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38161914)

Not true. There are many nerds who succumb to the indoctrination that these contests are somehow worthy of attention, and subsequently analyze them with the fascination that other nerds apply to quantum theory, Klingon literature, network engineering, or the former DC Multiverse.

Lemme check (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161512)

Give me a moment to check and see if I care...

Nope. I don't care. Please resume your regularly scheduled holiday.

Re:Lemme check (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161758)

Wow - you had to check to see if you cared? I knew straight away I didn't care.

Re:Lemme check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38161976)

It's always best to double check. There might be an opportunity for outrage that will be overlooked unless you check.

Here I couldn't give a damn. I checked and there was just nothing at all I cared about NFL viewing angles.

conflicted (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38161860)

I'm actually torn between being outraged at the petty suppression of information, and totally not giving a damn.

Re:Lemme check (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38162082)

Nope. I don't care.

This is like the fourth time you've told us that.

It appears you care a great deal.

ESPN's SC with angles the TV coverage doesn't (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | about 2 years ago | (#38161516)

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.

Do this in Chess... (5, Funny)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 2 years ago | (#38161524)

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.

I wonder.. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161528)

The money spent on sports in this country...

Could fix the entire country in 5 years. Easily.

All our bitching about budgets and funds are tiny compared to the yearly cash pissed away on GAMES. Alternative energys and everything else we won't do because it's expensive... And yet... lol

I wonder why we do that... I have a theory. but it's not popular i'm sure.

Re:I wonder.. (0)

Tangential (266113) | about 2 years ago | (#38161606)

I wonder how different that is from the money spent on and the energy consumed by video games? Its been estimated that the 2011 spend on video games could be as high as $49B. How more is spent on the hardware and energy to play them? Plus there are the all of the societal costs associated with them. We can't afford alternative energy, but we can spend billions of dollars on video games that consume energy, waste time and accomplish nothing.

Re:I wonder.. (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 2 years ago | (#38161660)

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.

Re:I wonder.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161832)

Never heard of Cheyenne Mountain?

Re:I wonder.. (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38162088)

But they do get millions in tax breaks to game studios. Both actions are done in the name of the local economy.

Re:I wonder.. (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38161944)

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.

Not too different from baseball coverage (1)

Tangential (266113) | about 2 years ago | (#38161556)

In baseball, the only thing deemed important to cover is the ball. There may not be as much politics associated with it but you don't really get to see the shifts; what the pitcher and catcher do on most plays, etc.. If you aren't in the ball park seeing it in person, its a pretty intellectually dull sport.

Re:Not too different from baseball coverage (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#38161634)

It's not any better in person. My wife likes it, but it's even more boring to watch than golf (live or TV).

just an idea (1)

hsmyers (142611) | about 2 years ago | (#38161594)

seems to me like a perfect opportunity to 'crowd source' the information. sorry, couldn't help myself...

why is it football, again? (0, Flamebait)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#38161620)

don't they use hands to carry whatever that thing they call 'ball' around? Why is it called 'football'?

Re:why is it football, again? (5, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | about 2 years ago | (#38161674)

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.

Re:why is it football, again? (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 2 years ago | (#38161738)

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.

Come on mods, this is the funniest comment in this topic now, and it will be the funniest when the last post is added. +1 Funny

Re:why is it football, again? (1)

Maddog Batty (112434) | about 2 years ago | (#38161716)

It isn't called "football" (that is a different game, where the foot is used most of the time to move the ball), it is called "american football". The first word of this should explain everything...

Re:why is it football, again? (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38161964)

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.

Re:why is it football, again? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38161992)

Hurr hurr, you sure are clever! Imagine that, people having words for things!

You know, I've heard cricket doesn't actually involve any crickets! They should call it "bunch of guys standing around on a field for weeks at a time ball"! See, I'm clever too!

No problem on the camera views! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161630)

You just need to go all Ender Wiggin that! Stupid Bugger.

Who gives a fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161662)

Who gives a fuck? Stupid fucking game.

one problem with football (1)

ThorGod (456163) | about 2 years ago | (#38161720)

The rules are arbitrarily created to make for the best viewing experience. There's also a zillion of them.

"Sports nerds"? (1)

jareth780 (176411) | about 2 years ago | (#38161722)

Am I that old? Since when could someone be a "sports nerd"? That's like saying you're an "MMA nerd" because you know the best way to kick someone in the face while they're trying to tackle you.

Re:"Sports nerds"? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38161972)

Ever heard of sabermetrics? The math that those people do as a hobby goes far, far beyond anything a computer nerd does.

Re:"Sports nerds"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38162010)

We could call them "sports fans", which we did before, but that doesn't quite work. People consider themselves "NHL fans" even if they only follow their own team shallowly, and watch the Stanley Cup finals. A "sports nerd" is someone who tracks the players, the stats, the strategies, the drafts, the trades, and all sorts of details that many people couldn't give a shit about. These people are just as much nerds as any other nerd; just because they're nerding out about a silly sports game doesn't mean they're any less nerdy than that guy who's nerding out about a silly card game.

A sports nerd is not an athlete, and I think you've confused the two. They're not completely exclusive sets, but they're not equivalent either.

Jesus H. Christ, (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161742)

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!

No problem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38161750)

You just have to Ender Wiggin that footage, you stupid Bugger.

Sounds ripe for a RC helicopter project (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about 2 years ago | (#38161754)

...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..."

I hope someone can take up this matter to defeat the nonsense. In any case, it sound ripe for a video-mounted RC helicopter project.

I am sure release of such video can make way for serious profits. On the other hand, the so called project manager is likely to attract a barrage of lawsuits as he's labeled an 'infringer' if such a term exists.

Prevents 'spying' except for the spies ... (1)

tkjtkj (577219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38161882)

So, they believe that 'Joe Pizza' and his buddies might make use of this 'wide-field vision' information: info that is totally cam'd by each and every teams staff sitting in the bleachers, etc ???? Where are their brains??? It's sorta like 'copyrighting the image of the moon!' , no?

Who fucking cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38161934)

Wow the NFL is more paranoid than the USSR Stalin administration regarding its IP (imaginary property)?? Amazing, breaking news. Furthermore, football "nerds" can't see the whole game? Wow I'm so sad. I'm literally crying irl. American football has got to be one of the most boring games on the planet - second only to golf and followed shortly by baseball. It's been so commercialized and professionalized that there exist virtually no plays that have not been tried, tried again, and thrown away because the opposing team had already seen it 30 times. (to be fair, I feel the same about futbol/soccer) I have nothing against sports in general except that most of them are painfully dull to watch, though not necessarily to play. What more is there to see, honestly? Just a bunch of fat faggots humping each other on astroturf. Put this story back in the septic tank where it belongs.

Not that exciting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38162004)

The video that you don't see isn't anything special, unless of course you have a video analysis database which you could break down film to play by play and track each player's performance (which is what the NFL has from companies like XoS Technologies). So if your a bookie, you now know what to search for on TBP.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...