|
Post by springs on Sept 14, 2017 20:27:43 GMT -5
I'm generally leery about increasing non-players' influence on games anyway, but in this case the trials that have been going on with this idea should have made it clear by now that neither the quantity nor the quality of available video is any where near what is needed to make it work. How have you come to this conclusion? Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
|
|
|
Post by Gilmoy on Sept 14, 2017 20:38:42 GMT -5
How have you come to this conclusion? I agree that normal-speed broadcast cameras just don't suffice (in 2016-2017). I draw this conclusion on the high incidence of calls that stand as called, due to lack of conclusive video evidence to overturn. Also, they take so much longer than FIVB challenges because there's no dedicated crew, R1 has to climb down, and the video is so bad that they're rewinding it 10+ times. Block touches and other action shots are normal-speed frame rate lotto: the chance that the instant of the finger-wiggle was caught on 1 frame at 60 fps is maybe only 1 in 3. For ball in/out on hard hits, you can see that 60 fps, going "frame-by-frame", shows a roughly ball-width oblong blur teleporting about 2-4 diameters with each frame -- so the entire bounce-scrunch-rebound might not be captured at all. The net cam views for net touch seems to work very well. With FIVB high-speed cameras along the net, we're used to 2-5 frames per touch (so each finger wiggles smoothly ), and Hawkeye graphics for the entire ball trajectory, including its squashed contact ellipse. Before FIVB used Hawkeye for ball in/out, they actually did find the single video frame of maximum compression, and showed that as a still image (and it took a bit longer). Hawkeye is pretty quick and smooth, but you pay some installation and operating cost. It doesn't bog down a FIVB match; we seem to be able to zip through 3-5 FIVB challenges in the same time as 1 bad NCAA challenge. (Exception: some coaches, like Russia's previous coach Marichev, were notorious for using 2 wrong challenges at the end of every set, because he was entitled to -- that did become a sideshow.)
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Sept 14, 2017 20:40:24 GMT -5
I'm generally leery about increasing non-players' influence on games anyway, but in this case the trials that have been going on with this idea should have made it clear by now that neither the quantity nor the quality of available video is any where near what is needed to make it work. How have you come to this conclusion? Just based on the games I've seen with replay, IMO it depends on what you want from replay. If your primary desire from replay is to reverse the glaring errors, then the current quantity/quality is OK. If you want it to clearly show whether a hit brush the tip of a blocker's finger or caught the last 1/4 inch of the line, then most schools are going to have to add at least more cameras and probably better quality ones.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Sept 14, 2017 21:51:06 GMT -5
How have you come to this conclusion? Just based on the games I've seen with replay, IMO it depends on what you want from replay. If your primary desire from replay is to reverse the glaring errors, then the current quantity/quality is OK. If you want it to clearly show whether a hit brush the tip of a blocker's finger or caught the last 1/4 inch of the line, then most schools are going to have to add at least more cameras and probably better quality ones. Fair enough... I will go farther and add that they need to have dedicated cameras FOR that... in many cases schools are using feeds off of moving cameras that aren't for a CRS system... but for TV. The touches you are speaking of aren't being caught in some cases by ESPN quality cameras... it just happens to quickly... so there is no reason TO challenge it. The lines, foot faults, and antenna calls are without question doable with dedicated, static cameras...
|
|
MyNameHere
Sophomore
Enter your message here...
Posts: 189
|
Post by MyNameHere on Sept 14, 2017 23:54:01 GMT -5
Just based on the games I've seen with replay, IMO it depends on what you want from replay. If your primary desire from replay is to reverse the glaring errors, then the current quantity/quality is OK. If you want it to clearly show whether a hit brush the tip of a blocker's finger or caught the last 1/4 inch of the line, then most schools are going to have to add at least more cameras and probably better quality ones. Fair enough... I will go farther and add that they need to have dedicated cameras FOR that... in many cases schools are using feeds off of moving cameras that aren't for a CRS system... but for TV. The touches you are speaking of aren't being caught in some cases by ESPN quality cameras... it just happens to quickly... so there is no reason TO challenge it. The lines, foot faults, and antenna calls are without question doable with dedicated, static cameras... Beginning this season, at least one of the big VB conferences will have a static camera on each of the lines for their challenge review system.
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Sept 15, 2017 1:28:46 GMT -5
Beginning this season, at least one of the big VB conferences will have a static camera on each of the lines for their challenge review system. Those cameras are not Hawkeye high speed cameras.
|
|
|
Post by springs on Sept 15, 2017 7:01:55 GMT -5
All B1G schools have the same system (DV Sport) with the same cameras 1-6 (dedicated/static). They can also add more when the B1G-10 Network shows up with Tv cameras.
DV Sport has slow-mo, zoom features, and easy naviagation. The fact that all of the B1G schools having the same system with the same cameras will help the B1G officials who will/already are used to using the system. The challenge will be the replay technician who is responsible for queuing up the clip/play they're looking at. Those with a VB background know what/where they're looking for.
And every challenge is handled by the R2, so no one is climbing off the stand to review the play. Yes, in a perfect world there would be a 3rd official to handle the replays but I don't see conferences jumping for that anytime soon.
Hawkeye costs ~$20k so that's not an option.
|
|
|
Post by wishinwestcoastvb on Sept 15, 2017 10:16:06 GMT -5
Until the NCAA can provide what the FIVB uses, I will not be a fan
|
|
|
Post by springs on Sept 15, 2017 10:37:09 GMT -5
Until the NCAA can provide what the FIVB uses, I will not be a fan I would be a fan of ANY tool that could help get it right. Don't forget, this is the 2nd year it's been in play. It's far from perfect (it will never be perfect...not even FIVB) and it will only get better.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Sept 15, 2017 10:58:08 GMT -5
Until the NCAA can provide what the FIVB uses, I will not be a fan NCAA isn't going to spend six figures per school to put in a system with Hawkeye cameras or the equivalent. I also think there really isn't the need. A system like what is described above that is being implemented in the Big 10 is sufficient IMO. This is more than enough to correct obvious miscalls. Wanting to correct calls that require the Hawkeye systems is going overboard IMO and it's trying to correct these type of calls that usual creates the long delays and many times still results in having to let the call stand anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Sept 15, 2017 11:46:44 GMT -5
Until the NCAA can provide what the FIVB uses, I will not be a fan NCAA isn't going to spend six figures per school to put in a system with Hawkeye cameras or the equivalent. I also think there really isn't the need. A system like what is described above that is being implemented in the Big 10 is sufficient IMO. This is more than enough to correct obvious miscalls. Wanting to correct calls that require the Hawkeye systems is going overboard IMO and it's trying to correct these type of calls that usual creates the long delays and many times still results in having to let the call stand anyway. Totally agree with this statement. I think those who object to having a replay system may be objecting on the length of review time as one of the main reasons. I've stated it before: implement a time limit on the review. Without the FIVB-quality cameras, no review time in the world is going to help; therefore 90 seconds should be enough to draw one of three conclusions - reverse, stand, or inconclusive. If it's inconclusive at 90 seconds, with the current technology available, it will be inconclusive 2 minutes later as well.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Sept 15, 2017 13:30:33 GMT -5
NCAA isn't going to spend six figures per school to put in a system with Hawkeye cameras or the equivalent. I also think there really isn't the need. A system like what is described above that is being implemented in the Big 10 is sufficient IMO. This is more than enough to correct obvious miscalls. Wanting to correct calls that require the Hawkeye systems is going overboard IMO and it's trying to correct these type of calls that usual creates the long delays and many times still results in having to let the call stand anyway. Totally agree with this statement. I think those who object to having a replay system may be objecting on the length of review time as one of the main reasons. I've stated it before: implement a time limit on the review. Without the FIVB-quality cameras, no review time in the world is going to help; therefore 90 seconds should be enough to draw one of three conclusions - reverse, stand, or inconclusive. If it's inconclusive at 90 seconds, with the current technology available, it will be inconclusive 2 minutes later as well. Agree with this. Go quickly through all the camera angles and if none of them seem to present a clear view for a reversal, then stop the review, let the call stand, and get on with the game. Seen too many 3 or 4 minutes reviews they still end up letting the call stand (meaning it was inconclusive). Tend to think that type of delay may impact the game as much or more than a borderline incorrect call.
|
|