Cameras, sensors, and 3D body scans: All the tech helping eliminate blown calls

This World Cup, refs will use digital twins of each player to view plays from every angle.

See full article...

 

[henryhbk]

I imagine the video game industry would be salivating over this kind of data capture. Player movements in video games always seemed a little jerky-jerky to me but with this kind of temporal and spatial resolution you could make much more fluid play.

 

[MacBrave]

The "rough edges", the humanity, is what makes sport beautiful. That includes both the players and the referees/officials. Not technology. After all, it is just a game.

 

[ridergk]

Thanks for the piece, It explained a lot of the tech and methodology I'd had a difficult time finding elsewhere. Seems like a workable system to automatically determine if a ball has crossed the end line or not, something the Premier League hasn't adopted because I don't think the all Premiership venues want to incur the cost of installing.

 

[peterford]

When accuracy is 1m people argue around the boundary of 1m.
When accuracy is 1cm, people argue about the boundary of 1cm - except this time you have to have slow adjudication of technology involved.

I don't believe it adds any value.

 

[neodorian]

The "rough edges", the humanity, is what makes sport beautiful. That includes both the players and the referees/officials. Not technology. After all, it is just a game.

See also: music (and probably loads of other creative and recreational endeavors).

 

[Spuzzell]

Thanks for the piece, It explained a lot of the tech and methodology I'd had a difficult time finding elsewhere. Seems like a workable system to automatically determine if a ball has crossed the end line or not, something the Premier League hasn't adopted because I don't think the all Premiership venues want to incur the cost of installing.

I'm not sure what the English for end line is, but all Premier League grounds have goal line technology that vibrates a wristband on the referee when the ball crosses the line for a goal.

 

[chateauarusi]

I wonder whether this will support a move toward more aggressively adjudicating flopping and related attempts to claim penalty-level physical contact. In principle the data would show that Skeletal Point 5 for Player A did or did not intersect Skeletal Point 12 for Player B, so obviously there couldn't have been tripping, or whatever. Technically, something like this could be done. But I would argue against it, because the theatricality of it is part of the game, and part of the entertainment value for me as a viewer; it's fun to watch a really good flopper making an emotional appeal to the ref. I get the argument for rigorous accuracy, but I want to watch players, not robots.

Edit to add: The one counter-argument to this I'll concede has merit is the idea of countering the deference some star players seem to get from the refs, and leveling the playing field for everyone so penalties get called fairly. It doesn't change my mind, but it does carry some weight.

 

[Efw100]

I wonder whether this will support a move toward more aggressively adjudicating flopping and related attempts to claim penalty-level physical contact. In principle the data would show that Skeletal Point 5 for Player A did or did not intersect Skeletal Point 12 for Player B, so obviously there couldn't have been tripping, or whatever. Technically, something like this could be done. But I would argue against it, because the theatricality of it is part of the game, and part of the entertainment value for me as a viewer; it's fun to watch a really good flopper making an emotional appeal to the ref. I get the argument for rigorous accuracy, but I want to watch players, not robots.

There is always contact, players are all over each other in corner kicks, its tricky to able to judge if there was any force involved or which player is responsible

 

[Mechjaz]

Hu notes that this sort of full-body scanning itself isn’t especially novel, with a number of such scanners used across different sectors

It still pisses TSA off when I refuse the Rapiscan and request a manual pat down. If I'm going to have a role in security theater, I demand that my co-stars show up for the performance.

 

[StuBeck]

I wonder whether this will support a move toward more aggressively adjudicating flopping and related attempts to claim penalty-level physical contact. In principle the data would show that Skeletal Point 5 for Player A did or did not intersect Skeletal Point 12 for Player B, so obviously there couldn't have been tripping, or whatever. Technically, something like this could be done. But I would argue against it, because the theatricality of it is part of the game, and part of the entertainment value for me as a viewer; it's fun to watch a really good flopper making an emotional appeal to the ref. I get the argument for rigorous accuracy, but I want to watch players, not robots.

Edit to add: The one counter-argument to this I'll concede has merit is the idea of countering the deference some star players seem to get from the refs, and leveling the playing field for everyone so penalties get called fairly. It doesn't change my mind, but it does carry some weight.

About a decade too late for this discussion unfortunately. We've had VAR in the top leagues and the WC for a while now, and it has gotten ridiculous with their use of slow motion replay to see whether someone was a foul or not. It also doesn't help with top players getting fouls or not. We've seen obvious red cards not given in the Premier league because they wanted a player to get the assist record for example.

Its really quite simple, it should be used when a ref physically can't see something, or has missed what has occurred in their view. If either of those are true, let them watch it once in real time, and then they decide if its a foul/card/whatever. Anything past that is re-reffing the game which isn't anything anyone has asked for.

 

[jacs]

I wonder what else you can use this tech for? I'm sure assorted governmental agencies are just drooling at the tracking possibilities. Throw in some facial recognition and... fun for all!

I hate how cynical this timeline is making me. Sports should not be the testing ground for surveillance tech.

 

[wastrel]

Do the "twins" fall down and pretend they're hurt, too? (And the Oscar goes to...)

 

[egbert65]

What with games effectively now being in quarters because of being played in stupidly hot places and increasing numbers of VAR stoppages, Association Football is getting as aggravatingly stop/start as American Football. Unfortunately this also undermines its greatest quality, the rapid, elegant flowing movement and tactical invention that happens when the best players just get on with playing.

Still, in the way of football, all this high tech cleverness just gives players, managers and pundits more to moan about and more scope for excuse making. Perhaps they could use some magical AI to deal with diving and injury faking too.

It's a beautiful game. Or used to be.

 

[wxfisch]

The "rough edges", the humanity, is what makes sport beautiful. That includes both the players and the referees/officials. Not technology. After all, it is just a game.

I think for me this is why my limited sports viewing has really gone to zero the last few years. Baseball is less fun to watch with automated ball/strike systems makng the calls, automated remote reviews in hockey take the heart of so called "puck-luck" and the truly blind officials in many games. The leagues all say it is to be more fair, but that misses that a) at the end of the day this is all just enterrainment, it doesn't really matter and b) bad calls are inherently a part of sports and complaining about them is a large part of what makes people continue to engage with their games of choice.

 

[entropy_wins]

I watched the Mexico game - the referee's have body cams!!!

A bit shaky but you really get to see what the ref saw....

 

[MiguelMC]

When accuracy is 1m people argue around the boundary of 1m.
When accuracy is 1cm, people argue about the boundary of 1cm - except this time you have to have slow adjudication of technology involved.

I don't believe it adds any value.

I'd say goal line technology is good, because it brings instant closure on difficult calls, without any need for review. Similar things could conceivably be done for the pitch limits.

On the other hand, the lengthy VAR checks are a scourge, which cause ridiculous injury time extensions. +9? WTF?

And, of course, since now offside checks are performed after a goal, linesmen no longer whistle for reasonably clear offsides. And continuing play may lead to injury, as happened to Taiwo Awoniyi. Probably the first, almost certainly not last.

 

[goblinski]

During the Korea-Czechia game yesterday when the Czech player got his thirt ripped, one could clearly see some sort of sensor at the base of his neck when he was swapping tshirts. On a sport bra-like thing.

 

[Eldorito]

When accuracy is 1m people argue around the boundary of 1m.
When accuracy is 1cm, people argue about the boundary of 1cm - except this time you have to have slow adjudication of technology involved.

I don't believe it adds any value.

There's still such a human element to it as well. Two of the red cards in the Mexico/South Africa game were probably not. Despite this technology, there's still always a "probably".

Even using VAR to overrule the on-field ref requires it to be a pretty bad mistake. All that technology and it still has to be a human making a call with a lot more considerations. If Montes was given a yellow, the review would have left it at a yellow.

The red against Zwane immediately looked worse once slowed down and showed on the big screen. But with all this technology, it can't measure the force of one player against another, nor can it measure intention. Suddenly there's the human pressure of putting a human being whacked in the face on the screen and the ref.

Decisions are made on whether to go harsh on players or not as well. Give them an cm and they'll take a m. There's a reason there was only one direct red the whole last world cup and now we've had 3 in one game.

 

[Thorzdad]

The "rough edges", the humanity, is what makes sport beautiful. That includes both the players and the referees/officials. Not technology. After all, it is just a game.

I agree completely.
Unfortunately, sports betting demands absolute accuracy.

 

[Perfectlycromulent]

The "rough edges", the humanity, is what makes sport beautiful. That includes both the players and the referees/officials. Not technology. After all, it is just a game.

Tell that to Ireland after Henry's shenanigans....

Edit: I agree with the sentiment, but unless the players have an about face and behave more like cricket or snooker players i.e. with integrity. Then we need VAR, though I wish it was much faster.

 

[ssamani]

Great article overall but some outright mistakes on the rules of football

But teams can often call for a review of even inconsequential plays.

No. Teams cannot call for reviews of anything in football. VAR reviews all major events and informs the referee if they feel there’s been an error by the on the pitch officials.

determine if an attacking player in an offside position interfered with the keeper. This interference has long been illegal in soccer, but the number of players and size of the field have made it hard to call accurately.

A player in an offside position is almost never anywhere near the goal keeper. Interfering with the goalkeeper happens mainly at corners, when it’s impossible to be off side from the corner kick itself. Or from free kicks, but again if there is a questionable off side decisions in that scenario, then it’s almost guaranteed that they are nowhere near the keeper. And interference with the keeper is not a factor in judging whether it’s offside. It’s a foul in its own right.

So yes, they’ve introduced tech to do with interfering with the keeper, but it has nothing to do with off side decisions.

Actually those are two glaring mistakes in the understanding of football’s rules.

 

[adwhite11]

During the Korea-Czechia game yesterday when the Czech player got his thirt ripped, one could clearly see some sort of sensor at the base of his neck when he was swapping tshirts. On a sport bra-like thing.

I believe those are heart rate monitors and other sensors for teams to track the players performance and stamina during the games. I've seen them worn in MLS games before.

 

[Jackattak]

I wonder whether this will support a move toward more aggressively adjudicating flopping and related attempts to claim penalty-level physical contact. In principle the data would show that Skeletal Point 5 for Player A did or did not intersect Skeletal Point 12 for Player B, so obviously there couldn't have been tripping, or whatever. Technically, something like this could be done. But I would argue against it, because the theatricality of it is part of the game, and part of the entertainment value for me as a viewer; it's fun to watch a really good flopper making an emotional appeal to the ref. I get the argument for rigorous accuracy, but I want to watch players, not robots.

Edit to add: The one counter-argument to this I'll concede has merit is the idea of countering the deference some star players seem to get from the refs, and leveling the playing field for everyone so penalties get called fairly. It doesn't change my mind, but it does carry some weight.

Matches would last five hours bruh.

 

[AverageDutchGuy]

I imagine the video game industry would be salivating over this kind of data capture. Player movements in video games always seemed a little jerky-jerky to me but with this kind of temporal and spatial resolution you could make much more fluid play.

I would presume the rough edges on player movement in video games is really down to data compression on the game end of things. Temporal and spatial resolution of motion capture tech as would be used for a triple A title video game has been good enough for smooth motion for probably a decade by now at least.

I wonder whether this will support a move toward more aggressively adjudicating flopping <snipped> But I would argue against it, because the theatricality of it is part of the game, and part of the entertainment value for me as a viewer; it's fun to watch a really good flopper making an emotional appeal to the ref.

Respectfully I disagree completely. Blatant flopping when there has been no contact or pretending the lightest of touches has been an attempted murder should result in an automatic red and 2 game suspension. Screw that sh*t. It's annoying and time wasting.

 

[randomuser42]

Baseball is less fun to watch with automated ball/strike systems makng the calls

This is not what happens in baseball. First, this is the first year of it in the majors, second, the teams have limited challenges. You can only challenge 2 times unsuccessfully (and infinite if successful).

The average right now per game appears to be about 4 challenges per game total. A typcial game has around 300 pitches thrown so 4 out of 300 pitches are being challenged, about 1.3%. If you're not watching as much baseball these days, it's not because of this.

That number will go down too because, surprise surprise, putting the umpire's performance in the spotlight tends to make them better. Umpire accuracy shot up once people started making ump scorecards such that the good umps are around 95% accurate in a game now anyways.

 

[multimediavt]

All about the World Cup and hope to see some fantastic matches. But when I saw the headline before the description and the image:

Cameras, sensors, and 3D body scans: All the tech helping eliminate blown calls​

I thought it was going to be a story about law enforcement tech and how it's failing its purpose. Not VAR. I'll be glad when I take off at the end of next week for a while. I'll watch World Cup and tune out the other crap for a while.

 

[phuzz]

I agree with the sentiment, but unless the players have an about face and behave more like cricket or snooker players i.e. with integrity.

Or rugby

 

[Stinkoman]

Letting referees enter the country would also go a long way in helping too

 

[Bravesirrobinson]

Some people are bitching about the use of technology, but imo having a sensor inside the ball is way better than US football and its silly ball placement and chain "technology". A player gets tackled, the ball gets eyeballed and set down by the ref, and then if it's a particularly close moment like 4th down, they'll bring out the chain gang to measure where the ball was set down. Except it's entirely arbitrary where the ball was set, because it most cases there's no way a ref could know how far forward the ball got when it's buried under 5 people, and also the ball has to be set between the hash marks, meaning it could move horizontally a third of the field from where it ended up near the sidelines. For as much money CFB and NFL make, I really don't understand why they can't have multiple sensors inside the ball to capture exactly how far forward it made it during the play and have a precise placement afterwards.

 

[Feniks]

If there had been a VAR in the 1970s the entire Dutch team would have been sent off for trying to murder the Germans. That's what makes international games interesting. I kind of want a US-Iran finale!

But the really top clas referees know when to close their eyes and pretend nothing happened. We should never let computers take over entirely.

 

[Boskone]

I wonder whether this will support a move toward more aggressively adjudicating flopping and related attempts to claim penalty-level physical contact. In principle the data would show that Skeletal Point 5 for Player A did or did not intersect Skeletal Point 12 for Player B, so obviously there couldn't have been tripping, or whatever. Technically, something like this could be done. But I would argue against it, because the theatricality of it is part of the game, and part of the entertainment value for me as a viewer; it's fun to watch a really good flopper making an emotional appeal to the ref. I get the argument for rigorous accuracy, but I want to watch players, not robots.

Edit to add: The one counter-argument to this I'll concede has merit is the idea of countering the deference some star players seem to get from the refs, and leveling the playing field for everyone so penalties get called fairly. It doesn't change my mind, but it does carry some weight.

I disagree, because I think taking a dive detracts from the game.

The local league I player in a a kid was pretty simple: if you went down and didn't hop back up, you were done for the half. (Or longer, if actual medical intervention was required.)

Taking a dive was therefore essentially a sacrificial play, and one without a guaranteed payoff: the ball carrier had more latitude in making physical contact. No-one thought of it that way, though, because we wanted to play the game rather than mill around while someone demonstrated their acting lessons.

 

[demonbug]

A player in an offside position is almost never anywhere near the goal keeper. Interfering with the goalkeeper happens mainly at corners, when it’s impossible to be off side from the corner kick itself. Or from free kicks, but again if there is a questionable off side decisions in that scenario, then it’s almost guaranteed that they are nowhere near the keeper. And interference with the keeper is not a factor in judging whether it’s offside. It’s a foul in its own right.

So yes, they’ve introduced tech to do with interfering with the keeper, but it has nothing to do with off side decisions.

I think they are referring to the relatively common issue where a player is in an offside position, doesn't play the ball, but is called offside for their indirect interference with the keeper. Things like blocking the keeper's view of the ball, which can be hard to determine in real time. Technically not called for interference with the keeper, but gaining an advantage from an offside position just like every other offside call.

 

[akenthet]

Anyone else getting tired of the term "digital twin"? It seems like it's getting overused ranging across healthcare, manufacturing, sports, and others I can't remember at the moment.

 

[demonbug]

Naturally in spite of all the technology, FIFA still managed to find bizarre policies that make you wonder WTF they are thinking. For example, this World Cup they've decided to use VAR on goal kick vs. corner kick calls, which IMO is a good use of VAR as the play is stopped anyway, it can be a very impactful decision, and it isn't a judgment call - just a finding of who touched it last. Great, let's do it.

Naturally they had to find some way to screw it up, and decided they will use VAR for these calls, but only to change calls that were given as corners but should have been goal kicks, and not vice versa. Just, what in the actual fuck is wrong with these people? If you are going to review them then do it right. Utterly, confoundingly stupid.

 

[EmphyrioDonk]

When accuracy is 1m people argue around the boundary of 1m.
When accuracy is 1cm, people argue about the boundary of 1cm - except this time you have to have slow adjudication of technology involved.

I don't believe it adds any value.

Except it catches when the ref is clearly wrong, which is especially useful in one-offs, Like finals. Not so much in a regular competition-game as the decisions pro and against you tend to level out over a football season.

 

[Olletes]

IMHO, VAR was introduced mainly to instigate stoppages in gameplay so the commercial broadcasters could squeeze extra advertising in while the incident went for review.

 

[jonbob_newcastle]

IMHO, VAR was introduced mainly to instigate stoppages in gameplay so the commercial broadcasters could squeeze extra advertising in while the incident went for review.

You’re wrong. That’s what hydration breaks are for.

I don’t mind the ball sensor being used to check if the ball crossed the line but apart from that we need less VAR, not more. Fans anrguing about the ref’s calls is practically part of the game. It still sometimes puzzles me when I see the players do it though. Referees are a bit like traffic wardens: you’ll never see one turn around and say “you’ve convinced me, I’ll change my decision” and yet people keep on trying to do it.

I wouldn’t be against diving players getting carded after the fact due to VAR, but only if they didn’t stop the game to do it.

 

[lurknomore]

I have two fundamental problems with this :
1) The offside rule is there to prevent players from hanging out behind the defense waiting for a long ball and easy goal. I've seen offsides called and goals disallowed because a player's toes were one or two inches past a defender at the other end of the field. That's not a decisive advantage, it's just a side effect of being a human tracking five players around you while trying to time the pass. The spirit of the rule is to disallow an egregious play, and we now have tech to sanction half and inch with not practical advantage.
2) A VAR that reviews important plays is good, but, like the constant anger towards the ref, it ignores the most important part of the game : if you're three goals ahead, ref mistakes don't matter. You didn't get that penalty ? Score two goals yourself! "But it's a tight game so everything matters!!!" Nope. If it's a tight game, you deserve to lose it on a minor mistake by anyone of the 25 guys on the field. People have to stop blaming the officiating when they didn't obviously earn the win. It sucks to lose. My favorite team does it a lot. But the point of the game is to win, and it you can't find a way to decisively win, then you're at the mercy of a bit of luck, and you just should stop bitching when the coin just flips to the wrong side. Adding tech to make the officiating "perfect" does not change the fundamentals.

I'm happy that they stopped the "I saw it's offsides but I'll let it play just in case" though. That was obnoxious.
Bad calls happen. Bad calls only matter if you rely on perfect calls to win. Which we shouldn't encourage.