Author Topic: IR Situation in the West  (Read 9539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
IR Situation in the West
« on: November 04, 2010, 05:28:25 AM »

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=272&sid=13134649

MWC commissioner: replay officials 'weren't sufficiently aggressive'
By Dick Harmon, Deseret News
PROVO -- A private letter between MWC commissioner Criag Thompson and San Diego State President Stephen Weber obtained by San Diego media indicate the video replay crew working the Aztec football game with BYU Oct. 9 in LaVell Edwards Stadium "weren't sufficiently aggressive" enough in pointing out that conclusive video evidence on live TV showed a non-fumble call was wrong.

The issue has become a ping-pong ball by high-level SDSU boosters, who fired off a second letter to BYU President Cecil O. Samuelson within a week over the controversial play.

The letter, dated Sunday from Thompson to Weber, found its way to SDSU boosters and media. Three boosters (Leon Parma, Bob Payne and Jack Goodall) told the San Diego Union-Tribune the new revelations were "shocking" and they immediately wrote BYU's Samuelson on Tuesday and asked him to take action on them.

The letter from Thompson referred to the league's investigation into what transpired in the video replay booth and the actions of the three men the MWC employed to work the booth. While the MWC found no malfeasance by the officials, all three were suspended because they did not aggressively find all the evidence from live TV feeds in the play.

While replay showed a BYU fumble recovered by the Aztecs, head replay official Mike Angelis ruled that there wasn't a fumble, keeping the ball with the Cougars, who later scored a touchdown on the drive.

The Union-Tribune report said the ruling shocked MWC staff members who were watching. The error was compounded because the game was so close.

Thompson's letter to Weber said, "There were no technical difficulties and that, in fact, all the replay views" were available to the replay crew identified by the Union-Tribune as replay official Mike Angelis, of Reno, Nev., and BYU alumni Chad Bunn and Provo resident Rob Moon. Bunn was the replay communicator and Moon worked as the replay technician.

"It became clear the replay official (Angelis) had become disproportionately focused on the Camera No. 5 shot (which had player traffic obscuring the football at certain points) and on the issue of "clear recovery."

While Angelis, Bunn and Moon have never commented on the incident as per league rules, a source close to one of the three told the Deseret News that Bunn told Angelis there were other camera angles of the play and Angelis said, "No, I got this."

But according to what Thompson said in his letter to Weber, Angelis, "failed to ask the communicator (Bunn) if there were additional clips available for review before making his final decision. Concurrently, the communicator (Bunn) was not sufficiently aggressive in notifying the replay official that additional thumbnails (video evidence) were available. Finally, the technician (Moon) who had a view of the television line feed, did not notice or did not interject that a definitive view of the play was being shown on the air."

After the controversy, all three men were suspended for a week and the league adopted a new policy that bars employees of a host school from working in the video booth at home team stadiums.

In the letter to Weber, Thompson said the MWC was convinced no malfeasance had occurred and that a combined human error was at the root of the missed replay call. He told Weber the league still has confidence in these crew members.

Thompson said the suspensions came "because they had failed to communicate effectively as a unit and did not successfully utilize the information available to make a correct decision."

Thompson's report to Weber indicated the league's director of officials called the replay booth after the call and wondered why the play wasn't ruled a fumble.

"All three members of the replay crew were astonished to receive the phone call (it is not standard procedure to call the booth during the game) and could not understand, based upon what they had seen, why there was an issue," according to Thompson's letter.

Following the game, Thompson said MWC officials told the crew replays existed that showed indisputable evidence of the fumble and the crew reported they had no knowledge of such a "look" and Angelis reaffirmed what he saw was not sufficient to rule it a fumble. The crew, according to the commissioner, spent 60 to 90 minutes after the game and reviewed the video that Angelis made his decision from and still did not "identify the definite replay."

Thompson's letter said after the game, the crew saw the available video and "were horrified to learn of their mistake."

According to the Union-Tribune, SDSU boosters said in their second letter to BYU's Samuelson that "we leave the fine points to the legal scholars schooled in the meaning of gross negligence."

"What is more shocking is that the national television (video)... replayed the questionable call over and over again," the boosters' new letter states.

"How was the withheld play not seen at that time and the replay (not) forwarded to the replay official?"

Last week, in response to SDSU boosters' call for a full investigation by BYU, BYU issued a statement that said all MWC protocol by the crew was followed in the game and that insinuations that there was wrongdoing were erroneous

KB

  • Guest
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2010, 08:05:33 AM »
For one, all people involved in replay are basically members of the extended officiating crew, and should be subjevt to the same selection criteria. No affiliate of a team taking part in the contest can be allowed to work in a replay booth in a position where he/she does her work without capable supervision by an official (we can tolerate people affiliated to a team to work in a chain crew, because tehre they are under direct supervision of the HL).
The replay official relies on the technical people to show him all available views of the given action, he usually is not technically savy enough to control what these people are doing. (wlemonnier quote "some of them don't even have email!")

Second: If I was to work replay, I'd like to sit in front of a big screen showing me all camera views synchronized. Then I would point to the 4 views I'd want to have on my replay monitor, so I could correlate the view showing the runner's knee with the view showing the ball coming out. So I could not possibly miss the view with the perfect angle.

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 611
  • FAN REACTION: +25/-8
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2010, 09:30:30 AM »
Second: If I was to work replay, I'd like to sit in front of a big screen showing me all camera views synchronized. Then I would point to the 4 views I'd want to have on my replay monitor, so I could correlate the view showing the runner's knee with the view showing the ball coming out. So I could not possibly miss the view with the perfect angle.

For decades I have wondered why that isn't done, both for the replay officials and for the viewers at home. It's almost unheard of, when it should be standard practice.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2010, 09:47:08 AM »
One of the networks (FOX or ABC?) has started doing split screens showing the same exact time but 2 different views. 

KB

  • Guest
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2010, 11:52:48 AM »
Yes, I saw that last weekend.

The technical part of IR must be made so easy that even a non-techie who would not even work on a Mac can use it. Just point your finger to the views you want to see, and a wheel that lets you roll frame by frame.
Select your views, roll to the right moment, bingo.
Now you only have real hard work to do when you reverse a call and need to get the right position of the ball and the proper time on the game clock.

It's like with our mechanics. They're designed to put is into a position where doing the hard part of officiating is as easy as can be.

In computing, we call that KISS.

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2010, 12:37:45 PM »
For decades I have wondered why that isn't done, both for the replay officials and for the viewers at home. It's almost unheard of, when it should be standard practice.

My concern would be ensuring that the videos were actually synced properly, and then being able to prove to skeptics that they were synced properly.  I do have a vague memory of reading about the NFL possibly experimenting with allowing that to be done if both videos had a timecode on them, but no idea of the specifics or the outcome or even if I just dreamed it.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2010, 12:41:02 PM »
The network I was watching used that term "Timecode" when they were putting the replays up.  Apparently they do have such a thing they can use

Offline sj

  • *
  • Posts: 242
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-3
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2010, 01:40:40 PM »
The answer for the future looks like it could be "“holographic three-dimensional telepresence." It's still a few years away but on Saturdays Mike could be sitting on his couch while they feed him all the plays from all over the country that need to be looked at. 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8f071d82-e765-11df-b5b4-00144feab49a.html#axzz14L859zYf

Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1059
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2010, 05:40:08 PM »
Sync'ing video feeds is not difficult.

A company I used to work for has already done that.

Dunno if they've ever thought about using their technology as IR tech though.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2010, 06:55:34 PM »
All game video has time codes built in, it's part of digital capture.  Your own little hand held video camera does it.

As for a big screen, you must not have seen many replay booths.  There is no room for a big screen anything.

Most have now gone to HD monitors.  In the more advanced systems (not all IR systems are the same), the technician has thumbnails of all of the shots available.  He sends the shots to the replay official's monitor.  Obviously, good communication is needed between them in order to get the best views available.

In the Mtn West replay booth, either the technician failed to let the replay official know a better view was available, or the replay official didn't think he needed it.  In either case, poor teamwork.  

chymechowder

  • Guest
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2010, 10:43:04 PM »
The network I was watching used that term "Timecode" when they were putting the replays up.  Apparently they do have such a thing they can use

Can anyone name the 1983 movie that features this exchange?   :D

Claude [lying on the witness stand]
Yes, and I'd like to point out that this tape has not been tampered
with or edited in any way.  It even has a time code on it, and those
are very difficult to fake. 

Judge
For the benefit of the court, will you please explain  'time code'?

Claude
Just because I don't know what it is doesn't mean I'm lying!


hint: koooo-loo-koo-koo-koo-loo-koo-koooooo



Offline Mike28

  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: IR Situation in the West
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2010, 11:33:28 PM »
Strange Brew... Eh