The morals of players are usually inversely proportional to the amount of money from prizes and sponsorship at stake.
NPPL Worldbreaking news!
- Thread starter Milky
- Start date
Okay - to be able to cover all possible angels on a paintball field, you would need at least 2 cameras for every bunker - one on each side of it - and that might even be enough.... Depends how the players is using it/playing it?! IMPOSSIBLE!
So in my oppinion it´s a big fat NO - it could never be done properly.... You will never know either how a game will go off? I mean - can anyone EVER foresee how it´s gonna be played - who´s moving where, and when????
In other sports - take for example american football - you know what way they are running (you do in paintball as well, okay okay) BUT there are at least no obstacles in the way - meaning there will almost always only be 2 angles to a given situation (filming-wise!)!?
So yeah - do NOT use photages to overturn results of games/tournaments, but do use them to lift or give suspensions afterwards!
Which is kinda what they did now right? I mean - nothing has been overturned other than a suspension.... Really!
So in my oppinion it´s a big fat NO - it could never be done properly.... You will never know either how a game will go off? I mean - can anyone EVER foresee how it´s gonna be played - who´s moving where, and when????
In other sports - take for example american football - you know what way they are running (you do in paintball as well, okay okay) BUT there are at least no obstacles in the way - meaning there will almost always only be 2 angles to a given situation (filming-wise!)!?
So yeah - do NOT use photages to overturn results of games/tournaments, but do use them to lift or give suspensions afterwards!
Which is kinda what they did now right? I mean - nothing has been overturned other than a suspension.... Really!
You need to cover evey angle on the field, football doesnt do it nor rugby.
Take rugby for example, if a huge drive is being done over the try line, 15 blokes involves the all fallen over behind the line ref has no choice to go to the tv ref, takes seconds, they see it from 3 diff angles then make a decision.
Simple huh
Take rugby for example, if a huge drive is being done over the try line, 15 blokes involves the all fallen over behind the line ref has no choice to go to the tv ref, takes seconds, they see it from 3 diff angles then make a decision.
Simple huh
You simply can't compare the two. In your example you'd only need three cameras for the whole game as you have a single point of focus (the ball), the cameramen know where it is so they only have to look there. With paintball you have 14 players all as their own "point of focus". Plus with paintball standard cameras can't pick up the trails of paint in the air (please Nick wheel out that white paint idea again) so you can't even follow who is shooting at who, let alone who got hit when.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way, Freddie is right (damn that's two from the same family...)
My point EXACTLY - in most other sports there are 1 "object", which means most play and things that needs penalising will happend around this "object"! In paintball there´s between 10 and 14 "objects" which ALL could be in danger of comitting something "wrong" that needs penalising.... Multiply that with the number of possible angles on each and every one of them, and you have your number of needed cameras to be able to cover it properly - and in a way that COULD justify penalising with the help of cameras/photages!
And yeah I know - we are SUCH a clever family!
Well you can compare the two, the reason i used rugby as an example as in a standard televised match the will be about 22 cameras on field.
You say they have one point of focus "the ball", fair point, and you say 3 camera angles on that focus point. Ok, so in paintball you have 14 focus points. Same principle just more of them.
As for the camera's not picking up streams of paint, surely the industry and whoever Will be involved for filming, if they were to go down this line would invest in some better cameras.
Oh and I'm sure there are more players on a rugby field committing offences as they are 99% of the time trying to poke each others eyes out
** Freddie, as for being a clever family, I'll say this only once, eating a burger off the floor **
You say they have one point of focus "the ball", fair point, and you say 3 camera angles on that focus point. Ok, so in paintball you have 14 focus points. Same principle just more of them.
As for the camera's not picking up streams of paint, surely the industry and whoever Will be involved for filming, if they were to go down this line would invest in some better cameras.
Oh and I'm sure there are more players on a rugby field committing offences as they are 99% of the time trying to poke each others eyes out
** Freddie, as for being a clever family, I'll say this only once, eating a burger off the floor
**
All of those 22 cameras will have the ball as their focus, no matter how far away they are. All the players are playing with the same point of focus in mind, moving towards it, adjusting lines as it comes out of a scrum etc etc Their actions are predicatable and linked. Paintball is effectively 7 individual gun battles which would each require (to do it properly) a camera that can check each player being hit from a third party (guy crawling up the snake etc) AND a face on camera that would show their immediate opponent AND then you'd have to compare time synchs to see who got shot first - it simply isn't practical in any sense, certainly not until we get anywhere close to major league sports money. By the very nature of the game we "hide" meaning you have to have the camera at exactly the right angle to get the right image and irrespective of all that you still can't see the paint in the air unless you are directly in line with a player.
'more' as in far too many more to the point that it become impractical, extortionately expensive and there's still no guarantee it'll even work. Your over simplistic 'example' just doesn't work for paintball...
As Robin Williams once said...
"They're talking about partial nuclear disarmament. That's also like talking about partial circumcision. Same thing. You either go all the way or f***ing forget it! You know what I'm saying?"
Beaker, Do you think having cameras on field, as another aid for the officials,would be helpful?
yes or no answer would be fine
yes or no answer would be fine
If you're asking "can it ever?" then yes, of course. BUT, if you're asking "at the current time" - no.
Spending that money/time/effort on well trained, well rested, well organised refs would give a MUCH greater benefit than any grainy video replay that's only ever useful on the most controversial of calls and then you didn't know if you're going to get the image you need to make the call.
When we have a sufficiently good and consistent level of reffing AND the level of investment that would be required (which frankly i don't see paintball warranting in at least 3 years) then yeah, video could be used.
But until then the basic reffing standard, organisation and level of professionalism is in far greater need of attention than video replay.
So your saying at this current time, having cameras on field, wouldnt help the officials at all?