3 ms·
The camera science is fancy, but to me the bit at the end: "At the very least, he doesn’t want this tactic available to just one team." A week or so ago there
by bigethan 11y ago
The camera science is fancy, but to me the bit at the end: "At the very least, he doesn’t want this tactic available to just one team."
A week or so ago there was a discussion sparked by advanced curling brooms here about how sports shouldn't be "enhanced" by technology (eg: the sharkskin swimsuits are cheating). What if a team had every player wore a device that told them things:
- the shot is not/is going in
- the pass is coming to your area of the field
- jump! duck!
- etc
Would that be different than having a good coach vs. a bad coach? A communicative teammate vs. a silent one?
- hugh4 11y agoIn Formula 1, where these sorts of things are both technologically easier and very useful, many forms of driver aid have already been banned. Because viewers want to see men drive cars, not robots. So I can't imagine the governing bodies of lower-tech sports getting on board with these sorts of things.
- bigethan 11y agoFormula 1 is especially amusing to me. Rather than saying "no tech" it says "not this tech" which just invites loophole finders. eg. the so called "F-Duct" (http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/f_duct.html http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/f_duct.html) - you're not just watching drivers drive, you're watching engineering teams compete with the world's best drivers at their disposal. What would a Serena type athlete be able to do with even more information? It's not steroids, it's data. What would Tim Duncan and Greg Popovitch be capable of with even more knowledge? I'd kinda like to know and see.