3 ms·

televised sport != sport televised sport == advertising dollars Seeing this more and more. Amateur-level sport is becoming a better spectacle, a better showc

televised sport != sport televised sport == advertising dollars Seeing this more and more. Amateur-level sport is becoming a better spectacle, a better showcase of the sport itself, than professional, televised sports because of all the "value-add" the media does to try and create drama around everything. In Australia, the AFL (Australian Football League) implemented the video reply system in order to "add drama", in other words, to get the fans riled up. And it works. Just like every other video reply system it gets the result wrong more consistently than the spur-of-the-moment, human, umpiring decisions. The fans get loud about it - which is the desired end result. Drama: 1, AFL sporting integrity: 0 Edited to add: If you saw the game / match and you understand the sport, there's very little that a post-match interview can add that's of any value outside of sound-bites and article titles for the media.

deanCommie 5y ago
> Just like every other video reply system it gets the result wrong more consistently than the spur-of-the-moment, human, umpiring decisions. I'm with you for every part of your comment except for this one. Video replays are unpopular because they slow down matches and remove spontaneity and flow, but at least in North America (hockey, basketball, football) they absolutely do improve the quality of decisions and lead to more fair outcomes. Are you sure about your evaluation? Or is something weird with the AFL that makes it unique?
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  I'll limit my criticism to what I'm familiar with: AFL (although I hear bad things about video replay in rugby and soccer as well, but that may be due to a reverse survivorship bias kinda situation). AFL is a somewhat unique sport, and whilst the video replay system is admittedly improving, it's initial implementation was poorly thought-out: they didn't use cameras with high enough frames-per-second to actually catch the detail that was it's raison d'etre. From one frame to the next would miss the 'event' proving whether the ball was touched by a player, or rebounded off a post or whatever else may result in something other than a goal. The fast pace of AFL also means that where video replays are used are in the, generally, less controversial sets of decisions that umpires have to make. Goal umpires have been pretty well vindicated by the video system, whilst it's traditionally been the quality of the field umpiring that gets questioned, but video replay is not, and cannot (due to the pace of the game) be used to remedy this. I should say that I think cricket has got its various technologies nice and tight, along with tennis. But they're not pure video replays, they're additional technologies built on top of video.

deanCommie 5y ago

> Just like every other video reply system it gets the result wrong more consistently than the spur-of-the-moment, human, umpiring decisions. I'm with you for every part of your comment except for this one. Video replays are unpopular because they slow down matches and remove spontaneity and flow, but at least in North America (hockey, basketball, football) they absolutely do improve the quality of decisions and lead to more fair outcomes. Are you sure about your evaluation? Or is something weird with the AFL that makes it unique?

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
I'll limit my criticism to what I'm familiar with: AFL (although I hear bad things about video replay in rugby and soccer as well, but that may be due to a reverse survivorship bias kinda situation). AFL is a somewhat unique sport, and whilst the video replay system is admittedly improving, it's initial implementation was poorly thought-out: they didn't use cameras with high enough frames-per-second to actually catch the detail that was it's raison d'etre. From one frame to the next would miss the 'event' proving whether the ball was touched by a player, or rebounded off a post or whatever else may result in something other than a goal. The fast pace of AFL also means that where video replays are used are in the, generally, less controversial sets of decisions that umpires have to make. Goal umpires have been pretty well vindicated by the video system, whilst it's traditionally been the quality of the field umpiring that gets questioned, but video replay is not, and cannot (due to the pace of the game) be used to remedy this. I should say that I think cricket has got its various technologies nice and tight, along with tennis. But they're not pure video replays, they're additional technologies built on top of video.