TBC, I don’t watch or care anything about the sport. I am curious why it hasn’t gone to full military tech style communications between players and augmented heads up display style interfaces. It certainly isn’t due to a lack of money. It is like the ultimate battle tech. What could possibly be more American than mock battles over an inflated pig carcass with military tech shit? Like drone view of every player, in helmet view, isolated coms, and off site real time strategy. Sounds about as potentially popular as a consul or first citizen hosting naval battles in a coliseum IMO.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Football happens so fast all that extra input wouldn’t help. These guys are generally pretty smart, have to be to calculate what’s happening in real time. Guess I’m saying their bodies and minds are already running full throttle, more data would be overwhelming.

    My bf was a high school All State offensive linemen, told me those were the smartest guys on the team, and I’ve heard that elsewhere. He could explain it far better, and that conversation was 20-years ago, but they have outstanding pattern matching skills, are able to make split second decisions and have dozens, maybe hundreds, of play patterns memorized. Think I’ve heard the center is the smartest guy next to the QB? Looks like a bunch of pushing and shoving, but that’s because they’re pros on both sides of the line, and both sides deny advantage. Point being, they’re already observing and calculating quickly, more input would be a hindrance.

    So how would they benefit? It’s not like the enemy is hiding, he’s right in front of you. Any player can see the whole field and they shout instructions before the ball snaps. I don’t think even the smartest QB could be dodging defenders, looking for a receiver or a hole and still watch his HUD.

    The coaches OTOH are certainly using tech and I believe they still have radio contact with the QB?

    tl;dr: Too fast to be comparable to ground combat.

    (Damned interesting question OP!)

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah. I imagine the lag in time for a coach to determine a good passing target, communicate that to the QB, have the QB find that player to throw to, and time the throw correctly would add seconds to the play. You’re also now relying on a coach’s reflex, which is something they aren’t selected for.

    • j4k3@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Watching the game, there are many times when it is obvious that a receiver is a few steps ahead from an overhead perspective. Abstracting what I’ve seen when I played in HS, the view from up field obscures the real time separation in this kind of instance. It would be very possible the show an overlay of color that indicates how well each receiver is covered in real time along with the ideal pass to intercept distance and speed tailored to the physiology of the QB, i.e. max pass right line 33 yards 2.5sec 2.4sec 2.3sec… This would not be additional information to process specifically, but more like color overlays like the target location to throw is a green-yellow-red pin in view with all players doing the same and an audible system of alarms to indicate dangers and action required in the pocket. The point in AR here is not to add new independent information, it is to firm up and clarify the information the individual is intuitively processing at the human brain’s very limited frequency. Microcontrollers are time machines that turn seconds into luxuriously long days by comparison of available clock cycles. Accessing those extra days worth of time to do research and assess the situation should prove useful to the limited biological compute system playing the game. We are well beyond the point where all of the surrounding information in the game can be sensed and processed autonomously.

  • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I assume part of it is to keep things competitive. Like how Formula 1 limits the tech that cars are allowed to use. If the richest team with the best equipment always wins, that really takes the fun out of it.

    Too much technology also can spoil the fun by being a distraction from the rest of the game. A few years ago there was a game where Jared Goff was receiving play calls through his helmet radio but his radio wasn’t working properly. He would just stand on the field looking stupid and helpless for 20-30 seconds before every play, trying to listen to instructions. It looked bad and was a lame experience for the fans.

  • 5oap10116@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    My uncle worked with the Ravens a while back on a VR training program but I believe what you’re talking about is real time hud shit.

    That being said, there’s something cool about all these people being so coordinated and well trained without excessive cues and reminders. Your team can be big fast and strong but if it’s not coordinated with the vanilla gear they have, it’s going to be a shitshow

    • astrsk@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree on the actual human performance aspect. The technical details are fun to watch for in terms of team play and skill, where the minute differences matter in a sport. But I also get where OP is coming from. It’s kinda sad how long it took from a production standpoint to put tracking chips inside the footballs. I understand NFL as an institution wanting to keep the game a little sloppy but stats are interesting and data driven graphics really keep people engaged in today’s world. Look at some of the tech in broadcast golf, it’s incredible and makes for much more interesting watching these days, even if the sport or sports in general aren’t the most engaging *from a bystander point of view.

    • j4k3@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      IMO that adds to the appeal if there is disparity in the tech. I don’t think the tech would really make a difference other than adding a few layers of interesting broadcasting information that might make the game slightly less dull for someone like myself, although not anywhere near enough to watch a 1 hour game tailored around over 1 hour of obscene ads I find grossly offensive. Americans love their underdog team stories. The idea that limiting funds has anything to do with it is bogus as teams are renowned for buying wins through various means. Such tech would normalize military service and likely have a trickle down effect to lower levels. Standardization would likely reduce cost and could likely get a DARPA like subsidized program as it is directly connected to battle tech. It would also potentially showcase military tech in a strategically advantageous way through both showing a hand at the poker table of geopolitics while not necessarily revealing the true capabilities or extent of actual battle hardware tech.

  • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Extremely expensive to upgrade to and broadcast. Most places that broadcast NFL games still do it in 1080p instead of 4k. NFL makes a lot of money, but not enough for that.

    Plus it would take excitement out of the game and players would have more information than the referees. This would lead to disappointment when a play is called or not called or a foul happens the referees didn’t see, etc. This already happens a little bit and NFL fans are heated about it, I don’t think this kind of tech is viable for football.

    The sport is an experience, and part of that experience is the current way it is broadcast.

    Also:

    What could possibly be more American than mock battles over an inflated pig carcass with military tech shit?

    This is worded in an unnecessarily rude and inflammatory manner.

  • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lol I want them to just start by having a fuckin sensor in the balls to know where and if the ball is spotted, if it was in play or out of bounds and if for nothing else, be able to spot exactly where shit like an out of bounds kickoff will get spotted. Now it’s just a dude standing 70-80 yds away guessing the angle it was kicked from and where it was when it crossed the out of bounds line.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Radio tech is used already. But the NFL limits who can use it during games. Iirc, it’s one player on offense, and one on defense, plus the coaches. You wouldn’t really want every player having coms. It would just be a confusing mess during a game; you really don’t want your receiver hearing an offensive lineman grunting while they’re supposed to be focused on catching a ball. Radios were originally banned, and it took a decade or so for the NFL to allow them.

    Everyone already knows their job, they know the play, and they’re pro players because they have the ability to make good decisions on the field when a deviation from a called play is needed. So all you need is coms between someone on the sidelines with an outside perspective and the job of crafting the overall strategy and whoever is coordinating the team on the field. And that’s true of every team sport.

    As a player, you really don’t want to deal with the distraction of a voice in your ear while you’re trying to execute. It’s distracting enough with non radio shouting during play.

    As far as AR goes, it wouldn’t be as useful as you’d think. It’s still down to what you actually need and want to have in your senses while in play. And that’s going to be very little. You don’t want an overhead view because that splits your focus. Multitasking always comes with a decrease in effectiveness for each individual task, humans just have limits to what our brains can do.

    Even a backwards view in the corner of your eye is of limited use on average because you need your field of view clear to detect movement in your peripheral vision. It might be a benefit when on offense and running the ball, but it wouldn’t work for every player, and you’d have enough that would be reduced in their abilities that it wouldn’t be worth it.

    I really can’t think of any sport where ar would be useful where it wouldn’t also defeat the purpose of doing it. Like, archery or shooting where the ar would tell you exactly when your aim is ideal. At that point, you aren’t doing anything except pulling the trigger or drawing the bow. There’s no fun in that, no point in even doing it. Individual sports, you might benefit from coms with your coach, but having done some of those at an amateur level, radio wouldn’t be any better than just having them yell. Combat sports, the only way they would be useful is in grappling, and you don’t want anything physically in your ear when grappling at all. The risk of injury is too high. Ears already take a beating in combat sports.

    The kind of coordination you need in the military, it just isn’t beneficial in football, no matter which of the football versions that are played at a level where the gear would not be prohibitively expensive. You might see some benefit in rec leagues where the players aren’t paid to practice the way pros are, but it would be way too expensive at that level.

  • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    It would be even more American with AR-15s, wouldn’t it? Why didn’t it go there yet?