Tonight in the game I noticed that on the 2 point conversion the tv coverage came up with what they called a composite (or words to that effect) replay which showed the 2 point conversion was good when other replay angles seemed to indicate that it probably wasn't. (I think they eventually showed an angle which cleared it up without the composite replay, but that is not my point).
Sunday I saw a play that was reviewed and they not only used slow motion , but also employed a super magnified close up, zooming all around,to determine if a player had posession of the ball or not.
It occurred to me that, even though I wan't to see them get the calls right, I am sort of uncomfortable with the unevenness which the tv networks are going to when a close play happens. On one play it seems like they will go out of there way to come up with something definitive and on another it seems to be a case of not enough evidence to overturn the play (without the super close ups/composite views) It is almost as if they are affecting the outcome of a particular call based on the level of effort/technology they use to show the replay and I am not real comfortable with that.
My questions are. Are there differences in the each of the techknowlegies different networks have at their disposal? Am i the only one who has noticed this?
I had no dog in either of these plays, neither rooting interest nor fantasy implications. It just seems to me that there should be some standards here so that play A is scrutinized with whatever technologies are available just as much as play B. I am not suggesting that there is anything nefarious going on but I think there certainly is that potential in this day and age of sports betting.
Sunday I saw a play that was reviewed and they not only used slow motion , but also employed a super magnified close up, zooming all around,to determine if a player had posession of the ball or not.
It occurred to me that, even though I wan't to see them get the calls right, I am sort of uncomfortable with the unevenness which the tv networks are going to when a close play happens. On one play it seems like they will go out of there way to come up with something definitive and on another it seems to be a case of not enough evidence to overturn the play (without the super close ups/composite views) It is almost as if they are affecting the outcome of a particular call based on the level of effort/technology they use to show the replay and I am not real comfortable with that.
My questions are. Are there differences in the each of the techknowlegies different networks have at their disposal? Am i the only one who has noticed this?
I had no dog in either of these plays, neither rooting interest nor fantasy implications. It just seems to me that there should be some standards here so that play A is scrutinized with whatever technologies are available just as much as play B. I am not suggesting that there is anything nefarious going on but I think there certainly is that potential in this day and age of sports betting.
