[Football] A or B?

[Taybha]

Is there a view available from the bus stop from 16.30 onwards

 

[Eeyore]

I was only reading this to see if we made it through the alphabet

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Watching football from one end is crap. . . I did it, and 'get it' the atmosphere etc in a home or away end is electric sometimes ( NS Chelsea this season was the best place to be) but as one 'matures' actually watching a game of football becomes an over riding consideration. And watching from the side, preferably near the middle, the East stand was always the best place to be @ the Goldstone.

I suppose you acclimatise to the view after a while in one place, but it always makes me wonder. . . . We have been spoilt by TV in recent decades.

this is the perfect example of 'had to be there, Anywhere there, but be there'

Swerve to the end, and the result grates, but what a goal.

Half way between the half way line and the goal line on the East Terrace was the location of dreams. Highest vantage point in the Goldstone, and a perspective for the gods.

Pity my long distance vision was undiagnosed as shite, so I couldn't tell one player from another, but that's another story.

Bottom line - whatever suits you best, and it will differ across the fan spectrum. Innit.

 

[Eeyore]

Watching football from one end is crap. . . I did it, and 'get it' the atmosphere etc in a home or away end is electric sometimes ( NS Chelsea this season was the best place to be) but as one 'matures' actually watching a game of football becomes an over riding consideration. And watching from the side, preferably near the middle, the East stand was always the best place to be @ the Goldstone.

I suppose you acclimatise to the view after a while in one place, but it always makes me wonder. . . . We have been spoilt by TV in recent decades.

this is the perfect example of 'had to be there, Anywhere there, but be there'

Swerve to the end, and the result grates, but what a goal.

I was on the halfway line that day. 37 years ago. Can't get me head round it.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I was only reading this to see if we made it through the alphabet

No, it's ground to a halt - a bit like a broken VW.

Could possibly benefit from an X-ray?

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

No, it's ground to a halt - a bit like a broken VW.

Could possibly benefit from an X-ray?

Y not? Couldn't do any harm.

 

[Acker79]

 

[drew]

I know you don't like it but some constructive feedback would be handy. For example, do you prefer to see it from the attackers' perspective as in B, or from the defending team's perspective as in A. It's unlikely that it's going to be adopted directly in this form anyway, so don't worry. More likely to be incorporated gradually.

Neither, I prefer to see from the side, preferably reasonably high up and he camera in line with the half way line.

What is your mission, to make televised football duller?

 

[kuzushi]

Neither do I. And I apologize. That was an excessive bit of taking the piss, and I take it back.

OK mate

In seriousness.....the TV camera view we get is more complex than the one you showed. The only bit that is missing from the current TV view is the occasional peek from behind the goal.

So I agree with you in as much as adding a bit of that, behind the goal view stuff, would be good for the TV viewer. I think you inadvertently gave the impression, though, that you thought that the behind the goal view should be the main view. On reflection you probably didn't mean that. So apologies again.

Don't let wankers like me grind you down

Re your comments about the soundtrack, I've amended the video now. I think this version is better:

 

[raymondo]

No, but I F M.

I'm trying to remember if it was a aTwo Ronnies sketch

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Neither, I prefer to see from the side, preferably reasonably high up and he camera in line with the half way line.

What, like a normal person?
Who'd want to be that?

I prefer to watch from 7' under the tarmac of an nearby terraced street.

 

[kuzushi]

What is your mission, to make televised football duller?

No.
One time I was watching a video, and they showed a prolonged shot of the game from high up and looking lengthwise down the pitch towards the goal, and it struck me: Wow, you can see absolutely everything that's going on. All the players, the goals, all the runs the players are making. No need for gimmicks, or snazzy director's cuts, or close-ups of the players. Just the game. Neat, like a whisky. It hit me like an epiphany. And then watching football on TV started to grate on me more and more. I started feeling more and more intensely, "What is this rubbish?" - and it was annoying. Frustrating. I wanted to be able to see everything, to look where I wanted to, like you can when you are at the stadium. The problem with the traditional view from the side of the pitch is that lines of vision are very restricted, you can't see the goals, or many of the players. Often you can't see where the goalie is as a player is taking a shot, which seems ridiculous to me.

I don't really see why people are so attached to a view of the pitch that means they can't see what's going on properly.

 

[Littlemo]

No.
One time I was watching a video, and they showed a prolonged shot of the game from high up and looking lengthwise down the pitch towards the goal, and it struck me: Wow, you can see absolutely everything that's going on. All the players, the goals, all the runs the players are making. No need for gimmicks, or snazzy director's cuts, or close-ups of the players. Just the game. Neat, like a whisky. It hit me like an epiphany. And then watching football on TV started to grate on me more and more. I started feeling more and more intensely, "What is this rubbish?" - and it was annoying. Frustrating. I wanted to be able to see everything, to look where I wanted to, like you can when you are at the stadium. The problem with the traditional view from the side of the pitch is that lines of vision are very restricted, you can't see the goals, or many of the players. Often you can't see where the goalie is as a player is taking a shot, which seems ridiculous to me.

I don't really see why people are so attached to a view of the pitch that means they can't see what's going on properly.

In both option A and B, the game is far too distant. I can’t make out the players very well and you’d find it hard to see small moments of skill from someone on the ball, it’s all to far away.

It’s not a case of being attached to a view. You claim you can’t see what’s going on properly in either of your views either. I’d argue that watching the player with the ball and those around him, in a closer view is more valuable for seeing what’s happening than watching the players off the ball who are not involved at that point.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

No.
One time I was watching a video, and they showed a prolonged shot of the game from high up and looking lengthwise down the pitch towards the goal, and it struck me: Wow, you can see absolutely everything that's going on. All the players, the goals, all the runs the players are making. No need for gimmicks, or snazzy director's cuts, or close-ups of the players. Just the game. Neat, like a whisky. It hit me like an epiphany. And then watching football on TV started to grate on me more and more. I started feeling more and more intensely, "What is this rubbish?" - and it was annoying. Frustrating. I wanted to be able to see everything, to look where I wanted to, like you can when you are at the stadium. The problem with the traditional view from the side of the pitch is that lines of vision are very restricted, you can't see the goals, or many of the players. Often you can't see where the goalie is as a player is taking a shot, which seems ridiculous to me.

I don't really see why people are so attached to a view of the pitch that means they can't see what's going on properly.

View attachment 162001

I think it could work, if you made a 3d image by strapping two cameras to each end of a hammerhead shark's head.
Of course, they'd have to be waterproofed so they'd work in the shark's tank.
And you'd need to find a shark interested in football, otherwise it'd look away and we'd have a 3d view of the back of the stand.
I'm not claiming there aren't issues to be ironed out.
But I hope this has been helpful feedback.

 

[drew]

No.
One time I was watching a video, and they showed a prolonged shot of the game from high up and looking lengthwise down the pitch towards the goal, and it struck me: Wow, you can see absolutely everything that's going on. All the players, the goals, all the runs the players are making. No need for gimmicks, or snazzy director's cuts, or close-ups of the players. Just the game. Neat, like a whisky. It hit me like an epiphany. And then watching football on TV started to grate on me more and more. I started feeling more and more intensely, "What is this rubbish?" - and it was annoying. Frustrating. I wanted to be able to see everything, to look where I wanted to, like you can when you are at the stadium. The problem with the traditional view from the side of the pitch is that lines of vision are very restricted, you can't see the goals, or many of the players. Often you can't see where the goalie is as a player is taking a shot, which seems ridiculous to me.

I don't really see why people are so attached to a view of the pitch that means they can't see what's going on properly.

People are expressing a preference which you don't accept. Take it to the extreme then you'd only have cameras behind one goal. Most people do not watch football from directly behind the goal. I've watched standing in the old South stand, the chicken run, the North stand, in front of the west stand and in the west stand at the Goldstone. At Withdean I was in the South Stand high up and when I got to chose my seat at the Amex, guess what, I chose high up along the side in WSU. I know what I perspective I prefer.

 

[kuzushi]

In both option A and B, the game is far too distant. I can’t make out the players very well and you’d find it hard to see small moments of skill from someone on the ball, it’s all to far away.

It’s not a case of being attached to a view. You claim you can’t see what’s going on properly in either of your views either. I’d argue that watching the player with the ball and those around him, in a closer view is more valuable for seeing what’s happening than watching the players off the ball who are not involved at that point.

This is the thing. They can zoom right in when they need to. That shot just happens to be from far back. On the other thread someone else made the point you are making, but in fact there is no difference in the size of the players. The only difference is that you can see much more because the pitch is rectangular with the goals at the ends, not the side.

Here we have Pascal Gross about to score, but you can't see the goal behind the goalie, and Gross looks small, and you can see 4.5 players.

Here we have Pascal Gross at the same point in time, and he's bigger here, and you can see the goal behind the goalie, in fact you can see both sets of goals, and 18 players. You can see what's going on. You will see when he kicks the ball whether or not it's going to go in, and you can see whether or not he's in danger of being caught by any of those chasing 8 Everton players.

The Pascal on the left is actually BIGGER.

Traditional view:
5 players in view
No goalposts visible
Players smaller
Pitch at weird diagonal angle

Lengthwise view:
18 players in view
Both sets of goals visible
Players larger
Pitch square on

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

This is the thing. They can zoom right in when they need to. That shot just happens to be from far back. On the other thread someone else made the point you are making, but in fact there is no difference in the size of the players. The only difference is that you can see much more because the pitch is rectangular with the goals at the ends, not the side.

Here we have Pascal Gross about to score, but you can't see the goal behind the goalie, and Gross looks small, and you can see 4.5 players.
View attachment 162003

Here we have Pascal Gross at the same point in time, and he's bigger here, and you can see the goal behind the goalie, in fact you can see both sets of goals, and 18 players.
View attachment 162004

The Pascal on the left is actually BIGGER.
View attachment 162005 View attachment 162006

Traditional view:
5 players in view
No goalposts visible
Players smaller
Pitch at weird diagonal angle

Lengthwise view:
18 players in view
Both sets of goals visible
Players larger
Pitch square on

But in the 2nd image, the foreshortening effect makes it look like there's about 5yds between the centre circle and the penalty area.
Also, I know where the goal is, I don't need to see it. It's like saying the view from behind a batsman is better because you can see the stumps.

 

[kuzushi]

People are expressing a preference which you don't accept. Take it to the extreme then you'd only have cameras behind one goal. Most people do not watch football from directly behind the goal. I've watched standing in the old South stand, the chicken run, the North stand, in front of the west stand and in the west stand at the Goldstone. At Withdean I was in the South Stand high up and when I got to chose my seat at the Amex, guess what, I chose high up along the side in WSU. I know what I perspective I prefer.

People need to stop likening watching football at the stadium to watching it on TV. When you are there, there are two key differences: 1) you can turn and look and see everything you want.2) You can't zoom in and out with your eyes, which is why standing behind the goal is not so good, but TV cameras can. When you are watching on TV, your brain can only process the information it's getting from the screen. From a lengthwise vantage point, you're giving your brain a lot more information. Look at the answer I give in this post:

This is the thing. They can zoom right in when they need to. That shot just happens to be from far back. On the other thread someone else made the point you are making, but in fact there is no difference in the size of the players. The only difference is that you can see much more because the pitch is rectangular with the goals at the ends, not the side.

Here we have Pascal Gross about to score, but you can't see the goal behind the goalie, and Gross looks small, and you can see 4.5 players.
View attachment 162003

Here we have Pascal Gross at the same point in time, and he's bigger here, and you can see the goal behind the goalie, in fact you can see both sets of goals, and 18 players. You can see what's going on. You will see when he kicks the ball whether or not it's going to go in, and you can see whether or not he's in danger of being caught by any of those chasing 8 Everton players.
View attachment 162004

The Pascal on the left is actually BIGGER.
View attachment 162005 View attachment 162006

Traditional view:
5 players in view
No goalposts visible
Players smaller
Pitch at weird diagonal angle

Lengthwise view:
18 players in view
Both sets of goals visible
Players larger
Pitch square on

 

[Littlemo]

This is the thing. They can zoom right in when they need to. That shot just happens to be from far back. On the other thread someone else made the point you are making, but in fact there is no difference in the size of the players. The only difference is that you can see much more because the pitch is rectangular with the goals at the ends, not the side.

Here we have Pascal Gross about to score, but you can't see the goal behind the goalie, and Gross looks small, and you can see 4.5 players.
View attachment 162003

Here we have Pascal Gross at the same point in time, and he's bigger here, and you can see the goal behind the goalie, in fact you can see both sets of goals, and 18 players. You can see what's going on. You will see when he kicks the ball whether or not it's going to go in, and you can see whether or not he's in danger of being caught by any of those chasing 8 Everton players.
View attachment 162004

The Pascal on the left is actually BIGGER.
View attachment 162005 View attachment 162006

Traditional view:
5 players in view
No goalposts visible
Players smaller
Pitch at weird diagonal angle

Lengthwise view:
18 players in view
Both sets of goals visible
Players larger
Pitch square on

I don’t need to see the goal in the picture though, I know where it is. Likewise if the action is showing Gross through on goal at one end, why do I need to see Steele, Dunk etc not involved in that phase at the other end?

The things you are trying to bring in, don’t really matter to me when watching it, because for me the important part to capture is the phase of play going on at that time, and the players immediately around that who might be involved in it. We don’t need to see the rest.

 

[kuzushi]

I know where the goal is, I don't need to see it.

Now I understand why you like the traditional view: you're not bothered about actually seeing things!