IT’s PRETTY rare that something makes me sit up and watch sport in a different way. Yet that’s what happened at the Meydan racecourse here in Dubai last week. It was my first visit to the new course and opposite the main grandstand were 5 large crystal clear video screens.
What was different became apparent during the first race. Not only different camera views of the race on different screens, but GPS tracking saw 2 of the screens provide different virtual representations of the race, so you could clearly see the movements of the horses, the position of your horse relative to the others and the overall progress of the race.
The combinations of perspectives transformed the viewing experience and I watched more of the “virtual reality” than the real race pictures and certainly the real racing. Between races the same screens re-enacted the developments as if a computer game was unfolding before you. The set-up is a genuinely brilliant way of improving the race day experience and explains the sport better than any live TV coverage can do.
The racing night was good timing before this weeks ICC conference on the use of TV technology for cricket’s “referral” system. This conference sees a group of us broadcasters discuss the operation of the equipment with the cricket boards and the technology providers. Without pre-judging the conversation, much will inevitably come down to money. It’s all very well to use virtual replays, snicko and the rest. They clearly make the game easier to understand and the sport fairer for its top players. Yet, all the “toys” cost the host broadcasters additional fees that can add up to significant amounts. Around half the cricket boards pay their own TV production costs, around half rely on the generosity of their host broadcasters.
Uniform standards of production coverage to provide uniform services to umpires would seem sensible, but some cricket series are worth a fraction of the others so the cost vs quality argument is key to the debate.
What we’ve seen in the use of umpire referrals this week in the Hero Honda Hockey World Cup is that the systems depend on the environment they’re operated in and the training of the operators. Surround a radio walkie talkie system with the massed ranks of the Delhi police (and their own radio systems), and getting information to and from the touchline is occasionally difficult to say the least.
Logically cricket’s wealth should eventually find a solution to the issue of uniform standards when the existing broadcasting contracts end and the new contracts presumably insist on Hawkeye, Hotspot, snicko or their technical equivalents.
What is interesting though is to see where the various parties draw the line on how much technology should be used and how you protect the viewing and playing experiences from the stop/start of constant referrals.
The horse racing example worked so well because the multi angle virtual coverage was available simultaneously with the traditional TV coverage. What still happens for the most part in cricket is that the third umpire and the fan at the ground see the replays only as part of the traditional linear TV coverage.
The potential of interactive TV, live internet chat forums, multiple camera streams on YouTube for the IPL or even multiple screens at the ground is that you can get much more out of the viewing experience. They may well be necessary tools to stave off the viewer’s reducing attention span in a 500 channel world. Wouldn’t it be great if those same options could improve and speed up the third umpire’s decision making process.
The author is COO, Taj Television Ltd.
