About four decades ago, I directed a weekly show with late, great, Chargers coach Sid Gillman. He used to bring his game films. Highly enlightening. He also used to invite a player along as a “guest”, then show a compilation of everything the guy had screwed up during the game. Our tyro sports guy, Jim Hill, was one of his favorite targets.
...Turn the screen 90 degrees, there you have it. No big deal...
I’d love to have access to the “All 22” view of a televised game.
My problem with current NFL (or NCAA) television coverage is that it focuses on entertainment and promotions, not the actual play on the field. The directors are so intent on showing close-ups, replays, on-screen ads, and network promos, that little time is left for each live play. It’s rare that we get to see both teams break their huddles. Now we sometimes even miss the snap, because the director didn’t break away from the whatever he showing before the play began.
I’d prefer to see each team get into formation before the snap.
Has the NFL gone digital yet, or are they still using that grainy looking film of games that happened this season. NFL, get with the digital age! Lose the film reels!
Talk to Bellicheck, he’s good at getting all the other teams’ coaching footage.
I liked it when Bill Cowher pointed out to the refs that the opposing team had too many players on the field. The head ref blew him off, so Cowher walked out onto the field with a printout of the all-22 shot showing it, wadded it up, and stuffed it down the front of his v-neck referee jersey.
As the camera angles have changed to show less and less of the field over the last 25 years, football has become less and less watchable for me. It’s an 11-on-11 game, but if you’re watching a modern NFL broadcast, you might guess there are no more than 4-5 players on the field for either team. It has dumbed-down the average football fan’s knowledge of the game.
Yes, that is annoying. It’s not as bad as Major League Baseball on TV though: With MLB you get a view from center field of the pitcher, batter, catcher, and ump on every pitch. Occasionally, if there’s a man on second, you can see the back of his batting helmet. So, where are any of the other fielders distributed? What about runners on first or third?
Long ago TV broadcasts of MLB were from the press box in the upper deck up behind home plate, and you could see the entire field, albeit with tiny players on the screen. But you could at least see where they were playing, feints by runners on base, etc.
Ditto to the other person who said that this is all about entertainment. In broadcasts from long ago you never saw close-ups of the managers or the players in the dugout. You never saw — or needed to see — close-ups of the pitcher’s face.
Any one who got the whole coverage, and understood what he was seeing, would have a huge gambling advantage.
Seems like a whiff on revenue stream. Pay Per View or subscription for coaches tape? Why not?
with all the advertisements on the field, the all-22 shot would cost revenue. when you get paid for everytime you show a logo, close-up shots become important, and footage of the actual game less so.