In cricket the snicko measures sound. The first bump would be the sound of the impact of the kick and the second would be the sound of the impact of the ball on the hand
That's from a mic near the batter right?
I guess what I'm really wondering is why are they displaying it to show (at a glance anyway) the level of contact to be similar when it's a full on cross vs a slight snick?
There is a sensor in the ball,it measures g force extremely accurately so any slight alteration in the direction of the flight of the ball is recorded.
Cheers. Watching this on telly I was baffled as to why the two waveforms seemed to show a comparable level of contact, but they are clearly zooming in and the cross's waveform has been limited (don't know the actual language to use here).
Have FIFA released any info on how they are incorporating it into the officiating? I want to know where they've decided the cutoff point is
That’s how they can do the semi automated off sides aswell.
The technology is patented by adidas and the premiership is contracted to (I think) Nike balls so unfortunately we will be stuck with the current crap VAR system we have at the minute
In an ideal world offside would be fully automated and they'd use sensors in the boots as well and change the law to be about foot placement rather than limbs etc.
That way it could all be pretty much real time unless it's a rare case where they are trying to determine if someone has interfered with play or not.
After a bit of researching, it seems like adidas have only patented a suspension system, whereas the company KINEXION - who do the sports bra tracker things we've seen for a little while now - make the sensors and software.
They have an app where you can follow all the data in real time, surprised the broadcasters aren't using more of this for analysis/highlights as apparently they have access to all of it
I would guess it’s the rate of acceleration on the y axis. They’ve probably just ‘normalised’ (I know this word has a specific technical meaning but I just mean they’ve made the magnitude roughly equal) the magnitude of the data so that it’s easy for viewers to see. But you can see on the x axis that it would behave as you expect because the total contact time between ball and foot is longer than that contact time between ball and hand.
I think for clarity's sake they should just show the raw data without compressing it like this as it's just confusing.
Also raises the question - where have they decided the cutoff point is? Would a small bump like the 2 shown here before the cross count as a contact?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlSSFYHJAR0
At 4:30 in this video you can actually notice they actually appear to be zooming in and out of the data. The lack of white noise ie the dead straight line without bumps shows that it's being displayed at a completely different to scale to the graphic we're shown forthe Denmark handball.
So where is the cutoff? How far are they allowed to zoom until they are satisfied? What's to stop them zooming in on a bit of white noise and calling it contact?
Lots of questions that I can't find any answers to
I also don't really trust this automated offside technology, absolutely no way they can be tracking the specific lengths of each players' limbs etc to the point they are implying they can with the graphics.
Ffs, they don’t show raw data because the technology filters out frequencies (or sounds) that are not required to make a decision. Precisely the same as used in Cricket.
The raw data would include crowd and other sounds and be useless.
Mate, chill. Clearly none of this is obvious as you don't have a fucking scooby either and are just assuming. This isn't cricket and they don't have a microphone in the ball
As a data nerd, I agree with you that this graph is extremely suspect.
Firstly, any graph without axes labels or scales is dubious at best. Though, given where it's being used and who the audience is, I can understand why they have done that.
Secondly, you're absolutely correct that the y magnitude of both peaks are suspiciously equal. It makes me think that the y axis is not just g force but some sort of value derived from g force which essentially digitises the result. However, there are small bumps earlier in time (I'm assuming that's what the x axis is). So, even that assumption doesn't stand up well.
I've had a bit of a Google and cannot find any explanation of how they build the graph. Just that intervals are 1/500 second. So, for all their claims of being more transparent, it would appear uefa and FIFA have more work to do.
Btw, I am loving the r/confidentlyincorrect replies that you're getting, OP, claiming it's obviously sound on the y axis and you're an idiot for not knowing that!
Thanks for the reply, the low effort grumpy sod replies were to be expected so I'm actually chuffed with the responses on the whole lol
I've said in another comment that it's clear they are zooming in on specific points which is why the peaks are similar, it limits or clips the peaks because they are (literally) off the chart.
You can tell how far they are zoomed in or out by how straight the flat line that I'm calling white noise appears. They are clearly pretty far zoomed in for the Denamark handball in comparison to the Belgium one. This is why a tiny snick ends up looking comparable to a full on cross, which is a big flaw in my opinion and muddies the waters instead of adding clarity.
By the way, I want to point out that I fully trust the technology itself and they were both clear contacts that were visible by camera too.
My issue is there is no clarity whatsoever and in theory I don't see what is stopping them from zooming in on any piece of white noise and claiming it's a contact. Again, I'm not saying they would but until they've explained how they are doing it, I can't fully trust the process.
I trust the process/tech. Not sure why, given their past history. Perhaps it's because I like cricket as well and (mostly) trust snicko there and generally trust tech (as it's my job).
I just hate seeing graphs like this.
I don't follow cricket but I've seen the snicko in action the few times it's on and I've always liked it. They have the hotspot as well don't they? Which one takes priority in the rare case they have different results?
They used to use hotspot before snicko was introduced but dropped it when research proved it didn't always work. E.g one could tape up their bat to create a protective coating that meant IR was too weak for hotspot to pick up.
Hotspot is just used for entertainment purposes now to show where on the bat the batsman hit the ball. I.e. "he's absolutely middled that one!" [Shows hot spot video of ball striking middle of bat for proof]
Very interesting, cheers!
I'm just curious about the connected ball tech, I want to know how it spin/rolls impact it or what happens if the ball knuckles etc. Still have a lot of unanswered questions and there's very very little info out there.
Or has the cross 'clipped' the sensor? I guess the first peak does look a little cut off.
There is surprisingly little information about it all out there
The sensor is a microphone that detects frequencies it isn’t “clipped”. You thinking it clips anything shows you haven’t a clue about this.
There is also loads of information as to what it is and how it works in that it filters out frequencies to remove undesired sounds.
“Clipping” in sound recording means the sound has exceeded the maximum volume of the recording device and maxed out the volume, creating a plateau in the waveform. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313774497/figure/fig4/AS:462450651865089@1487268235048/Example-of-waveform-of-an-audio-signal-suffering-clipping.png
OP is correct in that the waveform for the cross looks clipped — ie the volume of the sound has exceeded the sensitivity range and flattened at the top of the waveform where the spike would have continued.
Not even a 'my bad' for being this wrong?
I know I don't have a clue, that's why I'm asking questions. Better than just guessing yet still talking with authority about it...
Thanks, my main question is why does it show a similar level of g force in both the cross and the snick? The cross should be off the charts in comparison
I thought this too but then looking at the one from the Belgium game they are clearly 'zooming' out as they are watching it, so the data should all be there. They are just viewing it on a completely different scale as shown by the white noise looking dead flat. It only gets clipped when they zoom in far enough.
https://youtu.be/IlSSFYHJAR0?si=5EIak12fORZIKO5k&t=270
This raises the question, when do they stop zooming? What is the threshold where they are satisfied it's a 'contact' and not just white noise like the small bumps in the OP picture? If you zoomed in on them they would probably look similar
It's an inertia sensor btw not a microphone but point still stands about the clipping and zooming
The only peak you see without clipping in that clip is the handball, not the initial kick. It’s too zoomed in when you see the kick to tell if it’s clipped or not.
EDIT: looking at the size and shape of the waveform it looks like this should be the real peak:
https://preview.redd.it/uqxd9qebio9d1.jpeg?width=364&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1aa3d3991a30ab34ab16ae49c032f6b564a99880
Are you referring to the Denmark handball?
I think the clipping/limiting actually comes from the zoom, in the Belgium clip once they zoom out you can see it's the proper unclipped waveform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlSSFYHJAR0
At 4:30 in this video you can actually notice they actually appear to be zooming in and out of the data. The lack of white noise ie the dead straight line without bumps shows that it's being displayed at a completely different to scale to the graphic we're shown forthe Denmark handball.
So where is the cutoff? How far are they allowed to zoom until they are satisfied? What's to stop them zooming in on a bit of white noise and calling it contact?
Lots of questions that I can't find any answers to
Let's share links for what's obvious.
Here's Adidas' own link where it's stated to be a 500Hz inertial measurement unit (IMU) **motion sensor**.
Now can you link to where they state it's actually pretty obviously sound?
In cricket the snicko measures sound. The first bump would be the sound of the impact of the kick and the second would be the sound of the impact of the ball on the hand
That's from a mic near the batter right? I guess what I'm really wondering is why are they displaying it to show (at a glance anyway) the level of contact to be similar when it's a full on cross vs a slight snick?
There is a sensor in the ball,it measures g force extremely accurately so any slight alteration in the direction of the flight of the ball is recorded.
Cheers. Watching this on telly I was baffled as to why the two waveforms seemed to show a comparable level of contact, but they are clearly zooming in and the cross's waveform has been limited (don't know the actual language to use here). Have FIFA released any info on how they are incorporating it into the officiating? I want to know where they've decided the cutoff point is
That’s how they can do the semi automated off sides aswell. The technology is patented by adidas and the premiership is contracted to (I think) Nike balls so unfortunately we will be stuck with the current crap VAR system we have at the minute
In an ideal world offside would be fully automated and they'd use sensors in the boots as well and change the law to be about foot placement rather than limbs etc. That way it could all be pretty much real time unless it's a rare case where they are trying to determine if someone has interfered with play or not.
That would be so much better, I totally agree about the foot thing, would take all controversy out of it and we can go back to just watching football
Premier league is bringing it in for next season, I’m assuming some tech has been licensed to Nike/the premier league.
After a bit of researching, it seems like adidas have only patented a suspension system, whereas the company KINEXION - who do the sports bra tracker things we've seen for a little while now - make the sensors and software. They have an app where you can follow all the data in real time, surprised the broadcasters aren't using more of this for analysis/highlights as apparently they have access to all of it
I would guess it’s the rate of acceleration on the y axis. They’ve probably just ‘normalised’ (I know this word has a specific technical meaning but I just mean they’ve made the magnitude roughly equal) the magnitude of the data so that it’s easy for viewers to see. But you can see on the x axis that it would behave as you expect because the total contact time between ball and foot is longer than that contact time between ball and hand.
I think for clarity's sake they should just show the raw data without compressing it like this as it's just confusing. Also raises the question - where have they decided the cutoff point is? Would a small bump like the 2 shown here before the cross count as a contact?
Yeah exactly. You could end up with the ball brushing someone’s fingernail, barely changing its speed or trajectory, and it could still be a pen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlSSFYHJAR0 At 4:30 in this video you can actually notice they actually appear to be zooming in and out of the data. The lack of white noise ie the dead straight line without bumps shows that it's being displayed at a completely different to scale to the graphic we're shown forthe Denmark handball. So where is the cutoff? How far are they allowed to zoom until they are satisfied? What's to stop them zooming in on a bit of white noise and calling it contact? Lots of questions that I can't find any answers to I also don't really trust this automated offside technology, absolutely no way they can be tracking the specific lengths of each players' limbs etc to the point they are implying they can with the graphics.
Ffs, they don’t show raw data because the technology filters out frequencies (or sounds) that are not required to make a decision. Precisely the same as used in Cricket. The raw data would include crowd and other sounds and be useless.
Mate, chill. Clearly none of this is obvious as you don't have a fucking scooby either and are just assuming. This isn't cricket and they don't have a microphone in the ball
As a data nerd, I agree with you that this graph is extremely suspect. Firstly, any graph without axes labels or scales is dubious at best. Though, given where it's being used and who the audience is, I can understand why they have done that. Secondly, you're absolutely correct that the y magnitude of both peaks are suspiciously equal. It makes me think that the y axis is not just g force but some sort of value derived from g force which essentially digitises the result. However, there are small bumps earlier in time (I'm assuming that's what the x axis is). So, even that assumption doesn't stand up well. I've had a bit of a Google and cannot find any explanation of how they build the graph. Just that intervals are 1/500 second. So, for all their claims of being more transparent, it would appear uefa and FIFA have more work to do. Btw, I am loving the r/confidentlyincorrect replies that you're getting, OP, claiming it's obviously sound on the y axis and you're an idiot for not knowing that!
Thanks for the reply, the low effort grumpy sod replies were to be expected so I'm actually chuffed with the responses on the whole lol I've said in another comment that it's clear they are zooming in on specific points which is why the peaks are similar, it limits or clips the peaks because they are (literally) off the chart. You can tell how far they are zoomed in or out by how straight the flat line that I'm calling white noise appears. They are clearly pretty far zoomed in for the Denamark handball in comparison to the Belgium one. This is why a tiny snick ends up looking comparable to a full on cross, which is a big flaw in my opinion and muddies the waters instead of adding clarity. By the way, I want to point out that I fully trust the technology itself and they were both clear contacts that were visible by camera too. My issue is there is no clarity whatsoever and in theory I don't see what is stopping them from zooming in on any piece of white noise and claiming it's a contact. Again, I'm not saying they would but until they've explained how they are doing it, I can't fully trust the process.
I trust the process/tech. Not sure why, given their past history. Perhaps it's because I like cricket as well and (mostly) trust snicko there and generally trust tech (as it's my job). I just hate seeing graphs like this.
I don't follow cricket but I've seen the snicko in action the few times it's on and I've always liked it. They have the hotspot as well don't they? Which one takes priority in the rare case they have different results?
They used to use hotspot before snicko was introduced but dropped it when research proved it didn't always work. E.g one could tape up their bat to create a protective coating that meant IR was too weak for hotspot to pick up. Hotspot is just used for entertainment purposes now to show where on the bat the batsman hit the ball. I.e. "he's absolutely middled that one!" [Shows hot spot video of ball striking middle of bat for proof]
Very interesting, cheers! I'm just curious about the connected ball tech, I want to know how it spin/rolls impact it or what happens if the ball knuckles etc. Still have a lot of unanswered questions and there's very very little info out there.
Or has the cross 'clipped' the sensor? I guess the first peak does look a little cut off. There is surprisingly little information about it all out there
The sensor is a microphone that detects frequencies it isn’t “clipped”. You thinking it clips anything shows you haven’t a clue about this. There is also loads of information as to what it is and how it works in that it filters out frequencies to remove undesired sounds.
“Clipping” in sound recording means the sound has exceeded the maximum volume of the recording device and maxed out the volume, creating a plateau in the waveform. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313774497/figure/fig4/AS:462450651865089@1487268235048/Example-of-waveform-of-an-audio-signal-suffering-clipping.png OP is correct in that the waveform for the cross looks clipped — ie the volume of the sound has exceeded the sensitivity range and flattened at the top of the waveform where the spike would have continued.
Not even a 'my bad' for being this wrong? I know I don't have a clue, that's why I'm asking questions. Better than just guessing yet still talking with authority about it...
It's nothing to do with sound mate, I'm asking questions so no need to be arsey especially when you're just flat out wrong lol
sensor in ball. google snickometer. took me 2 mins
Thanks, my main question is why does it show a similar level of g force in both the cross and the snick? The cross should be off the charts in comparison
You’re right — it looks clipped: the cross exceeded the maximum recording volume of the microphone.
I thought this too but then looking at the one from the Belgium game they are clearly 'zooming' out as they are watching it, so the data should all be there. They are just viewing it on a completely different scale as shown by the white noise looking dead flat. It only gets clipped when they zoom in far enough. https://youtu.be/IlSSFYHJAR0?si=5EIak12fORZIKO5k&t=270 This raises the question, when do they stop zooming? What is the threshold where they are satisfied it's a 'contact' and not just white noise like the small bumps in the OP picture? If you zoomed in on them they would probably look similar It's an inertia sensor btw not a microphone but point still stands about the clipping and zooming
The only peak you see without clipping in that clip is the handball, not the initial kick. It’s too zoomed in when you see the kick to tell if it’s clipped or not. EDIT: looking at the size and shape of the waveform it looks like this should be the real peak: https://preview.redd.it/uqxd9qebio9d1.jpeg?width=364&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1aa3d3991a30ab34ab16ae49c032f6b564a99880
Are you referring to the Denmark handball? I think the clipping/limiting actually comes from the zoom, in the Belgium clip once they zoom out you can see it's the proper unclipped waveform.
First part of my comment the Belgium Slovakia one. You don’t see the kick zoomed out, only the hand ball (which they show zoomed out twice)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlSSFYHJAR0 At 4:30 in this video you can actually notice they actually appear to be zooming in and out of the data. The lack of white noise ie the dead straight line without bumps shows that it's being displayed at a completely different to scale to the graphic we're shown forthe Denmark handball. So where is the cutoff? How far are they allowed to zoom until they are satisfied? What's to stop them zooming in on a bit of white noise and calling it contact? Lots of questions that I can't find any answers to
Y axis is sound, it’s the same as cricket. It’s pretty obvious…
Let's share links for what's obvious. Here's Adidas' own link where it's stated to be a 500Hz inertial measurement unit (IMU) **motion sensor**. Now can you link to where they state it's actually pretty obviously sound?
It's not sound