Photo Finishes

scojones

Often there are unhappy punters complaining about photo finishes and angles, etc. Why don't they use an aerial shot?

knighted_1

its impossible to get a camera stationary in the air -think about it

Tush

knighted_1 wrote:

its impossible to get a camera stationary in the air -think about it

WHY ?????????

knighted_1

Tush wrote:

WHY ?????????

what would u attach it to?

Tush

overhead winning post.

scojones

Tush wrote:

overhead winning post.

Exactly.

knighted_1

that has been tryed b4 -too much give in overheads plus where do u put the mirror for the reverse angle -on the ground?

the current system two poles with a camera stationary on a concrete building pointing at the two poles while not 100 pc is the closest they can get -its covered in the ror inhs rule book with the addition of judges deciscion final to cover there arse
an overhead shot is often used on tv but this isnt official as for punters complaining about angles the current system in ireland anyway is like lining the two sights of a gun theoretically a straight line

not ideal i know but if u can come up with a foolproff way of doing this im sure the turf club would be interested

scojones

I don't see how the overhead cannot be effective. You use it in conjunction with what they currently use to give a better view.

aidan24326

The current set-up seems pretty accurate to me. Don't see what's the problem? They have it down to an inch or so at most tracks, how much more accurate do you want? Tbh anything much closer than that should be called a dead-heat anyway.

Morgans

Why should racing shell out a huge amount of cash to please a miniscule number of punters who are disgruntled about photo finishes. The day when racing authorities listens to the cranks on forums like betfair, the worse the sport will be. There may be two finishes a year which are tough to decipher by the current photo finish system. I dont see what the problem is.

And isnt the camera angle for photo finishes to do with the television camera?

knighted_1

[

And isnt the camera angle for photo finishes to do with the television camera?[/QUOTE]

no its a separate camera nothing to do with the tv company -when ur at a meeting stand at the winning post turn around look up to the stands and u will see a small camera attached to a balcony in line with winning post thats the photo machine

Morgans

yes, and that runs along the winning line. There is never an angle on a photo finish, there is only a poor angle on the TV camera covering the race, from the position that the television camera has been placed.

scojones

Morgans wrote:

Why should racing shell out a huge amount of cash to please a miniscule number of punters who are disgruntled about photo finishes. The day when racing authorities listens to the cranks on forums like betfair, the worse the sport will be. There may be two finishes a year which are tough to decipher by the current photo finish system. I dont see what the problem is.

And isnt the camera angle for photo finishes to do with the television camera?

I don't see your point of view. Cranks and betfair have nothing to do with this. I think it's hilarious that you are calling people who question a photo finish a crank. I'm not asking the racing authority to listen to disgruntled gamblers, I asked why don't they use an aerial shot to improve photo finishes, and the reason people are giving me is... money. So.. if it didn't cost anything would they use it? If so, then that proves that it would be more useful than the current system.
As an aid to the current system, it would be very useful. They use it in the olympics very effectively and there's no need for a "camera on the ground". I wasn't aware they tried this before with racing, does anyone have any links to their research, findings, or pictures.

And your two races a year stat is rubbish. Don't quote stats that are pulled from thin air, please.

Morgans

Often there are unhappy punters complaining about photo finishes and angles, etc. Why don't they use an aerial shot?

Can you please specify what the complaints about photo finishes are. Why are the punters unhappy. I think in my 15-20 years ish watching racing, I think I've seen possibly three photo finishes called wrong. (usually including Jane Stickells) There are occasions where photos can be argued, whether a horse has dead heated or not. Again, maybe one a year, if that. More like one every five years. The vast vast majority of dead heats arent argued by connections, punters, etc. Surely evidence that teh current system works. When horses cant be separated, they arent, even on prints down to the pixel level. So is it the photo finishes that are the problem? Now, there are no angles in official photo finishes. The camera is continuously shooting between the two winning posts. Other than that handful of errors (over 20 years) I cant see why any reasonable punter can complain.

I would suggest that the width of a running track is a lot shorter than the finishing point between one winning post and another at maybe a track like Towester, Taunton, Exeter, Cheltenham, where horses in a photo could finish 50 yards apart accross the width of the course. Or how high would you set this camera to ensure both horses are in the shot, and still have the accuracy of the side on method.

Actually, in athletics, it is the chest of the runner that is judged, something that is done far more effectively from side on than from a head shot. I'm sure a side on shot - the way things are done now is a far more effective method.

OK, so it may be that punters are unhappy with the tv angles of finishes. Can you let me know what punters are unhappy with photo finish angles. Usually, its the pondscum that has recently been attracted to the sport who have no appreciation of the sport and are more concerned about slating jockeys for being bent and worrying about their 2 euro bet. The type you get on betfair, who foolishly decide to risk their bank balance through betting in running and feel aggrieved that they have been "fooled" by the camera angle on TV. They deserve everything they get, and should be fleeced by those who understand racing and the camera angles used by the TV companies. Now, dont let me stop you in your quest. Of course, you could get onto SIS, ATR, and RUK, RTE, and BBC with an email on the issue, and see how far you will get.

So please who are these punters that are complaining...is it that they dont believe the photos printed and used by judges. I dont get how the angles bit comes into this as they are not on an angle.

Any my two races a year isnt a stat. It is from experience. Trust me, you have a lot to catch up on when talking about racing, and you will save yourself time by accepting that what I say isn't rubbish. You are probably at a level that I was when I was following racing for a couple of years. Its a learning process, and I think you have a fair bit to go, as on a scale of 1-10 of usefulness, this overhead camera idea gets a 0 from me.

scojones

Morgans wrote:

Can you please specify what the complaints about photo finishes are. Why are the punters unhappy. I think in my 15-20 years ish watching racing, I think I've seen possibly three photo finishes called wrong. (usually including Jane Stickells) There are occasions where photos can be argued, whether a horse has dead heated or not. Again, maybe one a year, if that. More like one every five years. The vast vast majority of dead heats arent argued by connections, punters, etc. Surely evidence that teh current system works. When horses cant be separated, they arent, even on prints down to the pixel level. So is it the photo finishes that are the problem? Now, there are no angles in official photo finishes. The camera is continuously shooting between the two winning posts. Other than that handful of errors (over 20 years) I cant see why any reasonable punter can complain.

Moscow Flyer at Punchestown. Ring a bell? I'm not going to go looking for stats, but I am certain that the judges get it wrong more than a couple of times a year. This is my experience, and when they do get it wrong or it is questionable the photo finish is never shown. We had a thread on here about a month ago questioning a result, where the result was extremely dodgy and it looked as if the actual outcome was leaked on betfair before being officially announced. Hulla Ballew was beaten in a photo finish during the year, and after closer examination it was obvious that it should have been a dead heat.

Morgans wrote:

Actually, in athletics, it is the chest of the runner that is judged, something that is done far more effectively from side on than from a head shot. I'm sure a side on shot - the way things are done now is a far more effective method.

Ok, firstly your chest is lower than your head, so obviously an aeral shot would not be as effective IF it was a horses chest that had to pass the line first. If the side shot is more effective, why do they use an aerial shot in the olympics? Do they just have lots of money to throw around? No.. it's because it helps give a better picture.

Morgans wrote:

OK, so it may be that punters are unhappy with the tv angles of finishes. Can you let me know what punters are unhappy with photo finish angles.

I'm not happy with the majority of angles of photo finishes at the Irish meetings. I'm not talking the camera angle on ATR. I'm talking about the photo finish itself. I think there is alot of courses in Ireland which need to improve on this. Tralee is absolutely dire. Check it out for yourself if you can.

Morgans wrote:

Usually, its the pondscum that has recently been attracted to the sport who have no appreciation of the sport and are more concerned about slating jockeys for being bent and worrying about their 2 euro bet. The type you get on betfair, who foolishly decide to risk their bank balance through betting in running and feel aggrieved that they have been "fooled" by the camera angle on TV. They deserve everything they get, and should be fleeced by those who understand racing and the camera angles used by the TV companies. Now, dont let me stop you in your quest. Of course, you could get onto SIS, ATR, and RUK, RTE, and BBC with an email on the issue, and see how far you will get.

The point of this thread was to get people on boards.ie's opinion of this. I'm not campaigning to have this brought in, I want to see what everyone else thinks. If I'm at home on Sunday I might just email Get On! on ATR and ask if they think an aerial shot would improve things. Still, the only argument against this is either money or "we don't need it". Not very convincing.

Morgans wrote:

So please who are these punters that are complaining...is it that they dont believe the photos printed and used by judges. I dont get how the angles bit comes into this as they are not on an angle.

"The general racing public who don't have a clue".

Morgans wrote:

Any my two races a year isnt a stat. It is from experience. Trust me, you have a lot to catch up on when talking about racing, and you will save yourself time by accepting that what I say isn't rubbish. You are probably at a level that I was when I was following racing for a couple of years. Its a learning process, and I think you have a fair bit to go, as on a scale of 1-10 of usefulness, this overhead camera idea gets a 0 from me.

Get your head out of your ass Morgans. My knowledge of racing, be it vast or otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with asking if people think an aerial shot would improve the photos. So far you have slated gamblers, invented statistics, ignored the fact that an aerial shot is used in the olympics by saying that a side view is better - even though they use both, advised us that you have been in the game for 15 to 20 years (5 years is a big gap by the way) and said that where I am with regards to this sport is where you were after a couple of years.

If you ever question anyone's ability, experience or knowledge on here again I'm going to ban you. Nobody has that right, not even the moderators. Hell, you don't even have the guts to post your own selections on here. I can see why you don't go into a bookies, because you'd probably get a slap off of everyone in there with your mug attitude. So please, can we continue this in an orderly, mature manner? If you can't, then do not reply to this post.

wb

Well said jonsey.

I agree that the Irish photo finishes are not up to scratch at all. Is the same technology used on the Irish tracks as the British? From what I can make out, the official British photos seem to be better than the Irish ones, but I have not seen too many Irish ones in total.


Regarding the 'pondscum' :rolleyes: who bet on the photos on betfair...

I must say that I have never bet on a photo, but there is something odd going on sometimes. As mentioned in other threads, the money on photo finishes has often been mopped up all of a sudden before the official result is read out.

Photos are certainly an interesting topic, and one that merits more discussion. In fact, my father knew one of the guys who used to develop the old actual photographs years ago, and he used to often have to give the result to the paper. I can tell you now he was bribed left right and centre!

Is there no sort of lazer/light deivce that could be actived (like an alarm system) when crossed, or would that be too expensive?

Morgans

I'll leave the photo finishes issue with you jonesy. You can have that. Still 0 out of 10 for usefulness for me.

But let me defend my selection policy

You say when I dont post selections up anywhere. The reason being that I feel a responsibility for them...In fact, I used run a website (now on hiatus due to work commitments - anyone on here who used to check it out can vouch that it hadnt been updated since August) where I used put up selections each race for each day. Generally successful, more successful than me in fact, as I used to put up speculative big priced horses that came off every now and again. I did have a recommended bets section where if I saw a bet that i thought you should be on, I would post it - at its height I was up +200pts and when I went on a losing run, I felt guilty for those people that followed my advise. At the end of three years on line, the recommeneded bets was up +132. So, for a tenner a point, you would have ended up 1320, following them blind. I only mention the site now, as I'm not pimping it, as its not online anymore. I used to text/email the selections to some people who supported the site in very very beginning, and never felt pressure like it - until Rule Supreme won the SAC.

I do post selections on here. Not many, but when I do post, I do so with confidence. I do remember putting up ante post recommendations on Rakti for the lockinge (he was 3/1 at the time winning at Evs) Iffraaj for the July Cup (recommended at 6/1 wins at 9/4). It hasnt all been good. I put up Alkaased for the King George at 25/1 - was backed into 6/1 before the trainer missed the race, Denman at 5/1 before he was backed into Evs, and Our Ben at 20/1 before he was backed into 6/1 for last years. The last two selections I have put on here are Aran Concerto at 25s now 9/2. And I backed up MasterK assertion on Saintsaire, who also wins.

Your selections in the "Thursday's bets" type threads are more like guesses to me, and if they serve some purpose great, but each poster should feel responsible to some degree for each selection they put up publicly. Rather than hiding behind an emoticon or such...bad day...ho hum. I'd rather not get involved in those threads really, as in general they are basic guesses, and the reasoning behind some/most of the selections betray that those making the selections dont really understand the game. Its the market that the likes of racing is now pandering to. Disposable income from people who dont really know what they are doing.

So far you have slated gamblers, invented statistics, ignored the fact that an aerial shot is used in the olympics by saying that a side view is better - even though they use both, advised us that you have been in the game for 15 to 20 years (5 years is a big gap by the way) and said that where I am with regards to this sport is where you were after a couple of years.

Again, having to spell out 15-20 years of following. I remember Zino and Lomond winning the guineas in 1982. I was 6. Does that qualify as following racing. First bet was Media Starguest in 1986, it was a 40p bet, does that qualify as following racing? I would say that I followed racing closely then but understanbly at those ages, I wouldnt class myself as an expert. 15 years ago I was following racing very closely.

As for the 5 years being a big difference. There is a very steep learning curve in horse racing, and the first five years are the hardest. While you still learn after 15 years following the game, you learn a lot less. I'm guessing that you have been following racing for about 3 years, just using your posts as a guide. Forgive me if I am wrong.

I didnt post statistics, but when trying to state the contrary, you produce two examples, as well as stating that the photos are not availbale, which is fully incorrect. The photos are always available for the public. They have shown the Moscow Flyer/Rathgar Beau one on ATR on several occasions that day and the day after.

I didnt invent any stats. Please show me them. Also in response, you picked out 2 photos..As for banning me from here. It might stop me responding to some of these threads, when i really should know better. So, do what you have to do with your power.

Robin1982

When High Chapparal and Johar dead-heated in the BC Turf (after a 20 minute delay in getting the picture up to the neccesary size) they showed the photo that evening. It looked for all the world that Johar was ahead of HC. HC goes down in history a one of a handful of dual BC winners (stud value +++) and shares in the $1 million win prize. It can matter...

Morgans

I saw that Robin1982. I agree with those who argued then that it was unclear whether it was HC's nostril or a shadow. I had it that finish as my wallpaper for a long time. I do think when you need to blow up prints to that size, and you take that long to decide, it should be called a dead heat. Losing/Winning by a short head is one thing but a magnified pixel is another.

scojones

Morgans, I'm going to continue our chat over PM, because I don't think this thread should be ruined by your morals on posting selections and being responsible for them, it's a seperate issue altogether and I'd like to keep this on topic.

keepitquiet

sjones wrote:

Morgans, I'm going to continue our chat over PM, because I don't think this thread should be ruined by your morals on posting selections and being responsible for them, it's a seperate issue altogether and I'd like to keep this on topic.

ill miss the essays:rolleyes:

kincsem

Robin1982 wrote:

When High Chapparal and Johar dead-heated in the BC Turf (after a 20 minute delay in getting the picture up to the neccesary size) they showed the photo that evening. It looked for all the world that Johar was ahead of HC. HC goes down in history a one of a handful of dual BC winners (stud value +++) and shares in the $1 million win prize. It can matter...

A race Falbrav should have won, but he faded in the last few yards, to be narrowly beaten (my pocket talking).:mad:

By the way, I have never had a problem with photo finish results. I don't know what this "angle of the photo-finish" is. The horses race to a finish line (repeat line).
I have won and lost on photo-finishes, but never was done by a "wrong" result.

kincsem

I've just remembered another famous photo-finish. It took seventeen minutes to separate Las Maninas and Balanchine in the English 1000 Guineas.

Those Brits are biased they gave it to the ....... oops sorry, they gave it to the Irish horse.