oh and I have to say because of the World Cup tech stories I've read on EE Times, I've watched some of the games and saw the first use of goalline tech. Not much to see with when it happened. But that's the point: no arguing ensued. How much you want to bet someone will hack that goalline tech to his team's benefit? NOw that's a soccer geek.
@Rishiyur.Nikhil, ha ha. I like it. I think you're on to something: you never know what ideas are going to come up when you through a seemingly unrelated, non-engineering subject in front of a bunch of engineers. As a crowd, you're actually a creative group.
We did post a series of World Cup tech stories last month and they didn't get much attention at the time. (Now you see we're resurfacing the stories.) Maybe it was the timing but I concluded it was because Americans don't like futbol/soccer/football -- whatever you want to call it. I wanted to know why it wasn't compelling -- even though America is full of kids and families that love soccer -- so we grabbed the nearest most eloquent and opininated American we could find to put the problem out there.
Someone asked why this discussion is taking place on EETimes.
Ok, here's an EETimes take:
Football/Soccer/Futbol scoreboards are the most energy-efficient
fewest pixels needed, and
lowest rate of flip-flop toggling to drive those pixels
(And now, I retreat with my flame-retardent suit, where I will no doubt be characterized as "another American who does not understand football", even though I am not; somehow these conversations always end that way!)
I have to agree. US football has an average total amount of 12 minutes of action in every 60. The rest is counting off yards, determining where to place the ball, and then waiting 20 seconds (average) for the ball to be snapped. Since the average number of plays in an NFL game is around 130, that 43 minutes, alone of waithing for the snap. Talk about excitement.