Well, that's why I was laughing, because mocapping something that you need to achieve by programming is quite absurd. You never mocap a "net" object, you define forces and the "wire" that deforms and then spend some time refining the limits of forces and grid of the deformation transform layer.
Mocapping a net just doesn't make any kind of sense. It's as if you were mocapping fireworks. It's absurd, it's a particle system and you will program it to have multiple variations later on. If you want the net to react better you have to program better. Mocapping doesn't add any info you actually need. The net will be deformable by ANY kind of shot. The technique to achieve great nets is to program well. Period.
About the ball, it's just the same. If your engine is good enough, it will move the ball realistically. The kicking animations, though based in mocap sessions, will have to be somewhat "loose" in order to achieve good results, particularly with inverted kinetics. Then, your player skeleton is "molded" to the mocap information more or less and have some "elasticity" in some movements so the player can stretch more or less to properly impact the ball. But all this applies to the player, and nowadays in current generations is the player the one who adjusts to the ball trajectory, not the other way round (and is how it works in reality too).
Concluding, if the ball is "free"... it doesn't make any sense to mocap the ball trajectory. You don't need it at all, unless they are doing bad tricks and make the ball part of the animation. Then the ball is not "free" and I get suspicious.
To those saying "it will add realism", please explain me in technical terms how you will add realism by mocapping a ball.
Sorry for the confusing terms here and there, I don't know much of the technical words in english as I do in my language, Catalan.
I understand exactly what you mean and its put across extremely well
