Bennett slams TV stoppages

[Razor]

. Besides, in the AFL everything stops after a goal while everyone gets back in position for the bounce; might only take a little extra time granted, but they never go to ad breaks in general stoppages. This is more like telling someone to wait after they've taken a mark.

No it's not. Telling someone to stop after a mark, would be the same as telling someone to stop after being tackled. It's not the same.

And yes the AFL does stop after a goal. But after a touch-in-goal, try, etc. everything stops while they get into position. And just like the AFL, the players need to wait a bit longer.

So potentially, as long an assumption as it is, the game may be slightly changed on account of its programming timeslot.
[/quote[

Same as the AFL

I get annoyed enough as it is when players aren't allowed quick restarts from penalties, this takes it to a new level.

Well don't watch it. If enough people don't, they'll scrap the live games.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

You've got to draw the line somewhere otherwise they'll keep pushing it. You'll end up with Steve Clarke blowing time off, turning to the camera and explaining how goodyear tyres are Australia's best and safest tyre.

 

[Razor]

They didn't do it during the Tigers/Storm game, though. Why only do it to the Queenslanders?

It's only Channel 9 Brisbane that has that demand. Channel 9 Sydney doesn't demand the game be stopped. So the live game each week that beams into Sydney, will not have "ad stoppages" unless that game also goes into Brisbane. Different management at the stations.

 

[Razor]

Yes. I don't mind missing out on 20secs of the game if it means it stays fair and even between the two sides and doesn't halt the momentum of either team.

9 have tried that before for live games - SOO, Grand Finals, etc.

And whenever they miss even 1 second of action, they get 100s of complaints.

 

[griff]

I would rather they fixed up their own ad placements and kept away from what happens on the field. There are solutions (banners have been mentioned) - that's Channel 9's problem and it should not be the problem for the players, referees or coaches.

Bennett is right... imagine if your team has the ascendancy and are pushing for quick play-the-balls, only to be told that they have give the opposition a breather.

The NRL should never had agreed to ad breaks stopping a game. We already have kickoffs being delayed to suit the broadcaster's wishes. To then instruct referees to stop the game during play is simply taking things too far.

And who decides this in the box?

Its a case of Channel 9's tail wagging the NRL dog again.

Last year the network was telling the match review committee who to cite, and they were even influencing refereeing decisions during the game!

Channel 9's job is to broadcast the game, they are not there to dictate what happens on the field. A broadcaster should never be allowed to tamper with what happens on the football field. Never.

But the referee isn't stopping play. They are only allowing ad breaks in breaks in play that currently exist. If the ball goes out of play for a scrum for example most of the time it takes at least 30 seconds for it to set anyway. I'd rather they play an ad then if that ensures we get live footy on TV without missing any of the action.

The only other option is games on delay, when they break the play and put 10 ads in, not just one.

It happens between overs in cricket, and after goals in AFL. If it means more live coverage then why would anyone be against it.

 

[LeagueNut]

I watched the Storm/Tigers live (with no ads thanks to Sky NZ). It was pretty noticeable that most kick-offs were "held back" to wait for the Channel 9 ads to finish.

Either that, or it was impeccable timing. :sarcasm:

 

[Lowdown]

There are some rather overblow reactions over this. Seriously seems to be a Broncos classic post loss whinge to me. Do you think if they won there would be an issue? Hardly.

The same thing happened in the Storm game, after the Tigers scored the last try, and made the conversion. Cam Smith had to wait 10 seconds at kickoff before he was allowed. 10 seconds! Thats all. It seemed like a long time standing around and waiting, but it was only 10 seconds.

If you want to see TV interfeering with a sport, the 91 Superbowl between Redskins and Bills actually had the kick off re-started as the TV station was still on an add break, and missed the kick.

Now thats a problem worth whinging about - and we are a long long way from that situation I can tell you.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Bennett had no complaints with his side's 23-16 loss to the Cowboys n a spectacular season opener at Suncorp Stadium, but he slammed a decision to stop play while the host broadcaster showed ads to viewers.

Doesn't sound like he was bitter about the loss at all.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

There are some rather overblow reactions over this. Seriously seems to be a Broncos classic post loss whinge to me. Do you think if they won there would be an issue? Hardly.

The same thing happened in the Storm game, after the Tigers scored the last try, and made the conversion. Cam Smith had to wait 10 seconds at kickoff before he was allowed. 10 seconds! Thats all. It seemed like a long time standing around and waiting, but it was only 10 seconds.

If you want to see TV interfeering with a sport, the 91 Superbowl between Redskins and Bills actually had the kick off re-started as the TV station was still on an add break, and missed the kick.

Now thats a problem worth whinging about - and we are a long long way from that situation I can tell you.

10secs delaying a kick off is also bad because it gives the other team who are under the pressure an "undeserved" rest time to get things together. 10secs delaying a quick tap or a penalty kick out would be a huge advantage to the defending team, giving them time to regather.

Why ruin the pace of the game?? Gallop. You have made a very big mistake, even though it may just happen at the QLD live games, but you have just messed with the actual game play.

Also even Thurston was not happy about it. Any player would know that this is disgraceful and appalling.

 

[Dani]

They didn't do it during the Tigers/Storm game, though. Why only do it to the Queenslanders?

Yeah, they did. Was bloody annoying.

 

[Redback71]

bloody hell we are only talking about 30 seconds for Gods sake. whats the big deal give the players a chance to get there breath back.

 

[Redback71]

and another thing they only did it when a try was scored anyway. in the storm v tiger game that is.

 

[Mr Saab]

They wont be "stopping" the game during fox games.
Consistency is a farce.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Maguire.

AFL have been doing it for years.

Get up 'em Wayne.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

imo they should only do it before restarts of the game, that is after a try, goal or FG... or else, they should do about 30 secs every 5 mins, and just delay the coverage (start from where they left off, despite actual play being 30 secs ahead.) They can catch up again at half time.

 

[Molly]

bloody hell we are only talking about 30 seconds for Gods sake. whats the big deal give the players a chance to get there breath back.

I'll tel what the big deal is, RL is a game of momentum and the game is staggerred now because of it. I was at the storm/tigers w the sports ears, prior to each kick off and a couple of drop outs, Bumstead told the players to wait until the tv had returned, it was frustrating to watch at teh game and really did impact on the spectacle. If they must run ads, why cant they run 10second grabs?

To see a ref blow time off to wait for the end of a commercial break is appalling....

 

[Danish]

This move was announced last bloody year.... why all the fuss about it now??

Seriously, very few teams kick off in less than 30 seconds anyway (particularly if they are in front) and Gallop has already stated that in the last 5 mins or so if a quick kick off is needed time will be stopped when the kicking team is set until the 30 seconds is over.

You will absolutely never notice it at the game, it doesn't disadvantage either team, and it also makes the live coverage better because you are less chance of them trying to squeeze an ad at scrums and such and missing the action.

Seriously, I cannot see a single problem with this rule.


Also, what everyone seems to have missed is that Channel 9 managed to show us 2 games in more or less the same amount of time we sat through 1 game last year. I know i am more than willing to wait out 10-20 seconds here and there while at a game in order to get that kind of viewing at home when i cant make it.

 

[Lowdown]

This move was announced last bloody year.... why all the fuss about it now??.

Seriously, I cannot see a single problem with this rule.

Yeah - agree. However this site (like every other on earth) is frequented by people who love a bitch and a moan and show short tempers, and little patience.

The anonymity of the internet is a wonderful thing. Snipe away people. Snipe away.

 

[tiger_nick]

Are you serious?!?!? Wayne Bennet is blowing up about something in a post match media conference??? Well Ill never....

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

ffs, its about momentum as has been described so many times before.