Bennett slams TV stoppages

[Mr Saab]

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

He has a point. And he was not blowing up about the loss if you read it properly.
The game is turning into NFL (a made for TV sport with the breaks they have) and the NRL is not a TV sport in the sense of the constant breaks.
10 secs, 20 secs, it should be 0 secs.

 

[Willow]

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.

Players, coaches and referees will tell you that quick restarts are part of the game. Players getting breathers should not be decided by network advertising.

Lowdown, I know what you mean about Bennett, losing coaches often look for distractions. But I don't think that's the case in this instance and it appears that Bennett went to some length to point that out. Plus I understand from the article that the winning player(s) and coach were not too pleased with the stoppages. This effects all teams.

I'm not a member of the Bennett fan club but on this occasion he is spot on. And I don't buy into the notion that its not as bad as what's happening in other sports. Bugger that, we're not talking about the NFL or AFL, and the NRL doesn't have to go down the same path.

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

Because its just had the spotlight put on it and people are entitled to expressed their opinions.

 

[Danish]

Because its just had the spotlight put on it and people are entitled to expressed their opinions.

People aren't just expressing their opinions....


They are reacting with complete and utter shock about soemthing that we have all known about for 6+ months as though no one knew about it until kick off last night.

He has a point. And he was not blowing up about the loss if you read it properly.
The game is turning into NFL (a made for TV sport with the breaks they have) and the NRL is not a TV sport in the sense of the constant breaks.
10 secs, 20 secs, it should be 0 secs.

We are following a model set out by quite possibly the most successful sporting competition in the world....... Oh noes!! :crazy:

I wonder if you would complain if the NRL pushed for no breaks at the next negotiations and channel 9 rightly lowered their offer due to the complete lack of revenue able to be gained by showing next to no ads??

More than likely, given its the same people whinging about 30 bloody seconds which also whinge about every other decision the NRL ever makes.

Show me a way that this disadvantages either team and I will happily support you. The momentum argument doesnt wash since it works both ways, cancellign out any advantage.

 

[Mr Saab]

NFL is a failry new sport (50 odd yrs) and was designed around TV basically. It is a stop start game. League is not based around TV add breaks and never should.
Disadvantaging both teams does not make it right, but hey, if you want to see a player attempt a kick for touch off a penalty and listen to Clarke say "Wait a minute, ch9 have have gone to a commercial, i will wait for tip for Tony Chalmers and then you can kick it"

Please.

 

[Lowdown]

Lowdown, I know what you mean about Bennett, losing coaches often look for distractions. But I don't think that's the case in this instance and it appears that Bennett went to some length to point that out.

Yep - understand that Bennett stressed this - but that does not mean it aint still a classic post-loss Bennett venting his spleen.

He does this better than any other coach in the NRL. I can understand the frustration - but if they had won, this would not have been an issue. And I stand by that comment.

NRL need to think carefully about the delays caused by Ch9 - but for years people have been moaning on the lack of Live Ch 9 coverage of NRL, and when it finally arrives - all we can do is whinge about 10 second delays (thats all it is people - when you count the seconds from conversion to re-start - its not much more than 10 seconds of additional stopppage if any).

My advice to teams - use the time, get some air, discuss your tactics, attend to your injured (!) and play on. If it does get any longer than this, I agree, perhaps banner advertising on-screen would be preferable.

 

[griff]

so you people would prefer no live coverage at all? Because that is the only other option. To make it viable for Nine to show live RL at 7.30 instead of When Celebrities Attack IV they need to have ads in it.

show the game live with a 30 second ad break during existing breaks in play

or

show the game on delay with 6-7 ads back to back sandwiched in during breaks in play

I know which I would prefer

 

[Razor]

And I don't buy into the notion that its not as bad as what's happening in other sports. Bugger that, we're not talking about what the NFL or AFL, and the NRL doesn't have to go down the same path.

Sports make almost all of their revenue each year from TV.

If you totally ignore TV requests, you are going to get substantially less money for the rights to TV.

Secondly, if you ignore the TV audience you are going to get substantially less in sponsorship. Sponsors don't pay all of that money for the small number of people at the game to see. They pay that money for the people watching at home to see.

 

[Willow]

People aren't just expressing their opinions....

Of course they are.

They are reacting with complete and utter shock about soemthing that we have all known about for 6+ months as though no one knew about it until kick off last night.

You mean as opposed you reacting in complete and utter shock over people reacting in complete and utter shock?

I think you're over dramatising matters. Some good points have been raised by those who support Bennett's view.

In regards to your 'we all', obviously not everyone knew about it six months ago.

so you people would prefer no live coverage at all?

I'm not reading anyone saying that.

Im sure most people are happy for Channel 9 to do their job as broadcasters... but please, keep their hands off what is happening on the field. Otherwise its a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Because that is the only other option.

There are other options, as has been pointed out in this thread. Ad placement can be done to keep everyone happy.

Plus there are other broadcasters. Channel 9 aren't the only show in town.

 

[Willow]

If you totally ignore TV requests, you are going to get substantially less money for the rights to TV.

Who is advocating ignoring TV requests?

lol @ 'requests' btw.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Who is advocating ignoring TV requests?

lol @ 'requests' btw.

yea why change the beautiful game we have because the tv channel requests it? bugger that! Stand firm that we do not want this changed and make another agreement that does not ruin the flow of the game!!! FLOW!!! MOMENTUM!!!

anyone who does not realise the importance of these factors obviously do not know the sport well enough.

And also, 2 wrongs do not make a right

 

[Pierced Soul]

this is f**ked. I do remember this being talked about but was unaware it had been set in stone.

nein may pay for the right but surely the rnl has to grow some balls and say 'dont f**k with the game itself'. the solution for nein if they have to show ads is show 15-20 sec ads instead of 30 sec ones....

i'd rather not see the game live on tv and have the flow of the game uninterrupted. the shot clock on kikc was to stop players wasting time and slowing down the game, these ad breaks are slowing it down as well.

as for the 'nein has the right to do this' argument, if nein decided that we should have less people on the field is that ok? if nein decided that after scoring a try play was stopped and players have to talk to matty johns and give a description of what happened is that ok?

what if nein decides it wants 2x 30sec ads in between tries is that ok?

 

[gregstar]

i totally support bennett.

momentum is a huge factor in league.

it should not be f*cked with at the behest of a network's commercials.

 

[Willow]

Do networks in Europe 'request' ad stoppages during soccer matches?

 

[Hass]

I think everybody's over-reacting here.

It's not like Channel 9's called a a three minute commerical "time-out" or something.

They're just asking that play be held up for 20 or 30 seconds after a try is scored so they can make some cash.

This "momentum is everything" argument is the biggest pile of garbage I've read on this forum for some time.

Some video-ref decisions give the teams a one minute breather. Other decisions give the teams a four minute breather.

But we're all whinging about an extra 20 or 30 seconds at the kick-off - oh the humanity!

Still, I'm all for a "live delay".

Start broadcasting when the game starts. Stop the broadcast for three 3-minute ad breaks during the first half. Then catch up during the half-time break before showing the second half live and uniterrupted.

Cheers.

 

[Willow]

They're just asking that play be held up for 20 or 30 seconds after a try is scored so they can make some cash.

Is that all they are 'asking'?

FTR, they are not 'asking' or 'requesting'... let's get that settled up front. Channel 9 are dictating what happens on the field.
They were doing it last year, and they doing it again this year.

I have no problem whatsoever with sponsors making money. But don't kid yourself. As soon as they try to tell players, coaches and referees what to do on the field, we are compelled to debate the issues.

This "momentum is everything" argument is the biggest pile of garbage I've read on this forum for some time.

A 'pile of garbage' eh?
Didn't you just accuse others of overeacting?

If you choose to ignore the momentum argument, then with respect, you have failed to understand the essence of the game. You call other people's opinions as being 'garbage'... please understand when I refer to your opnion as being somehat disappointing.

Straight question: do the Europeans allow stoppages during soccer matches?

Some video-ref decisions give the teams a one minute breather. Other decisions give the teams a four minute breather.

You're getting the video ref mixed up with the advertiser.
The referee is part of the game (on the field). The advertiser is not.

Cheers.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

I just don't understand people who do not realise the seriousness of this situation....

Maybe they are fans of teams who are constantly on the recieving end of the opposition's momentum... Either way, they should realise that this "momentum" is so critical as to who gets to win the game.

I don't think I would be going over the top even by saying that having these unneccesary delays, result of the games are significantly altered.

 

[Hass]

Willow.

The fact of the matter is that this "momentum" ceases to exist once the video-ref takes three minutes to make a decision.

It may well be "part of the game" but it's still killing the momentum. The momentum is not going to magically reappear just because we have a kick-off straight away instead of waiting 20 seconds for Channel 9. Once it's dead, it's dead.

That's why the argument is "garbage". Very rarely do I describe any argument on this forum as garbage. I prefer to just respond to the points rationally and let my argument do the rest. But when people are running around saying "the sky is falling" over an argument that really has no legs then I'm going to call it for what it is.

It's the principle that seems to be getting most people riled up. I'm not a fan of television encroaching on how we play the game. But the practical impact here is neglible.

As for your question: No. European television stations do not request that play be held up during soccer matches.

But just as Rugby League has less natural stoppages than American Football, Soccer has less natural stoppages than Rugby League.

Cheers.

 

[Willow]

Willow.

The fact of the matter is that this "momentum" ceases to exist once the video-ref takes three minutes to make a decision.

Hass,

This is a 'refereeing' decision.

 

[Hass]

But answer me a straight question now Willow.

Does this refereeing decision kill the momentum of the scoring team.

And if so does it halt that momentum more than a 20-second stoppage at the kick-off?

I'm talking in practical terms here.

I understand that you're concerned about where this could head. I'm concerned about where this could head. I don't want Channel 9 having any more input than the level I'm defending here now.

But if it stays at this level I can't see a problem with it.

It's a sound principle to argue that a stoppage to make a decision is more viable than a stoppage to finish a commercial. But you're mixing that in with a practical argument about momentum that doesn't wash.

Cheers.

 

[griff]

Still, I'm all for a "live delay".

Start broadcasting when the game starts. Stop the broadcast for three 3-minute ad breaks during the first half. Then catch up during the half-time break before showing the second half live and uniterrupted.

So you would prefer to sit through 3 minutes of ads after a try rather than 30 seconds AND prefer the game to be delayed to stick it full of ads rather than be live to air? What is the benefit of that?

You are right, people have a negative gut reaction to this. But if they sit down and think about it, it is a win win.

Willow, what are the other options that can guarantee live coverage by making it work financially?

There is no change in momentum by the referee ruling a consistent amount of time betweem a goal and a kick off. No one is dictating TV time outs or anything.