Bennett slams TV stoppages

[Holla if ya hear me]

Not sure what has been said before this but officially the league has said that there will be a 50 second delay on televised games..the league should have advised the public about this and then we would have known

 

[Razor]

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.

But the video ref causes a several minute delay in some cases, and then there's a goal line drop out. That gives the defence a much bigger breather than the ad breaks

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

I suggest you look at the networks that show soccer in Europe.

 

[KalgoorlieRed]

The AFL does it for all of their live games, so what's wrong with the NRL doing it? Would you rather the people watching at home miss out on the acion?

Take it we should follow the NFL and wear crash helmets as well?

 

[KalgoorlieRed]

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.

#

Its irrelevant how long the delays are the, point is, and the principle is that we shouldnt be going the way of the Yank sports!

Nobody complains so standards either drop or we get duped. Silly people seems happy to be sheep and get steered the way the powers want us to go.

 

[Razor]

Its irrelevant how long the delays are the, point is, and the principle is that we shouldnt be going the way of the Yank sports!

Nobody complains so standards either drop or we get duped. Silly people seems happy to be sheep and get steered the way the powers want us to go.

Banning these "TV breaks" will cost the game a massive amount of revenue. It will reduce the amount of money that TV networks pay for the rights, it will reduce the exposure of the game, and will reduce sponsorship money.

There is a reason practically every other sporting competition in the world has TV breaks.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

i prefer the 'live delay'

take 30 secs breaks every 5 mins (at scrums, penalties, tries, goals etc) but rejoin at the point you left off... catch up during half-time. Resume the game live again, but proceed to be a little behind due to the ad breaks. this is a win-win situation here.

 

[LESStar58]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21397486-23214,00.html

if this is the case, it bloody appalling. Having to delay the play because of some ads. :x :x :x

Was wondering why Hampstead kept stopping the play at OP on Friday.... it's a bit of a joke. Maybe its an agreement or clause in the TV deal :?

 

[Willow]

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

Other options have already been outlined in this thread. Ad placement is the broadcaster's problem. Do you think they're struggling for ad time?

As for 'making it work financially', the game was already doing that. In fact it was doing that before Channel 9 existed.

There are other broadcasters. The NRL should be running the game, not Channel 9.

There is no change in momentum by the referee ruling a consistent amount of time betweem a goal and a kick off.

I'm not debating or questioning the referee rulings. That's part of the game.

No one is dictating TV time outs or anything.

You must be reading a different thread to me.

Banning these "TV breaks" will cost the game a massive amount of revenue.

Razor, is anyone advocating a complete banning of TV breaks?

I prefer to just respond to the points rationally and let my argument do the rest.

So why did you change your tack this time?

 

[gregstar]

LOL!

the tv stations are lovely, fluffy, caring & considerate. they are doing the public a big favour by televising these fixtures.

i can't wait for the introduction of time-outs. that way the poor networks can recoup all that money they so charitably put up to gain the coverage.

i love you channel 9 - thankyou for all the sacrifices you have made for us.

xxoo

 

[Quidgybo]

Two points...

1) I knew about this 18 months ago, as did anyone else who was paying attention. It was mentioned when the new TV rights deal was signed and a couple times here and there since (and I have certainly posted on the matter in various places before now). Neither Wayne Bennett nor anyone else has got a leg to stand on.

2) It's a common sense compromise to get live telecasts. Commercial, advertising funded, free to air broadcasters are not going to undertake live match telecasts for 30 straight weeks each season and NOT insert ads into the game. Fact of life - deal with it folks. That being the case, I would much rather have live telecasts where a natural fifteen second break in play is turned into a thirty second one (ie. hardly a "time out" in the American derogatory sense) only three or four times *per half* so that no action is missed than have delayed telecasts riddled with 3 minute breaks or live telecasts where we see the classic Origin screw up week after week of taking a 30 second break and miss crucial match turning events like turnovers and tries from the kick-off.

This is a storm in a teacup, it won't even be noticed in a couple of weeks let alone in five years when the next TV deal is being negotiated.

Leigh

 

[Quidgybo]

Other options have already been outlined in this thread. Ad placement is the broadcaster's problem.

No it's the game's problem. Commercial FTA broadcasters will take the breaks anyway. That's the whole point of ratings and why they pay big money for sports rights - to make money off the ads. That's a fact of life the game has to deal with if we wants coverage on FTA. It's the game's problem because ads, which will be taken anyway (remember, fact fo life with commercial FTA broadcasters), impact the presentation of our game to our largest audience (television viewers, not spectators at the ground). We can either take the hit or compromise to find a balance that allows the networks to do what they will do anyway but still allows for our game's optimal presentation. In this case the optimal presentation is to delay the game 15 seconds three or four times per half at natural breaks in play (ie. not time outs) and get live coverage at 7.30pm as opposed to getting a delayed ad riddled replay or a live telecast where important match turning events may be missed while on breaks. I honestly can't see how anyone could argue in favour of either of those latter two scenarios because quite frankly there isn't another option if the game wants FTA coverage - the breaks are going to happen like it or not. Deal with it.

Leigh.

 

[Danish]

The game went to air live today....

I feel oh so sorry for the teams playing, you could really see that neither team was able to gain momentum to take the game away.... :roll:

The stupidest part about the "momentum" argument is that we are only seeing these 30 second breaks being taken at restarts in play. So we are talking scrums, line drop outs, penalties and kick offs. 9 times out of 10 any of these restarts takes more than 30 seconds anyway, with the exception of penalties. So really people are arguing for the sake of arguing more or less.

Actually, now that i think of it, there are many occasions where teams take much longer than 30 seconds to restart play. A team about to take a line drop out after defending a couple sets will often waste over a minute before taking the kick, as will a team kicking off after conceding points and holding on to a 1 try lead. Similar story with scrums. 1 team will rush to stop the clock, sure. But the opposition constantly drag their feet.

Now, given that these 30 second enforced breaks are such huge momentum killers, how can we allow the game to be ruined by these time wasting tactics?? How has any team ever obtained momentum in the past in the face of these tactics which existed long before round 1, 2007?? Most importantly, how can Bennett live with himself by implementing such tactics and "tampering with the fabric of the game"??

 

[God-King Dean]

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.

FS, it's about the game, not about what suits us sitting back in our lounge chairs.

 

[God-King Dean]

*bo-bo*

 

[Danish]

FS, it's about the game, not about what suits us sitting back in our lounge chairs.

You are saying a real world 10 second delay (even when rushing most scrums still take a good 20 seconds to form) a couple times a game is too much for League to give up to ensure its far and away largest source of income is kept happy??


I'd say it is completely about what suits us sitting at home, particularly given the fact a quick 10 second break does nothing to hurt the quality of the game anyway.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

You are saying a real world 10 second delay (even when rushing most scrums still take a good 20 seconds to form) a couple times a game is too much for League to give up to ensure its far and away largest source of income is kept happy??


I'd say it is completely about what suits us sitting at home, particularly given the fact a quick 10 second break does nothing to hurt the quality of the game anyway.

That is far from the point. Scrums are a part of the game. They are thing that is controlled by the players and the game.

Ads are definately not. They are not controlled by the players and definately not controlled by the game.

 

[Danish]

That is far from the point. Scrums are a part of the game. They are thing that is controlled by the players and the game.

Ads are definately not. They are not controlled by the players and definately not controlled by the game.

So, you are not willing to give up 10 seconds of stoppage here and there for the good of the game (believe it or not, getting Ch9 to sign on for the big bucks IS for the good of the game)??

Keep in mind also that in a game with 3-4 tries scored each half (pretty regular occurance these days) will mean no delays as no one kicks off inside of 30 seconds anyway.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

So, you are not willing to give up 10 seconds of stoppage here and there for the good of the game (believe it or not, getting Ch9 to sign on for the big bucks IS for the good of the game)??

Keep in mind also that in a game with 3-4 tries scored each half (pretty regular occurance these days) will mean no delays as no one kicks off inside of 30 seconds anyway.

for the good of the game?? who made ch9 the boss of NRL for them to decide what good for the game?? How can messing up the game be good for the game?? And if you think taking 10sec of unneccesary stoppage time every try is not messing up the game, you should go out and play some sports and see how much you can recover in 10 seconds.

 

[griff]

The game went to air live today....

I feel oh so sorry for the teams playing, you could really see that neither team was able to gain momentum to take the game away.... :roll:

The stupidest part about the "momentum" argument is that we are only seeing these 30 second breaks being taken at restarts in play. So we are talking scrums, line drop outs, penalties and kick offs. 9 times out of 10 any of these restarts takes more than 30 seconds anyway, with the exception of penalties. So really people are arguing for the sake of arguing more or less.

In fact, it isn't even that bad. The only time they take the break is after a goal and before a kick off.

If the ref was blowing breaks in general play to sell exercise equipment then people would have a point about "momentum".

 

[Danish]

for the good of the game?? who made ch9 the boss of NRL for them to decide what good for the game??

I'm sorry, i thought the massive amount of money received from TV rights and sponsorship was generally linked with the good of the game. My mistake.... Or do you think companies and broadcasters pay 100s of millions of dollars simply because they love the code?

How can messing up the game be good for the game?? And if you think taking 10sec of unneccesary stoppage time every try is not messing up the game, you should go out and play some sports and see how much you can recover in 10 seconds.

How about next time you are at one of the games being showed on fox you take a stop watch and time how long it takes for a team to kick off after the conversion is kicked. Time how long it takes for a line drop out to be taken as well..... Let me know if it averages under 30 seconds (it wont).

The NRL salary cap has gone up by $400K on the back of the new TV deal with 9. The grant given to each club actually matches the salary cap for the first time due solely to the deal with 9. That rise in the salary cap will help in no small way NRL clubs hold on to their current stars and fight off raids from cashed up union sides. Having a double header on friday night will lead to each team being able to increase their sponsorship dollars due to increased exposure.

All of these things are great for the game. All of these things are worth far more than having to occasionally hold up a kick off for 10 seconds if this just happens to be a kick off where the players don't feel like wasting a minute or two.