Bennett slams TV stoppages

[Stewie Griffin]

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 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.

All the things you have mentioned are vital for our game to improve. However, couldn't Gallop not agree with the showing of ads during live tv?? I'm all with the better coverage and more games, but surely there would have been another way to agree with the terms that did not ruin the game.

In no way am i saying that I'd rather no ads and only one friday night footy.
Just that there definately would have been other ways to get a contract without that clause. Gallop has made a mistake IMO.

 

[Quidgybo]

In no way am i saying that I'd rather no ads and only one friday night footy.
Just that there definately would have been other ways to get a contract without that clause.

Perhaps, but how do you know all the other ways wouldn't have been much worse? Unless you were privy to the negotiations and what Nein would and wouldn't accept you just can't honestly say that. You just want your cake and eat it too. But that's not how the real world works, if we want something, we have to give up something somewhere. Without the slightest intent of hype or spin I think this is a *fantastic* development for coverage of the game. Regular live FTA coverage for the cost of only three or four 15 second pauses at natural breaks in play each half. We've given up peanuts. I imagine the negotiations went something like this...

NRL - We want three games on FTA
Nein - We'll show three games if the extra game is on Friday nights for a doubleheader telecast starting at 8.30pm
NRL - We'll schedule the extra game on Fridays but we want you to show one of the games live.
Nein - We'll show it live if you insert small delays at natural breaks in play three or four times per half so we can run a 30 sec ad without missing any action.
NRL - Done!

Quite rightly too. And while we're at it I'll point out that the AFL (which for some reason, everyone in our game feels the need to measure ourselves against), has quite literally been making this same compromise with television for years. After a successful goal, the umpire will not centre bounce the ball to re-start play until a light in the Grand Stand gives him the all clear. You hear the outrage week in week out emanating from coaches and spectators in that code?

Leigh.

 

[Willow]

No it's the game's problem.

No, its an advertising issue.

I have your proof too.

Your words:
"Commercial FTA broadcasters will take the breaks anyway."

FYI, breaks = advertising.

 

[Quidgybo]

Obviously. I'm sorry, I don't see your point. Just because we say advertisement placement is a television decision doesn't mean we're going to change the nature of the beast. The ad breaks will happen anyway - even in a live telecast. Advertising is more important to them than showing RL in a good light. We can either compromise to ensure our product gets an optimal presentation or we can not compromise and suffer a non optimal presentation. If we want live FTA coverage of our game and we want it done with an optimal presentation then the choice is in our hands, which makes it our problem.

Leigh.

 

[jed]

Advertising's been taking place in live NRL games on Channel 9 for years, this is nothing new. Daylight Savings games in Qld, State Of Origin, Finals, Tri-Nations - I can't remember the last time there was a game that was run on commercial TV without commercial breaks.

The difference here is that a grumpy old man who was bitter after losing decided to use it was an excuse for his team.

 

[Bengal]

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.

Bang on the money.

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.

'The good of the game' you say....how did this game get to be so good Danish? Through Rugby League people or through media people, if the latter, than by all means, let them tinker, if not, then why are we allowing them to tinker with the very "fabric" of this sport?

What do you think is best...maximizing dollars and compromising our sport or keeping the sanctity of our sport intact, but garnering just a few dollars less?

My mistake.... Or do you think companies and broadcasters pay 100s of millions of dollars simply because they love the code?

If they make a profit, they'll love the sport all right, and if they love the sport, then they should bow to us, not the other way around!

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.

This is a smokescreen. We'd have all this regardless, actually we should have had all this and a heck of a lot more eons ago.

Letting media outlets (continually) tamper with our great game, especially when we're in the position we're in, that's beyond foolish!

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.

Anytime anybody other than a Rugby League person has a say in our game is NOT great for our game, not by half.

But that's not how the real world works, if we want something, we have to give up something somewhere.

No we don't, not when it actually tampers with the on-field nature of the sport!

Without the slightest intent of hype or spin I think this is a *fantastic* development for coverage of the game. Regular live FTA coverage for the cost of only three or four 15 second pauses at natural breaks in play each half. We've given up peanuts. I imagine the negotiations went something like this...

This is the cost for now...mark my words - that cost will continue to grow from here on in.

Advertising is more important to them than showing RL in a good light. We can either compromise to ensure our product gets an optimal presentation or we can not compromise and suffer a non optimal presentation.

Now I see where you're coming from...presentation is everything. If we stick with this attitude we'll barely recognize this sport in a decades time. We'll be great on presentation but short on substance (this sport - compromised beyond recognition).

The difference here is that a grumpy old man who was bitter after losing decided to use it was an excuse for his team.

No, the difference was that the game was stopped for non footballing reasons. This but the start.

.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Bang on the money.


'The good of the game' you say....how did this game get to be so good Danish? Through Rugby League people or through media people, if the latter, than by all means, let them tinker, if not, then why are we allowing them to tinker with the very "fabric" of this sport?

What do you think is best...maximizing dollars and compromising our sport or keeping the sanctity of our sport intact, but garnering just a few dollars less?

If they make a profit, they'll love the sport all right, and if they love the sport, then they should bow to us, not the other way around!

This is a smokescreen. We'd have all this regardless, actually we should have had all this and a heck of a lot more eons ago.

Letting media outlets (continually) tamper with our great game, especially when we're in the position we're in, that's beyond foolish!

Anytime anybody other than a Rugby League person has a say in our game is NOT great for our game, not by half.


No we don't, not when it actually tampers with the on-field nature of the sport!

This is the cost for now...mark my words - that cost will continue to grow from here on in.

Now I see where you're coming from...presentation is everything. If we stick with this attitude we'll barely recognize this sport in a decades time. We'll be great on presentation but short on substance (this sport - compromised beyond recognition).


No, the difference was that the game was stopped for non footballing reasons. This but the start.

.

No. You are bang on the money

 

[Knight76]

I hate the idea of the NRL stopping any game for add breaks. Sure, concessions can be made for the hand full of live games per week. But what happens in the future?

More live games on free to air, more adds on foxtel, more adds in general?, Where does it stop. Sooner or later every game will have these breaks. I don't think the game should be lengthened to squeeze in adds nor do I think ch9 or any broadcaster should have a say in whats good for the game.

I'd rather have the games delayed by an hour than have them live with breaks in play. Hell, Id rather have adds in live game and miss some action than stop the game.

In a sport with dwindling numbers actually going to games I dont see the point of stopping games so those at home can watch every second. Go to the game if your worried about it.

 

[LordLeague]

The problem I have with the short stopages is that they are completed avoidable through a few readily available advertising solutions.

1. banner ads just like the news headlines that run along the bottom of the screen.

2. superimpose ads/logos etc on the field. SKYSPORTS can do this type of thing during their live telecasts.

3. Shorter ads. Any advertiser in that timeslot should be required to submit a 10 second adverts, not a 25 second advert. Ad breaks can then be inserted during virtually any stopage in play e,g 20m tap, dropout, scrum, try, goal.

4. Save the longer ads for half time.

5. Ad boxes popping up in the corner of the screen during play or breaks in play.


Channel 9 use some of these concepts in their cricket coverage (banner ads) and Channel 7 uses some inovative short ads during their tennis coverage where the ad looks like it is playing on the big screen at the venue.

Only when these options have been completely exhausted should ad stopages of any kind be considered.

But it could be worse. I was bewildered this summer when Ricky Ponting chose not to enforce the follow-on against England to ensure the ACB and Channel 9 got their 5 day test. Even one of the Channel 9 commentators (can't remember who) announced that he better not comment on that. Let's be glad RL isn't the farce that cricket has become.

The officials and players have simple jobs. Officiate and play the game. The TV boys should have no say in what happens on the field. CH9 not using emerging marketing technology and ideas as outlined above is simply laziness on their part. The NRL should demand better.

LordLeague

 

[jed]

5. Ad boxes popping up in the corner of the screen during play or breaks in play.


Channel 9 use some of these concepts in their cricket coverage (banner ads) and Channel 7 uses some inovative short ads during their tennis coverage where the ad looks like it is playing on the big screen at the venue.

Commercial TV use these due to a loophole in their code of practice - non-programming content (commercials, promos, news updates etc) are only counted if they're full-screen. The time that would otherwise be devoted to promos can then be used (sold for high rates) when the promos are moved onto their "creative" advertising, like when Ch 7 show the promos on the TV screen at the tennis.


It's a catch-22 situation - no commercial broadcaster is going to pay a decent amount of money for the TV rights if they're not allowed to sell advertising, so the NRL needs to decide between less money for the rights (less money to the clubs and grass-roots rugby), or else have to make concessions to the broadcaster.


As I said earlier though, this has been happening for years without comment, it's only because of Bennett's bleating that this is even an issue.

 

[Quidgybo]

The problem I have with the short stopages is that they are completed avoidable through a few readily available advertising solutions.

1. banner ads just like the news headlines that run along the bottom of the screen.

Not worth as much as a dedicated 30 sec spot - probably by an order of magnitude. And you can just imagine the uproar from the usual suspects around here about the constant distracting stream across the screen.

2. superimpose ads/logos etc on the field. SKYSPORTS can do this type of thing during their live telecasts.

Not worth as much as a dedicated 30 sec spot.

3. Shorter ads. Any advertiser in that timeslot should be required to submit a 10 second adverts, not a 25 second advert. Ad breaks can then be inserted during virtually any stopage in play e,g 20m tap, dropout, scrum, try, goal.

Less ad revenue or more frequent ad breaks. Again you can imagine the uproar from the usual suspects. Also fewer potential advertisers because of the need to produce non standard length spots rather then re-using their exsting ads they use every other day of the week.

4. Save the longer ads for half time.

When everyone is at the toilet. Not worth as much and fewer ads (they already get the half time breaks).

5. Ad boxes popping up in the corner of the screen during play or breaks in play.

Not worth as much as a dedicated 30 sec spot and uproar by the usual suspects at the distraction.

Only when these options have been completely exhausted should ad stopages of any kind be considered.

How do you know they weren't? If Channel 9 refuses point blank then either we forgo the live telecasts or put up with ad breaks that cut into play and miss action. Or we compromise.

The officials and players have simple jobs. Officiate and play the game. The TV boys should have no say in what happens on the field.

What a strange world some people live in. Television has been changing the game on the field for thirty years. From red lines, thicker lines, painted 10 meter digits and syntheitic white footballs to wired refs and video refs. Be in no doubt if it wasn't for slo-mo television replays showing up refereeing errors, we would never have ended up with in-goal judges and video refs, nor with touch judges able to rule on forward passes and off sides. And if it wasn't for television we would never have ended up with players on report instead of being sent off.

One last point to consider while we're busy arguing over three or four 15 second delays each half during natural breaks, the NRL has for quite a few years now had a rule that allows for full 2 minute time outs each half during natural breaks in play if the weather is too hot. Personally I think we should just let the whinging players die of heat exhaustion rather than compromise the fabric of the game like that. Compared to the short pauses for television, these full 2 minute stoppages are an absolute scandal.

Leigh.

 

[Willow]

Advertising's been taking place in live NRL games on Channel 9 for years, this is nothing new. Daylight Savings games in Qld, State Of Origin, Finals, Tri-Nations - I can't remember the last time there was a game that was run on commercial TV without commercial breaks.

The difference here is that a grumpy old man who was bitter after losing decided to use it was an excuse for his team.

They stopped the game for ad breaks. Big difference Jed.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Not worth as much as a dedicated 30 sec spot - probably by an order of magnitude. And you can just imagine the uproar from the usual suspects around here about the constant distracting stream across the screen.

Not worth as much as a dedicated 30 sec spot.

Less ad revenue or more frequent ad breaks. Again you can imagine the uproar from the usual suspects. Also fewer potential advertisers because of the need to produce non standard length spots rather then re-using their exsting ads they use every other day of the week.

When everyone is at the toilet. Not worth as much and fewer ads (they already get the half time breaks).

Not worth as much as a dedicated 30 sec spot and uproar by the usual suspects at the distraction.

How do you know they weren't? If Channel 9 refuses point blank then either we forgo the live telecasts or put up with ad breaks that cut into play and miss action. Or we compromise.

What a strange world some people live in. Television has been changing the game on the field for thirty years. From red lines, thicker lines, painted 10 meter digits and syntheitic white footballs to wired refs and video refs. Be in no doubt if it wasn't for slo-mo television replays showing up refereeing errors, we would never have ended up with in-goal judges and video refs, nor with touch judges able to rule on forward passes and off sides. And if it wasn't for television we would never have ended up with players on report instead of being sent off.

One last point to consider while we're busy arguing over three or four 15 second delays each half during natural breaks, the NRL has for quite a few years now had a rule that allows for full 2 minute time outs each half during natural breaks in play if the weather is too hot. Personally I think we should just let the whinging players die of heat exhaustion rather than compromise the fabric of the game like that. Compared to the short pauses for television, these full 2 minute stoppages are an absolute scandal.

Leigh.

what do you work for ch9?

 

[Knight76]

How do you know they weren't? If Channel 9 refuses point blank then either we forgo the live telecasts or put up with ad breaks that cut into play and miss action.

Ill take this option thanks.

Personally I think we should just let the whinging players die of heat exhaustion rather than compromise the fabric of the game like that. Compared to the short pauses for television, these full 2 minute stoppages are an absolute scandal.

Can you please compile a list of all the players who have died from heat exhaustion as a driect result of not stopping the game for two minutes?

 

[Thomas]

The key issue here is this:

The game was stopped on Friday night for ads when Brisbane was in a dominant position. They had just crawled their way back to 16-16 and had the Cowboys on the ropes. Then they had to stop for an ad break which gave the Cowboys a much needed rest.

FFS even Johnathan Thurston was saying that the breaks for ads helped their teams.

The TV coverage had a DIRECT influence on the game.

 

[Quidgybo]

Just 15 extra seconds! I'll repeat that - just 15 seconds. At a natural break in play. Crickey, if the Cowboys thought they needed the rest that much they could have dropped a player on the floor and got a minute easy. And there's the key point, compared to natural breaks and stoppages, 15 extra seconds is nothing unusual. Ballboys sometimes waste that much time on their own. It's a piss weak excuse for the Broncos not being the better side on the night.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Can you please compile a list of all the players who have died from heat exhaustion as a driect result of not stopping the game for two minutes?

So given that the list would be pretty bloody short, can I add your name to the petition against these 2 minute abominations on the fabric of the game? It's an outrage.

Leigh.

 

[Willow]

Crickey, if the Cowboys thought they needed the rest that much they could have dropped a player on the floor and got a minute easy.

That would be part of the game.

With respect, you are having difficulty with understanding that what happens on the field is different to what happens on TV.

 

[griff]

They stopped the game for ad breaks. Big difference Jed.

No, the game was already stopped.

 

[Willow]

The debate is about the game being stopped for ad breaks. Do you want to see the game stopped for ad breaks griff?