Bennett slams TV stoppages

[Danish]

I agree with your point but then, I have argued for over ten years that line dropouts should be taken within 30 secs of the decision or a penalty awarded 10m out in front. Goalkicks should be on a shot clock, as should other restarts.

Why not increase that shot clock to 35 or 40 seconds then??

That way 9 gets their ad breaks, and we never have to sit through more than half a minute of a team dragging their feet to a kick off or drop out only to have the ref occasionally blow time out and at worst, give the kicker a hurry up.

A similiar shot clock on conversions would be nice too. Take it in the 1:30 offered or don't take it at all. Fining kickers is useless.


Funnily enough I have a feeling Bennett would not approve of such a rule change either. nor would many other coaches I'm sure.

 

[nqboy]

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.

OT but something I just thought of. If the game has to stop for an injured player, the rules should require that player to be subbed.

Remember Joey's clever gamesmanship (or cheating, whichever you prefer) in Origin a couple of years ago. He'd be less likely to do it if he had to be subbed and his team lost one interchange for that and another to get him back on the field.

It's not foolproof, players can have genuine "recoverable" injuries in positions that interfere with play. But it would be a tep forward IMO.

And BTW Quidgy, ask any boxer on the ropes, or any footballer gasping for breath about the difference an extra 15 seconds can make to their recovery.

 

[nqboy]

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2007/03/19/1091_cowboys.html

No surprise that the evaluation is little different from the coach that didn't need to find an excuse for losing.

Leigh

That's a cheapshot and one I thought would be beneath you. You forgot to mention Thurston conceding that the breaks did help his side at crucial times.

 

[nqboy]

From Q's link to the SMH article quoting the NRL (Annesley I think)
"The agreed commercial window is only for periods between a successful goal and a kickoff re-start."

Does that mean if he misses the kick, we don't get any ads?

 

[nqboy]

Why not increase that shot clock to 35 or 40 seconds then??

Funnily enough I have a feeling Bennett would not approve of such a rule change either. nor would many other coaches I'm sure.

Why do you think Bennett and the others would not approve?

30 was an arbitrary "round" figure I chose for the sake of argument. 35, 40, I'd have to look at some research to see what is average but I would not include the time where the fullback throws the ball into the crowd and the kicker walks away from the posts in my count. If it still came up at 35 or 40, I'd settle for that. I'm not married to 30.

 

[nqboy]

What "effect" did it have on friday nights outcome exactly??

Ask Thurston, he thought his side got the benefit of it.

Yup, just like we were taking 3 hours to watch 80 mins of footy in 06.

And I begrudged them every f*cking minute, the merkins. More often than not, I turned off and went to bed before the end. Ask their sponsors how they liked that.

Thats why I am so wrapped that we are now getting 160 mins in roughly the same amount of time. Not possible without a 10 second delay of a kick off every now and then.

Yes it is. Show a couple of replays, cut to the ad, come back and show me a replay of the kick and then the kick-off.

Its not really speculation that taking away a station's ability to advertise would reduce how much money they are willing to pay for the rights. Its common sense.

It's only the figure we're quibbling about. Until we know the figures, I can't make a call on which option I'd prefer so it's pure speculation.

Again, how did this effect the 2 friday night games or the sunday game shown in Rd 1?

Again, see above.

given that it has since come to light that the delays are only happening in between a conversion and kick off I really cannot grasp this momentum argument.

Either the team kicking off is in front, and will walk back much slower than the allocated 30 seconds anyway, or they are behind, and will benefit from time being stopped, and them getting a chance to set themselves for a short kick off instead of rushing it and botching it up.

I really can't see how either has much of an effect on the momentum of a game.

I think it is a self-evident truth. If you can't see it, I can't explain it to you because you just will not get it.

 

[Rocco]

its really annoying to have ads between a try/goal conversion and goal conversion/kick off. it puts the viewers off

Im not 100% about this but did anyone see any replays of the trys at home or did they just put ads on straight away after the try has been scored?

 

[Quidgybo]

its really annoying to have ads between a try/goal conversion and goal conversion/kick off. it puts the viewers off

I find the snap ad breaks between a try and conversion infinitely more annoying then those between conversion and kick-off. IMHO the conversion naturally sits as part of the segment of play with the try. You have the try, the replays with the crowd (and commentators) still buzzing in the background and then the conversion. After that is the natural place for an ad with everyone settling back down for the next segment of play on the return for the kick off. If for no other reason I support allowing a 30 second window after the conversion just to restore that natural flow of coverage. While the standard 30 sec spots physically fit between the try and conversion without any delay to the game on the field they just don't work for the coverage of the game. And while the spots don't always quite fit between the conversion and the kickoff, it's just the natural place for the break. I really don't see the compromise to allow them to fit in that space as that big a deal.

Leigh.

 

[Bengal]

It doesnt matter how it became good.

Right….if you don’t know how something is built, how do you expect to maintain, improve or troubleshoot your structure? Silly thing to say.

It matters how it will remain good.

Indeed, and that begs the question…who is more suitable to keep things on an even keel, those in the business or outside interests, in our case – media interests? Who does MacDonald’s turn to help improve its performance? Holden, Ford, Coke…who do they turn to Danish – media? Do they allow the media to tinker with their products? C’mon, it’s plain common sense, leave those in the ‘know’ to maintain the game, leave the media to do what they do best – present.

do you think anyone at a national or SOO level would continue to play league if their salary was half what could be had in England or Union?? I wonder how "good" the game would be if anyone with a scrap of talent left?

First off, we’re already in this situation anyway, the rah rah boys will get whatever man they want, and many League salaries in England are well ahead of us anyway. Your point is moot, not to mention the fact, that for a few dollars less we can maintain some measure of control of our sport – on-field wise.

Its not "just a few dollars". Its the NRLs primary source of income.

I’m not suggesting we ditch ALL TV income, I’m suggesting that for a few dollars less, we can maintain a semblance of control, we can avoid outside interests tinkering with the very “fabric” of our sport. Again, allow them this one time and you open the flood gates for them to make any manner of change that suits their interests, get that, their interests to our sport.

How do you think 9 makes money off the game if not through advertising? Hopes and dreams???

Learn to read Danish. Advertising income is a necessity, get that, a necessity, losing “control” of our game however, for a few dollars more – is stupidity, plain stupidity.

How exactly would we have had that without money?? What position are we in right now which means we dont need TV rights money??

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. Danish, if you think I advocate doing away with TV rights monies, then please, quote me, quote exactly where I’ve stated such intent. Failure to do so which simply showcase to us all your severe lack of comprehension, and dear I say it, penchant for ballyhoo.

Thats what Piggins and co said about PHaC and Crowe isn't it??

Tell me this Danish…are these guys advocating any changes to the on-field nature of our sport, and what are their chances of ramming through such change if they are. This is the point, the fact that media interests can tinker with the on-field nature of our sport, and do so rather easily to boot, that to me, is unbelievably alarming, and begs the question – what’s next…what will they want to do with our code next?



.