Bennett slams TV stoppages

[Quidgybo]

Well I was at the game and I was spared the problem of networks doing my thinking for me.

Once again, you are getting decisions made on the field mixed up with those broadcaster's decisions made off the field.

With respect, you need to consider the arguments. You seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to miss the point.

Not at all. I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree in this instance. I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Not only am I not letting the networks do my thinking for me, I'm also not letting my preconceived notions and indoctrinated dogma about what might be good or bad for the game dictate my evaluation of this particular change. Generally (not absolutely) I don't believe in absolutes. The world just isn't black and white. Everything TV networks request (or even dictate) is not necessarily bad, not every decision by David Gallop has been wonderful, the Bulldogs are not all rapists (or angels), News Ltd are not the best thing since sliced bread and the ARL doesn't necessarily have to run the game. Based on the merits of this change, I just don't think 15 second delays three or four times per half are that big a deal. Especially when balanced against live FTA coverage in primetime every week where not a second of action is missed. It's peanuts.

Leigh.

 

[Bengal]

Yeah, right, imagine the uproar if in that 15 seconds of missed play, there is a line break by Karmichael Hunt, he runs the length of the field and scores a try under the black dot, and the TV coverage returns just in time to see the ref blow his whistle and point at the spot.

Given what you've posted (further down) that the so-called average restart time is between 25-40 secs, then you'll miss diddly squat, certainly, nobody on the face of this earth can run the length of a football field in five seconds (which is the least amount of time we'll miss according to the article).

They've tried that before. Whenever they miss action on the field showing live games, they get a massive number of complaints.

We have "regular" live free-to-air League for the first time....this is all new to us, henceforth, new things must be tried, but not to the game, to TV viewers expectations yes, but not to the on-field nature of our sport...don't mess with the sport - especially non-league folk.

Not only am I not letting the networks do my thinking for me, I'm also not letting my preconceived notions and indoctrinated dogma about what might be good or bad for the game dictate my evaluation of this particular change.

It's common sense, that's all it is...few businesses allow media or outside interests to tamper with their product or service, the ole saying, give em an inch....

Let them f**k around with how they present the game, but not with the game itself - that's the bottom line.

I just don't think 15 second delays three or four times per half are that big a deal. Especially when balanced against live FTA coverage in primetime every week where not a second of action is missed. It's peanuts.

It's peanuts for now...you seem to have insight - what's next on "their" agenda?

.

 

[Calculus]

Personally I'd rather they just had longer breaks after conversion kicks (say a minute or two) rather than these 15 second breaks when the ball goes into touch. But I don't think it's a big issue really.

 

[Quidgybo]

Personally I'd rather they just had longer breaks after conversion kicks (say a minute or two) rather than these 15 second breaks when the ball goes into touch.

According to the NRL statement issued on Saturday that *is* exactly how it does work - delays in restarts after kicks at goal only. Is anyone here saying that's not how it worked on Friday and that there were television dictated delays at other times? Or are we just flying off the handle on misinformation?

Ad breaks during game telecast OK: NRL

March 17, 2007 - 4:59PM

The NRL insists stoppages to allow for commercial breaks during the live television coverage of Friday Night Football will not affect the flow of the game.


Brisbane Broncos coach Wayne Bennett accused rugby league officials of "tampering with the fabric of the game" after being left frustrated by stoppages in Friday's 23-16 opening-round loss to North Queensland at Suncorp Stadium.


"I hope that's the last we see of it," fumed Bennett.


"Of course it's worrying, every time they do that, they are playing with the fabric of the game."


"When you have the opposition down and on the rack, it gives them time to recover. An extra 30 or 40 seconds is a huge recovery time."


But in a statement on Saturday, the NRL said the agreement with host broadcaster the Nine Network only applied to re-starts, with games not to be stopped at any other time for advertising breaks.


"The contracts which came into force this year allowed the network a 30-second window between the signal of touch judges flags after a successful conversion and the ensuing kick off," the statement read.


"The agreed commercial window is only for periods between a successful goal and a kickoff re-start.


"There is no suggestion of play being stopped at any other time for advertising breaks."


While both Bennett and Cowboys coach Murray said they knew nothing about the stoppages, the NRL said they had been reported in the media last year.


"The arrangements are similar to those used in a number of sports both in Australia and internationally," the statement continued.


"These arrangements were agreed to as a way of ensuring that the game could move to live telecasts on Friday evening, in particular, and it will be standardised throughout Nine's games.


"This was agreed to only after extensive research showed that the vast majority of restarts took at least 30 seconds regardless of the telecast requirements.


"Where for any reason the mandatory 30 seconds now agreed to proves to be a shorter period than the game naturally dictates, then the referee signals time off, ensuring that teams do not lose any playing time."


The NRL said it would work with Nine to ensure the 30-second window began at the precise moment a touch judge signals a goal to ensure the game is not further delayed.


"Both the NRL and Channel Nine accept that round one was the first use of this new procedure and that every effort must be made to ensure that it does not delay play."

© 2007 AAP

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Ad-breaks-during-game-telecast-OK-NRL/2007/03/17/1174080214325.html

Leigh.

 

[Bengal]

According to the NRL statement issued on Saturday that *is* exactly how it does work - delays in restarts after kicks at goal only. Is anyone here saying that's not how it worked on Friday and that there were television dictated delays at other times? Or are we just flying off the handle on misinformation?Leigh.

This is a media dictated decision. It stands to reason that if you allow them to tamper with the on-field nature of League (as opposed to presentation only) then the likelihood of them being able to tamper with other on-field aspects of this sport in due time is only a matter of "when".

There is no misinformation or irrationality to this conclusion, it is simple reasoning based on every day experiences.

.

 

[nqboy]

Would you rather the people watching at home miss out on the acion?

No, I'd rather Nein shorten their ads so they don't interfere with play or cut their ads to return to the footy.

 

[Danish]

'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?

It doesnt matter how it became good. It matters how it will remain good. The only way its going to do that is with money.

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?

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?

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

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!

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

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!

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

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

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

 

[nqboy]

LOL @ Wayne. If you were a man of your word, you'd also laugh at your pathetic self. :lol:

LOL @ OVP. Those grapes are really sour, aren't they?

 

[nqboy]

You can't really complain, the game would have been delayed by 1 hr if it was played last year, and those who only had free to air would only have seen 2 NRL games on TV all weekend. If getting an extra LIVE game on FTA every week means having slight delays (or missing a few tackles) due to ads, then so be it. As long as the delays are reasonably placed in the coverage. Scrums, restarts etc. seem appropriate.

Or missing the odd try, which has happened in the past. Or missing a dropped ball from the restart, coming back and wondering why the other team is in possession, which has also happened.

To me it's all about managing the ads to fit the footy, not the other way round. I wouldn't mind a replay of the conversion if they wanted to show a few replays after a try and then cut to ads, returning for the kick-off.

 

[nqboy]

Would you rather a maximum 30 second delay and be guaranteed not to miss any of the action while they play a single ad or a 1 hour delay where they squeeze 5 minutes of ads every break?

It comes down to the timing of the ads. What happens when the stick on two ads, as they have done often enough in the past?

I agree with Bennett that it tears at the fabric of the game. Just cos the AFL do it doesn't mean we have to. A team can be on the rack and gain an extra few seconds to get their breath back. It can change the whole game.

The solution lies in the editing and cutting to ads. The director must know about footy and, on the evidence I've seen, often they don't have a clue.

 

[nqboy]

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.

Good post, I totally agree. You're improving Willow

 

[nqboy]

Keep the game moving, if we miss a scrum feed watching at home, so be it.

As long as Ch 9 are sensible about where to place adds we won't miss more than a tackle or two. Also provides more encouragement to go out and attend games when possible.

Think about this statement of yours and reconcile it to TFS.

 

[nqboy]

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.

I was actually going to post that I don't recall Gallop mentioning the change while he wa going on and on about what a good deal he got when he re-signed Nein without talking to the other channnels. But I'll take you at your word and accept that it was announced. So what that it's taken 6 months for us to complain? We've just seen the effect of it, something so much clearer than talking about it in the abstract.

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

That doesn't make it right. I can't stand gridiron and one of the most annoying things about it (and their basketball) is that it takes four hours to watch a one hour game.

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??

I'd be happy if they talked to the other stations and got the best deal offered. In any case, that decision could only be made when we had two offers to compare, one with the stoppages and one without, complete with the dollar differences. Until we know that, your point is pure speculation.

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

Well, unlike you, I don't claim to speak for everyone else but I'm often applauding the NRL for the decisions that I make that I agree with so, no, that's not the case with me. My difference with the NRL is that I don't have an agenda. I want what's best for Rugby League, not what's best for Rugby League within the paramaters of what's imposed on us by News and Nein.

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.

Read the thread. Momentum changes can change the game and it can't be so easily cast aside with "it works both ways".

 

[nqboy]

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.

Well, you're an idiot then. But we already knew that I guess.

BTW, Bennett has plenty of form for bagging things out when he's won. He must have, in all the whinging and all the winning he's done, at some point, you would think the two came together. You're giving him far too much credit saying he's the best at whinging. The coaches we have make it a world-class field.

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).

And that 10 seconds can make a world of difference to a player or team struggling for breath.

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.

So it's just a case of where we draw the line then? Fine, I draw it at no interruption to the game.

 

[Danish]

I was actually going to post that I don't recall Gallop mentioning the change while he wa going on and on about what a good deal he got when he re-signed Nein without talking to the other channnels. But I'll take you at your word and accept that it was announced. So what that it's taken 6 months for us to complain? We've just seen the effect of it, something so much clearer than talking about it in the abstract.

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

That doesn't make it right. I can't stand gridiron and one of the most annoying things about it (and their basketball) is that it takes four hours to watch a one hour game.

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

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.

I'd be happy if they talked to the other stations and got the best deal offered. In any case, that decision could only be made when we had two offers to compare, one with the stoppages and one without, complete with the dollar differences. Until we know that, your point is pure speculation.

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.

Read the thread. Momentum changes can change the game and it can't be so easily cast aside with "it works both ways".

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

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.

 

[nqboy]

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.

Setting aside the momentum argument for a moment, do you honestly think that this is anything less than the thin end of the wedge? That Nein won't dictate other changes in the future if it suits them? The post about stopping the game so Reg the Flight Steward could interview a key player is not fantasy, not to these mongrels. If they think if will work for them, they will "ask" for it and the NRL, being the spineless wonders they are, will concede to their "request".

 

[nqboy]

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 mone.

Define "massive".

 

[nqboy]

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

You're wrong. It's wrong and it's the thin end of the wedge.

 

[nqboy]

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"??

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.

 

[Ziggy the God]

I don't want the game stopped for ad breaks, it really is the thin edge of the wedge.

That said, it is even worse that I am going to miss some play because of an ad.

Also, I don't want to go back to an 8.30pm kickoff, it is the absolute pits.

The way around it is quite simple:

Go to an ad break (straight away) when the try is awarded by the officials. By the time the ad is over, they can cross back to the kicker converting. In between the conversion and kick-off they can show a quick reply of the try.

You can wait until half time/fulltime to see all of the other angles in relation to the tries.