NRL plans to drop draws

[El Duque]

You should be able to get NBN on the GC seeing they are licensed for that area. They tell me I pick up their signal by áccident'as the license for Tweed is held by NBN in Lismore.

 

[El Duque]

Oh and NBN have their own news which went from 6pm till 7pm NSW time. It usually goes from 6pm till 7pm in Qld time but not tonight.

Old wobble headed Munro who is usually shown at 7pm wasn't on. Bummer.

 

[Willow]

I tried all the usual channel surfing and switching from cable back to antenna but no dice. In frustration I decided to have a moan about it. Maybe if I had a booster or something... what am I talking about... I pay for it so I should be able to watch it.
Never mind, its just further proof that Ch 9 is crap- I don't think the anti-siphoning laws are the reason.

 

[El Duque]

"I don't think the anti-siphoning laws are the reason" You don't? Well this is from the ABA site The 'anti-siphoning' list is a list in a formal notice of events that should be available to viewers of free-to-air national or commercial television broadcasting services. It came about as a result of the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 Section 115 which allowed the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to formally list events that should be available on free-to-air television for viewing by the general public. Its purpose is to ensure that audiences have continued access to live television events traditionally seen on free-to-air television. The anti-siphoning rules prohibit pay TV licensees from acquiring the exclusive rights to broadcast these events, which should be freely available to the public.

 

[Willow]

Its purpose is to ensure that audiences have continued access to live television events traditionally seen on free-to-air television. The anti-siphoning rules prohibit pay TV licensees from acquiring the exclusive rights to broadcast these events, which should be freely available to the public.

When FTA will not show live events then it should be made available for Pay TV.Thats fair. More to the point, if Ch 9 cant show live sport then they should stand aside and let Ch 7 or the ABC have a go.
The anti-siphoning laws seem to bebenefitting Ch 9 more thangeneral FTA.

I understand what your saying but do you understand that Channel Nine has exclusive rights over certain sporting events which therefore makes itsdifficult for the public to view sport live.

I don't see Ch 9 allowing for 'continued access to live television events'. IMO, they hold something of a monopoly.
There are plenty of examples where FTA, ie Ch9, are not holding up their end of the bargain.

 

[imported_Noodles]

Agree 100% on that one Willow

If the FTA channel is not going to show all of the game live, then Pay TV should also have a chance to show the game.

I don't think that they should be able to get the game exclusively, but if Pay TV can guarantee coverage of the full days play, and want to get on board then that has got to be good for everyone (except Ch 9).

At the moment, anti-siphoning laws protect the FTA channels, not the consumers. I don't think this was the intention of this law.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

From my understanding of anti-siphoning legislation, if a FTA channel won't show an event that is covered by those laws, it must be offered to ABC or SBS. The PayTV carriers don't come into it. I believe the legislation was changed after the ashes fiasco a couple of years back (but dont quote me, ill rip open the book i have on it if need be)

Moffo

 

[Willow]

I'd say you're right Moffo... if Ch 9 can't show live sport then theorically, it gets offered to another FTA network. Sounds great but unfortunately it doesnt work that way in practice.

I think the Cricket broadcast you refer to was about 5 or 6 years ago when Australia were playing the West Indies in the West Indies... correct me if you're thinking of another series...
Anyway, most pundits thought this would be a history making Test series as Australia finally looked a chance of winning back the Sir Frank Worrell Trophy for the first time in a generation.
But Ch 9 refused to play it. This was despite it being on late at night and in no way a conflict with prime time.
Firstly, the ABC was offered the broadcast and then Channel 10. In the end, it was a a community TV station, Channel 31 who transmitted the crappy signal. I think Ch 10 eventually took on some of the broadcast as well. Anyway, we got to watch it but it was never a sure thing and the quality of the service was questionable.

There was talk of Ch 9 working behind the scenes tomake it difficult for other broadcasters and Ishould imagine it was a nightmare to get organised. Its no surprise that no other FTA broadcaster has made an effort to fill in ever since.

To continue with the point, if Ch 9 refuse to broadcast a live session for a Test match in Australia, according to the anti-siphoning laws, it should be made available to another FTA broadcaster...but again, this would be difficult. Ch9 have all the gear and all the access. The other broadcasters do not have the same access and even if they did, it wouldnt be cost effective to simply broadcast a single session of play.

So I guess, Ch 9 have the anti-siphoning laws by the short and curleys.

IMO, it makes more sense to de-regulate the broadcast rights and create open competition between FTA and Pay TV.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[Hass]

Canadian Steve asked earlier:

"A football draw is not the equivalent of a cricket draw; it is the equivalent of a tie in cricket. Could someone explain this comment please? In NA we use tie and draw interchangeably, with tie being a bit more common. eg, teams played to a 10-10 tie".

Tie and Draw can be used interchangeably in just about all sports excpet in cricket. Test Cricket is played over 5 days, and if no team has won after 5 days (by either scoring more runs than their opposition or dismissing their opposition for less runs) then the match is declared a draw.

A tie however could occur after just 4 days. This would be the case if in the final innings the runs scored were locked on the same amount when the batting side were fully dismissed ie. all 10 wickets taken by the fielding side.

This is so rare that there has only ever been 2 ties in Test Match cricket history. The first was in Brisbane in 1960 between Australia and the West Indies, while the second was in Madras between Australia and India during the 1986 series.

Here is a copy link to the 1960 scorecard for the First Tied Test. It might help you understand the concept a little easier:

http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1960S/1960-61/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T1_09-14DEC1960.html

Cheers.

 

[CanadianSteve]

Thanks, Hass. I think I get the general idea, but the scorecard was too confusing for me. I don't know enough about cricket to follow that scorecard.

 

[Hass]

Just try this then...

In Test Match Cricket each side gets two innings to bat.

In the First Innings the West Indies made 453 runs
In the First Innings Australia made 505 runs

In the Second Innings the West Indies made 284 runs
In the Second Innings Australia made 232 runs

Overall both teams made 737 runs.

You get 10 wickets (or outs) in every innings. Both teams used up all of their 10 wickets in their second innings ensuring that the match was over. With both teams on a combined total of 737 runs the match was declared a tie.

The difference however is this:

Australia lost their last wicket with about 5 minutes left in the day's play. If Australia had scored say 20 runs less (leaving them with an overall total of717) and manged to last those last 5 minutes without losing another wicket, then the match would have gone for a full 5 days without there being a result- and hence a draw.

Hope that goes some way to clearing things up further.

Cheers.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[Grubrunner™]

Willow posted on another thread: "There's a good thread on this subjectfloating around which got a good run some weeks back. I'll see if I can locate it."

I think this is the thread he is refering to.
Damn good discussion this one!

As for my $0.02 worth....
Vertigo made a good reply to this topic early on in this piece which made alot of sense:Message 7
I agree with him. Well said.

 

This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

 

[Willow]

Thanks Grubrunner, I got side-tracked last night. Cheers.

 

[TheSaint]

Well they finally passed it showing all the general traits of incompitence and lack of brain power you expect from Rugby Leagues Power Brokers.

First thing is, it is unnessisary and I don't see the point of it. After having good initiall support amoungst coaches, most changed their minds, or weren't fazed so the idea sohould have been put on the back burner.

Second thing is Draws haven't been scrapped as it is quite possible that two teams can play 10 minutes of Football with out scoring. Once that extra ten minutes is over, that's it. Draws are still possible, especially ifboth teams are pushing for a Field Goal. What is the point?

Third thing isthat an extra time Lossshould be worth more then aloss over 80 minutes and a Extra time win should be worth less then a regular time win.The thing is, it wont be. What ajoke!

It was a stupid idea to begin with. If they were going to implement extra time for regular season games, they could have at least done it properly. My interest in Rugby League is continually waneing. In fact, all I care about now is my (half) club, and Test Matches (where I refuse tosupport Australia because of the farcical selection criteria and wank factor).

 

[Willow]

At the risk of repeating myself, I say that the new system <u>does not</u> eliminate draws.
Furthermore, we will witness controversy and outcry with every manufactured'result' in 2003.

I still stand by my view that a draw <u>is</u> a result andany attempt to remove draws from premiership matches will see fans and players being the ultimate losers.

The plan will be dropped after one season.

 

[CanadianSteve]

A Toronto sports radio station had a discussion about various forms of overtime in NA today. The NFL is probably going to change its overtime so that both teams get at least one possession of the ball, as has been dicussed on one of the NFL threads. The Canadian Football League has an overtime similar to US college football. They give 1 point in the standings for an overtime loss, same as a tie used to be. An overtime win earns 2 points, same as a regular win. They are thinking of changing that to take away the point for the OT loss, making it the same as a regular loss. In the NHL in the regular season, they also give 1 point for an overtime loss, to encourage teams to go all out for the win in OT. They also remove a player from each team, playing 4 on 4 (plus the goalies) in order to make it a more offensive situation.

All 3 of these leagues used to have ties in the regular season. The different overtime systems they use have generally been well-received here. I think North American sports are not as reluctant to tinker with traditional rules as soccer and rugby are.

 

[imported_Reservoir Dog]

Good!
[url]http://www.nrl.com.au/s2002/news/static/article_5185.asp[/url]
Now let's bring it into the regular comp games.