The TV rights thread

[bobmar28]

We already have some games played under these rules. It's called the Heat rule, i think it's most games played in above 30 Degrees.

Although the quarter time breaks aren't as long as the NFL's.

Making all games into quarters similar to the NFL will take away from the game imo, the main reason why our game is so great is because its so fast and hard. Let's not slow it down.

What's the hurry? Do you have to be somewhere after the game?

 

[bobmar28]

I think a short break between conversions and kickoffs wouldn't be so bad. I could live with that for some extra cash, although I'd rather not.

A quarter time drinks break would be sh*t. It works in american football because each play is an individual set up already, there's no real break in momentum because it's already broken. And AFL is a spastic abortion of a sport, so forget them.

Let's think about the consequences of this to Rugby League. Your team makes a line break at 19:45 and gets tackled 10m out. The opposition team scrambles back just in time to stop an attacking raid down one side, but they are absolutely buggered and short on numbers down the other side, and your team has 3 tackles up their sleeve. Scoring is almost certain....then the buzzer calls quarter time. 2 minutes later you're in the same position, but the defense is refreshed, set and ready to go. No try.

No thanks. Massive momentum killer.

What about Quidgybo's conversion break then? Or as someone said, a break when the ref deems the game to be neutral.

 

[m0nty]

Id be happy with a game starting live but finishing on a 20 minute delay. That way it would allow the network to get some more ads in at natural intervals, making the broadcasting rights worth more to them.

Really? Most fans hate that. Betting companies hate it as well as it cuts down on the audience for live betting. Fans like to have the option of turning down the TV audio and turning up the radio.

Let's think about the consequences of this to Rugby League. Your team makes a line break at 19:45 and gets tackled 10m out. The opposition team scrambles back just in time to stop an attacking raid down one side, but they are absolutely buggered and short on numbers down the other side, and your team has 3 tackles up their sleeve. Scoring is almost certain....then the buzzer calls quarter time. 2 minutes later you're in the same position, but the defense is refreshed, set and ready to go. No try.

No thanks. Massive momentum killer.

This is the biggest problem with this proposal IMO. Rugby league is built on players tiring and line break appearing so that scoring can happen. The flow of the game is very important. Would you want games to have one or two less tries per match due to players not getting as tired?

Then again, rule changes tend to affect the game as coaches compensate. Similarly to how AFL players have slimmed down this year to take into account the speeding up of the game, maybe NRL clubs would pile more bulk on their players in training because they wouldn't have to worry as much about blowing up halfway through a defensive set? These things do have a tendency to balance themselves out.

 

[Quidgybo]

This is the biggest problem with this proposal IMO.

What you replied to is not the proposal. There would be no buzzer for quarter time at 19:45. The game would never stop on tackle three with your team on attack. The ref would call time off for two minutes when there is a natural break in play at some point after the 19 minute mark. The timing would be a scrum, a line drop out, a 20 meter tap or some other natural stoppage when the ball is already out of play and the defense can reset. The exact timing would be at the descretion of the ref with sympathy to the state of the game, not the clock. This is exactly what will happen this Friday in the Cowboys vs Broncos game and any other match played in overly hot conditions during the first few weeks. It's been in place for several years. The only suggestion here is that we consider whether we'd be willing to extend it to all matches if it would greatly increase our television rights.

Rugby league is built on players tiring and line break appearing so that scoring can happen. The flow of the game is very important. Would you want games to have one or two less tries per match due to players not getting as tired?

Reduce the number of interchange players to three and/or the number of interchanges to eight if it seems to be having an adverse affect that needs rebalancing. But as you point out, it may very well rebalance without further intervention.

Leigh

 

[Billythekid]

You could also call time off when the ball is out of play so there is actually 80 minutes of football. That might keep fatigue as a factor.

Having said that im not sure how much time that would add to the game so it might not be viable.

 

[Drax]

We dont need to slow down the game. Our game is superior as it is. Let our great product do the best it can while maintaining the integrity of the game.

 

[Billythekid]

We dont need to slow down the game. Our game is superior as it is. Let our great product do the best it can while maintaining the integrity of the game.

I do agree with this. Part of the reason our game rates so well is because its fast paced.

On the flip side this rule is already used in some games and not many people seem to care (and if they do they don't say anything) so it can't be to bad.

 

[m0nty]

What you replied to is not the proposal. There would be no buzzer for quarter time at 19:45. The game would never stop on tackle three with your team on attack. The ref would call time off for two minutes when there is a natural break in play at some point after the 19 minute mark. The timing would be a scrum, a line drop out, a 20 meter tap or some other natural stoppage when the ball is already out of play and the defense can reset. The exact timing would be at the descretion of the ref with sympathy to the state of the game, not the clock. This is exactly what will happen this Friday in the Cowboys vs Broncos game and any other match played in overly hot conditions during the first few weeks. It's been in place for several years. The only suggestion here is that we consider whether we'd be willing to extend it to all matches if it would greatly increase our television rights.

No matter when the delays happen, the effect would be to string the game out over time, thus allowing players more time to recover and recharge for the next contest. Extending a natural stoppage from 30 seconds to three minutes (for example) would help bulky forwards to recuperate in a manner that the game is not designed for.

Reduce the number of interchange players to three and/or the number of interchanges to eight if it seems to be having an adverse affect that needs rebalancing. But as you point out, it may very well rebalance without further intervention.

Leigh

One thing that the AFL has learned (but not fixed yet) is that when you're constantly fiddling with the rules, there are unintended consequences and it never stops, as you have to keep the plates spinning when there are knock-on effects from previous changes. Their rules committee is drunk with power these days and the fans are sick of it.

 

[Nerd]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...-tv-rights-booty/story-e6frepf6-1226018674832

"Demetriou conceded yesterday he was unable to guarantee he would successfully negotiate live Friday night football.
But he rejected suggestions the league would put cash before the coverage's quality.
"Live sport is what the world is demanding. What I will guarantee is there will never be better coverage and reach over every corner of the land after this broadcast deal is struck," he said. "Our key priority is to get the qualitative aspect right, even at the expense of more money."

Is Demetriou setting up for a "We didn't get 1 billion but we got more coverage" back flip or what!

Must be a worry for the afl. Every extra day with no announcement on the new TV deal makes that 1 billion dream look further and further away.

 

[El Diablo]

Interesting to see 7 are now suing 10 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-james-warburton/story-e6frg8mf-1226018948501

these two channels have to bid for the afl rights together

 

[Perth Red]

Real fight going on over the NRL game in Perth in June with Ch9 wanting it badly so they can run two live games on Friday night and Fox wanting it for super Saturday late live game. Shows what a Perth team could add to the TV deal if we get in.

 

[Raiderdave]

Real fight going on over the NRL game in Perth in June with Ch9 wanting it badly so they can run two live games on Friday night and Fox wanting it for super Saturday late live game. Shows what a Perth team could add to the TV deal if we get in.

yep

when the reds return
they will add an extra " live " time slot to 3 of the 4 broadcast days

the 2nd live Friday night slot can now be live not delayed
so 7.30 kick off over there & 9.30 here
the 3rd super saturday game can be live

& even the sunday afternoon 9 game can be live
2pm kick off ova there ... live into eastern seaboard lounge rooms at 4 leading into the news at 6
huge ... & worth mega bucks to the game

 

[BuffaloRules]

Gotta agree that the Reds are a must, and Im sure that the TV networks will be insisting that they get a team ASAP...

As mentioned above, on Sunday arvos they can play 2pm Perth time and be shown live as the FTA game at 4pm East Coast time, or they could even occasionally play 4pm Perth time and be shown live on Foxtel at 6pm East Coast time...

Triple headers on Sunday!

Maybe even a few times a year also include the Warriors kicking off at Midday, and you have got 8 hours of Sunday bliss... ( wont the missus be happy!).

 

[Billythekid]

Thats the best part about our upcoming expansions, they will all add to our tv deal (they won't tank in the ratings like the new AFL teams will).

The reds in particular have a lot to offer.

That plus there is an actual demand for the team and it isn't just being forced on areas the NRL wants.

 

[El Diablo]

Gallop talks expansion 9 minutes into this http://austereo.castmetrix.net/podcast/378302368699184555/1/TheGrillTeamTripleMsFridayFootyForum.mp3

 

[Desert Qlder]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...-tv-rights-booty/story-e6frepf6-1226018674832

"Demetriou conceded yesterday he was unable to guarantee he would successfully negotiate live Friday night football.
But he rejected suggestions the league would put cash before the coverage's quality.
"Live sport is what the world is demanding. What I will guarantee is there will never be better coverage and reach over every corner of the land after this broadcast deal is struck," he said. "Our key priority is to get the qualitative aspect right, even at the expense of more money."

Is Demetriou setting up for a "We didn't get 1 billion but we got more coverage" back flip or what!

Must be a worry for the afl. Every extra day with no announcement on the new TV deal makes that 1 billion dream look further and further away.

Demetriou seems to be getting a little restless now. Suggestions all over the media in Vic that the afl is considering a ten team final series with their new clubs included have ruffled many feathers. Seems he's looking at ways to pinch every little penny.

Guess that's what you have to do when you don't have Origin or any meaningful International competition.

 

[docbrown]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/commission-hits-125m-pothole/story-e6frg7mf-1226020015849

Meanwhile, the NRL is investigating the feasibility of introducing specialised stoppages in play as it looks to make the game more attractive to television and to keep pace with the AFL over broadcasting rights.
It is understood the idea is being driven by consultancy firm LEK, which has been hired by the NRL to help maximise revenue from the next television deal.
The breaks would be tailored around existing stoppages such as dropouts and conversions and would guarantee broadcasters the opportunity to sell advertising with a greater level of certainty.
The issue for the NRL is making sure the game doesn't lose its level of attrition. It is a difficult balancing act given the need for the game to secure a windfall from its next television contract.
"We are working with LEK and the club reps on our broadcasting committee to look at innovations that will be attractive to the networks and therefore help deliver the lucrative rights deal that we expect to get for the game," NRL chief executive David Gallop said.

 

[Goddo]

Thats the best part about our upcoming expansions, they will all add to our tv deal (they won't tank in the ratings like the new AFL teams will).

The reds in particular have a lot to offer.

That plus there is an actual demand for the team and it isn't just being forced on areas the NRL wants.

True, but the NRL needs to expand where it thinks there is the best long term returns for the game.

No good just bringing teams in higgaldy piggaldy based on the "superior" bid on the day - it has to make sense in the wider scheme of the NRL as a whole. Location is important and can't be ignored as an issue.

 

[Billythekid]

True, but the NRL needs to expand where it thinks there is the best long term returns for the game.

No good just bringing teams in higgaldy piggaldy based on the "superior" bid on the day - it has to make sense in the wider scheme of the NRL as a whole. Location is important and can't be ignored as an issue.

Thats pretty much what i was saying. Whether the NRL chooses to go with a Perth, Brisbane, CC or NZ team we know there is a demand for it rather than just forcing a team on an area like the AFL.

They all have benefits for the future of the NRL as well.

 

[El Diablo]

you should listen to the Triple M podcast. doesn't sound like the other clubs are really interested in expansion and Gallop doesn't either