Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

weloveyouwakefield2

BBC coverage

56 posts in this topic

I quite like Crabtree, both on radio and tv, he is likeable and comes across as knowledgable but he needs to do what Terry O'Connor and Barrie Mac have done and clean up his diction. Wiv Eorl, there's too much fought and finking -  and this is pretty basic stuff for someone who wants to make a go of being on tv.

I couldnt disagree more, I feel crabtree is slipping into the mould of phil clarke, mcdermott, oconnor, john wilkin etc of trying to talk with a false persona instead of being natural...

if you have a northern accent be proud of it... dont change the way you talk because its how "society" expects it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not been mentioned on here yet, but I thought Ben Thaler's explanation of the VR decisions came across very well.  Gave a clear explanation of what he was looking for and how he arrived at the decision.  Far better than the Sky effort...... "and the decision is.....try"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldnt disagree more, I feel crabtree is slipping into the mould of phil clarke, mcdermott, oconnor, john wilkin etc of trying to talk with a false persona instead of being natural...

if you have a northern accent be proud of it... dont change the way you talk because its how "society" expects it!!

It isn't about his accent, it's about feeling comfortable enough to express yourself with umming and ahhing or falling back on cliches, which are just nervous fillers for inexperienced broadcasters. 

 

It is getting less common these days, but we've all seen plenty of RL players who wouldn't think twice about tackling a player twice their size, but looked terrified and were virtually monosyllabic when faced by the camera.

 

Eorl's relaxing more when on the spot these days. Even his posture is more laid-back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not been mentioned on here yet, but I thought Ben Thaler's explanation of the VR decisions came across very well.  Gave a clear explanation of what he was looking for and how he arrived at the decision.  Far better than the Sky effort...... "and the decision is.....try"....

 

Agreed. Ian Smith also does that role well. I really don't see what we gain from seeing the backs of the video refs stood in front of a screen as per Sky's coverage. And I think there was a decision the other week where Steve Ganson said something like it was a try because 'he got the ball down'. That really adds something. Of course Sky won't do the VR decisions like the BBC because they never thought of it first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Ian Smith also does that role well. I really don't see what we gain from seeing the backs of the video refs stood in front of a screen as per Sky's coverage. And I think there was a decision the other week where Steve Ganson said something like it was a try because 'he got the ball down'. That really adds something. Of course Sky won't do the VR decisions like the BBC because they never thought of it first.

Didn't Sky have a go at miking the VR once but had to drop it because someone in the OB truck was unable to control their potty mouth and the VRs mike was picking it up! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think R.L needs to get over itself when it comes to regional accents. No one gives a F anymore. Move on. Saying that though Stevo is a Dinosaur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think R.L needs to get over itself when it comes to regional accents. No one gives a F anymore. Move on. Saying that though Stevo is a Dinosaur.

 

its not about accents, its about clarity and fluidity.

 

A mumbled sentence strung together withe erms and yer knows is awful, whoever delivers it.

 

Commentators, presenters and pundits need to be clear and understandable, the accent isn't the issue. We have too many put in fron of cameras who can't string two words together without two erms and at least one you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldnt disagree more, I feel crabtree is slipping into the mould of phil clarke, mcdermott, oconnor, john wilkin etc of trying to talk with a false persona instead of being natural...

if you have a northern accent be proud of it... dont change the way you talk because its how "society" expects it!!

There's nothing wrong with the accent; it's the diction. The missuse 'V's and 'F's instead of 'TH occurs all over the country, so is far from regional. What it is, is just plain slovenly and it is easy enough to remedy. There is nothing wrong with speaking properly, it's just the same as washing your face and combing your hair.

 

If you couldn't add up you wouldn't expect a job in finance, and likewise, if you can't speak reasonably you shouldn't expect a job describing things on TV - remember this is national tv not the local news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason Robinson came across as quietly articulate during the Cup draw - well spoken without losing his accent.  I thought the draw was nicely presented; I'm so glad they don't do it on the Richard Bacon show now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Hunter-Paul I'm not a fan of. Him walking around the warm up pointing at players and staying the obvious about them inbetween 'uh, um'

Could be better utilised.

Yes, about 100,000 miles away to be precise. Cannot stand the arrogant man. So full of himself it comes out of his ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think mark Chapman is a brilliant rugby league presenter, liked Brian noble, eorl Crabtree, Tanya Arnold and Robbie hunter Paul. Why they persist with 'its simple' Jonathan Davies I don't know!!! If they got rid of him and had skys slicker and better edited coverage they would be out of this world! 7 out of 10...

Chapman is a BBC sports presenter who fronts RL not a RL presenter. He does have genuine affection and taste for the game but he'd be dragged off to front the golf and we'd be left with a make do and mend host at a moments notice if it suited.

Eorl Crabtree is still finding his feet and so far is doing a solid job.

Tanya Arnold comes across as a BBC NW regional reporter who has the same technique in reporting on a local bypass as she has in covering RL. Professional but just not engaging, RL is supposed to be entertainment after all.

Brian Noble is too boring.

JD regardless of his liking for and considerable pedigree in playing RL he is a face of current BBC RU. He even has his own RU chat show on S4C. Those more representative affiliations make him someone who is not first choice for selling the game nationally on the 5 or 6 occasions the BBC take to the RL field. If he wasn't employed to do the Union would he be doing the League, I doubt it. 

RHP frankly fronts the part of the broadcast which assumes RL was born yesterday. You'd struggle to find any equivalent to his role in other BBC football broadcasts. 

Andrew Henderson was a co commentator on R5 Salford v Hull a few weeks ago. Now he was excellent and as we saw with Vossy in the WC commentators can make the broadcast. Henderson certainly made that one.

How many of the crop can really be said to sell RL when they present it and is the lack of that approach good enough?

The reduced BBC coverage of the CC should speak volumes about their ambition and commitment to the sport. RL will absolutely be kept in its place by the BBC. which I hope is seen as a negative to those who extol the virtues of some of their approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JD regardless of his liking for and considerable pedigree in playing RL he is a face of current BBC RU. He even has his own RU chat show on S4C. Those more representative affiliations make him someone who is not first choice for selling the game nationally on the 5 or 6 occasions the BBC take to the RL field. If he wasn't employed to do the Union would he be doing the League, I doubt it. 

 

 

I think that's completely the wrong way round to be honest. If JD wasn't doing Union I still think he'd be doing League, but for the same reasons that he does do League - he doesn't fit the stereotype. OK, we all know the stereotype is just that, a stereotype, but the game doesn't have to play up to it.

 

Given League wants to grow, and the massive floating TV audience for the 6N, which doesn't as we know translate into union club gates, having JD doing both is absolute gold dust for the RFL. Why, because floating punters who haven't got a scooby what League even is (but whose knowledge of "rugby" is limited to the odd 6N match once or twice a year) have got a recognisable face and voice to hang on to when they stick the BBC on on a random saturday and see a league game. Most of them probably don't know that he played both codes, but they might just think, "well, if he's working on it, then it can't be that bad." Same with Brian Moore on the radio. Like it or not there needs to be a way in for people who haven't got the faintest idea who the other commentators are - like when Channel 4 took over the cricket (briefly), but still had Boycott. At least people know who he is.

 

Some of those people are going to get sucked in, then they'll start looking for it in the schedules, then they'll start looking for matches to go to, (and if they've got an expansion club near them so much the better).

 

But don't underestimate the value of turning on the television to see a sport you don't understand, between two teams whose kits you don't recognise (hell, you might not even be able to tell who they are from the abbreviations unless you know any RL towns off the top of your head), but seeing a good crowd/atmosphere in the ground and a voice you know and trust from another context doing the commentary.

 

Quite apart from anything else, it worked for me a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's completely the wrong way round to be honest. If JD wasn't doing Union I still think he'd be doing League, but for the same reasons that he does do League - he doesn't fit the stereotype. OK, we all know the stereotype is just that, a stereotype, but the game doesn't have to play up to it.

 

Given League wants to grow, and the massive floating TV audience for the 6N, which doesn't as we know translate into union club gates, having JD doing both is absolute gold dust for the RFL. Why, because floating punters who haven't got a scooby what League even is (but whose knowledge of "rugby" is limited to the odd 6N match once or twice a year) have got a recognisable face and voice to hang on to when they stick the BBC on on a random saturday and see a league game. Most of them probably don't know that he played both codes, but they might just think, "well, if he's working on it, then it can't be that bad." Same with Brian Moore on the radio. Like it or not there needs to be a way in for people who haven't got the faintest idea who the other commentators are - like when Channel 4 took over the cricket (briefly), but still had Boycott. At least people know who he is.

 

Some of those people are going to get sucked in, then they'll start looking for it in the schedules, then they'll start looking for matches to go to, (and if they've got an expansion club near them so much the better).

 

But don't underestimate the value of turning on the television to see a sport you don't understand, between two teams whose kits you don't recognise (hell, you might not even be able to tell who they are from the abbreviations unless you know any RL towns off the top of your head), but seeing a good crowd/atmosphere in the ground and a voice you know and trust from another context doing the commentary.

 

Quite apart from anything else, it worked for me a few years ago.

Well if JD was only doing RL I wouldn't feel the same about it. He was a top player and comes up with some good insights, he is a worthy character. But his main role is representing the other lot and it smacks too much of 2 for the price of 1 economizing on RL. 

 

i don't think there is any evidence to suppose JD's extra value for a floating audience. That floating audience wants to see an International shirt do anything. hence the interest in people sliding rocks across ice during the winter Olympics. I've watched his chat show, he doesn't get any RL in.....except once where he questioned his audience on who said the well known" RL is a simple game" quote, the one penned by Laurie Daley. Only JD laughed.

Lets remember The CC used to have a bigger audience than the other lot, mid 90's. About the time they curtailed coverage.

What would get the audience in is some mainstream TV that advertised the RL product they were showing. BBC obviously fails miserably on that front. As a media partner they has a poor history of promoting the game they are the ones defining it as an "in the North" programme after all.

 

 

Don't underestimate the power of familiarity, salesmanship and constant repetition in gathering folk round the tv that it what gathers a floating audience. The beeb won't do this for RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chapman is a BBC sports presenter who fronts RL not a RL presenter. He does have genuine affection and taste for the game but he'd be dragged off to front the golf and we'd be left with a make do and mend host at a moments notice if it suited.

Eorl Crabtree is still finding his feet and so far is doing a solid job.

Tanya Arnold comes across as a BBC NW regional reporter who has the same technique in reporting on a local bypass as she has in covering RL. Professional but just not engaging, RL is supposed to be entertainment after all.

Brian Noble is too boring.

JD regardless of his liking for and considerable pedigree in playing RL he is a face of current BBC RU. He even has his own RU chat show on S4C. Those more representative affiliations make him someone who is not first choice for selling the game nationally on the 5 or 6 occasions the BBC take to the RL field. If he wasn't employed to do the Union would he be doing the League, I doubt it. 

RHP frankly fronts the part of the broadcast which assumes RL was born yesterday. You'd struggle to find any equivalent to his role in other BBC football broadcasts. 

Andrew Henderson was a co commentator on R5 Salford v Hull a few weeks ago. Now he was excellent and as we saw with Vossy in the WC commentators can make the broadcast. Henderson certainly made that one.

How many of the crop can really be said to sell RL when they present it and is the lack of that approach good enough?

The reduced BBC coverage of the CC should speak volumes about their ambition and commitment to the sport. RL will absolutely be kept in its place by the BBC. which I hope is seen as a negative to those who extol the virtues of some of their approach. 

 

How on earth can we (as in collective RL fans or administrators) complain about reduced coverage of CC when we don't show up and many question the value of the CC nowadays and talk about changing format because of lack of interest.

 

It would seem to me that the BBC reflects the reduced  interest from fans.  So I would turn your comments around and say "the reduced attendance at CC speaks volumes about fans interest/commitment, etc etc.....

 

The BBC would increase coverage if they saw more interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you mean,but would ask consideration for this statement."the reduced attendance at CC speaks volumes for the effect of free-to-air coverage of games not included in the season ticket."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth can we (as in collective RL fans or administrators) complain about reduced coverage of CC when we don't show up and many question the value of the CC nowadays and talk about changing format because of lack of interest.

 

It would seem to me that the BBC reflects the reduced  interest from fans.  So I would turn your comments around and say "the reduced attendance at CC speaks volumes about fans interest/commitment, etc etc.....

 

The BBC would increase coverage if they saw more interest.

Well we can complain because the BBC have a licence fee so majority opinion does not have to rule. They are pushing women's soccer at the moment, that is not audience led, it is just a new corporate strategy. They reduce the RL because I assume it is in their interests. 

 

You can't have a game on the BBC and then be surprised why fans are not willing to pay twice plus all the extras. You've paid to see it on the Beeb but come on fork out another £50 and come over to the ground. Support costs and following just SL is heavy on the pocket.

 

You can turn my argument round but you will still be left with - What is the counter ploy to falling audience from the BBC? They are still defining RL as a Northern game. The company can't be all that interested in viewership if they artificially limit the exposure of the game on an antiquated notion that disadvantages their own programming. They can't react to reduced audiences with surprise when they minimise exposure in the first place.

And the BBC certainly did not increase coverage with the high interest in the 90's. It is only in 2012 that they made any effort to try and show the league season to a wider audience and then by showing sport in the afternoon opposite re runs of keeping up appearances when nobody is watching.

 

"The BBC would increase coverage if they saw more interest". Any proof of that? 

 

just as a side note , if anyone else noticed. The Saints v Leeds game had the BBC stats at half time. They must make them up as they go along. At half time they had a combined tackle count  of 136. Opta put the combine total for the match at 633. A hell of a game with 497 tackles in the second half. Clearly the BBC are using different methods to acknowledge the type of play than those used elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You can turn my argument round but you will still be left with - What is the counter ploy to falling audience from the BBC? They are still defining RL as a Northern game. The company can't be all that interested in viewership if they artificially limit the exposure of the game on an antiquated notion that disadvantages their own programming. They can't react to reduced audiences with surprise when they minimise exposure in the first place.

And the BBC certainly did not increase coverage with the high interest in the 90's. It is only in 2012 that they made any effort to try and show the league season to a wider audience and then by showing sport in the afternoon opposite re runs of keeping up appearances when nobody is watching.

 

 

But they're not defining it as a northern game though are they - when they cover the match on television it goes to every corner of the UK (except when the Scots are exercising their right to carry their own programming). The BBC can't be singlehandedly either responsible for doing the RFL's evangelising for it, or for holding the game back.

 

Arguably, it's precisely *because* they're not interested in viewers that they're still covering it. There aren't exactly other terrestrial braodcasters queuing up to carry it.

 

It's far more likely that they're defining it *as a sport of minority interest,* which, to be perfectly honest, every sport in the country is with the exception of football, and treating it accordingly. They lost, cricket, union, and almost all club football to other broadcasters who wanted to pay more.... At one point, they had Match of the Day off air for a couple of years because they didn't even have the football highlights!

 

And as for complaining about them sticking it on in the Saturday afternoon "graveyard" when no one is watching, well, they honestly can't win can they? That's when most sport happens. It's only in recent decades that braodcasters have been able to faff around with the fixture list to suit themselves. This is the BBC. It's covering RL terrestrially on tv when no one else is. They'd have a ruddy war on their hands if they bumped Tuesday night EastEnders say for a game which was going to get viewing figures of far less than watch the soaps.

 

The better alternative would probably be evening on ITV4, which no one watches anyway when it hasn't got the football, Union, or IPL on, but, they *are* beholden to advertisers to make a business case for their programming and, for the nth time on this forum, ITV4's interest in League appears to be conspicuous by its absence...

 

In an ideal world a terrestrial broadcaster would cover RL games free-to-air every week across the UK. Then an audience might build despite/regardless of anything the RFL try. This, however, is demonstrably not that world. Those who already like League can pay to watch as many games to their hearts content, and frankly it's good the BBC still show any of it, otherwise the problem would be *none* of the unconverted seeing the sport, not an argument over how many currently get the opportunity.

 

Until such time as the game can primarily through other means build a bigger fanbase to make the case for greater coverage of the Challenge Cup or putting the SL highlights on nationwide at prime time it's going to have to take its chances amongst F1, Wimbledon and athletics (and this year the FIFA world cup).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you mean,but would ask consideration for this statement."the reduced attendance at CC speaks volumes for the effect of free-to-air coverage of games not included in the season ticket."

 

you could be right but whatever the reason not many bother to turn up to CC games to convince a media company/BBC that their is much interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think iffleyox makes good points/comment.

 

I would also note that the BBC carry more RL than they do many other "minority" sports and not least they don't show much club rugby union either.   

 

Personally I think RFL/Superleague should have split the rights to games so that they could have superleague games on the BBC as well as Sky.  That way could have helped in promoting the game more but they chose to sell all to Sky, so I'm surprised the BBC make any effort at all. Paticularly as whatever they do with RL they get lots of moaning and can never do right - gosh yer still get complaints about their coverage with Eddie Waring. May as well save the licence monies in the cost of covering a RL game and use it elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they're not defining it as a northern game though are they - when they cover the match on television it goes to every corner of the UK (except when the Scots are exercising their right to carry their own programming). The BBC can't be singlehandedly either responsible for doing the RFL's evangelising for it, or for holding the game back.

 

Arguably, it's precisely *because* they're not interested in viewers that they're still covering it. There aren't exactly other terrestrial braodcasters queuing up to carry it.

 

It's far more likely that they're defining it *as a sport of minority interest,* which, to be perfectly honest, every sport in the country is with the exception of football, and treating it accordingly. They lost, cricket, union, and almost all club football to other broadcasters who wanted to pay more.... At one point, they had Match of the Day off air for a couple of years because they didn't even have the football highlights!

 

And as for complaining about them sticking it on in the Saturday afternoon "graveyard" when no one is watching, well, they honestly can't win can they? That's when most sport happens. It's only in recent decades that braodcasters have been able to faff around with the fixture list to suit themselves. This is the BBC. It's covering RL terrestrially on tv when no one else is. They'd have a ruddy war on their hands if they bumped Tuesday night EastEnders say for a game which was going to get viewing figures of far less than watch the soaps.

 

The better alternative would probably be evening on ITV4, which no one watches anyway when it hasn't got the football, Union, or IPL on, but, they *are* beholden to advertisers to make a business case for their programming and, for the nth time on this forum, ITV4's interest in League appears to be conspicuous by its absence...

 

In an ideal world a terrestrial broadcaster would cover RL games free-to-air every week across the UK. Then an audience might build despite/regardless of anything the RFL try. This, however, is demonstrably not that world. Those who already like League can pay to watch as many games to their hearts content, and frankly it's good the BBC still show any of it, otherwise the problem would be *none* of the unconverted seeing the sport, not an argument over how many currently get the opportunity.

 

Until such time as the game can primarily through other means build a bigger fanbase to make the case for greater coverage of the Challenge Cup or putting the SL highlights on nationwide at prime time it's going to have to take its chances amongst F1, Wimbledon and athletics (and this year the FIFA world cup).

In showing a Northern game on  national tv then they are making no overt definition of RL. But when they spend decades broadcasting RL as " in the North" and to the North as they still do now with the SLS then that is defining the RL as a Northern game. And in the world of BBC covered sport this approach is exclusively reserved for RL.

 

We don't know who would queue up for RL as it is not on offer or has ever been, at least to the best of my knowledge.

 

They may well be dedicated to classifying RL as minority interest, for whatever reason and in whoevers best interests.

 

I made no reference to Saturday afternoon, but mean't the weekday afternoons the SLS may or may not be shown to grandma's. I don't think keeping up appearances is shown on Saturday.

 

ITV 4 has some top films and re runs of the Professionals. That is sufficient to make it a credible channel. Clearly a lower profile than BBC but some RL ambition from the BBC is the best bet combined with an aggressive promotion campaign from the RFL.  ITV 4 could be a welcome supplementary partner but I'm not convinced that some broadcasters may not wish to consider RL out of obligations to the sports that already have their feet under the table. 

 

I don't think the RL should be grateful for scraps from the table. But you are prompting the idea that inspite of the BBC coverage RL must build a status that is unchallengeable by other means. Of course for decade after decade RL had that status, the top club rugby in the whole of Europe. Didn't stop Rugby Special advertising a game literally watched by one man and his dog. No "and now only in parts of the South" for that programme.

On our budget, with our media partners, well the RFL best spend all the RLWC £ on Tina Turner and her legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think iffleyox makes good points/comment.

 

I would also note that the BBC carry more RL than they do many other "minority" sports and not least they don't show much club rugby union either.   

 

Personally I think RFL/Superleague should have split the rights to games so that they could have superleague games on the BBC as well as Sky.  That way could have helped in promoting the game more but they chose to sell all to Sky, so I'm surprised the BBC make any effort at all. Paticularly as whatever they do with RL they get lots of moaning and can never do right - gosh yer still get complaints about their coverage with Eddie Waring. May as well save the licence monies in the cost of covering a RL game and use it elsewhere.

If they had split the SL rights with Sky and any other free-to-air terrestrial broadcaster, then Sky would have offered a lot less, I reckon.

 

Plenty of RL fans, espcially those feeling the financial pinch, would have gone with the option of having one free match to watch per week, regardless of the teams involved (I know I would), and cancelled their Sky Sport subscription. And RL gives Sky a very good number of subscribers compared to the money paid to the sport.

 

Sky may well have marginalised their RL coverage too. They value the word "exclusive" a lot, as has been shown with Test cricket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had split the SL rights with Sky and any other free-to-air terrestrial broadcaster, then Sky would have offered a lot less, I reckon.

 

Plenty of RL fans, espcially those feeling the financial pinch, would have gone with the option of having one free match to watch per week, regardless of the teams involved (I know I would), and cancelled their Sky Sport subscription. And RL gives Sky a very good number of subscribers compared to the money paid to the sport.

 

Sky may well have marginalised their RL coverage too. They value the word "exclusive" a lot, as has been shown with Test cricket.

 

Yep reasonable points... I guess it comes down to short term v mid to longer term perspective. The desperate need for monies today meant no real consideration of wider picture.

 

Although you don't have to package off too many games to try and create alternative TV audience that may help contribute towards growing the game. Also need to consider whether the numbers feeling the pinch will lessen over the next 6 years as the economy grows as distinct than just considering todays environment - whatever the situation better or worse the point is you need to consider broader that just today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mark chapman fine with brian noble but robbie paul walkabout is poor.

eddie talks far too much in commentary drives me nuts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mark chapman fine with brian noble but robbie paul walkabout is poor.

eddie talks far too much in commentary drives me nuts. 

You would have thought Robbie would have managed to position himself by now, wouldn't you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017