Jump to content
iangidds

New way of covering the game on Tv

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hemel Stag said:

Sky R.L. Coverage - Four things that could be changed to improve my enjoyment:

1.) Sound Quality - Commentators voices seem to be submerged in crowd noise. Much better on BBC coverage by comparison.

2.) Don't spend 45 mins talking before the game, Start the match a bit earlier and then talk about what actually happened afterwards

3.)  Make it more of a "Show"; would like to see what the Mascots are doing, Cheerleaders, Pyrotechnics etc

4.) Show more Championship matches.

I agree with this. Particularly points 2 and 4.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bolton Leyther said:

But player mics are, and always will be, s h i t.

Yes, and I am not interested in having crunching tackles amplified. I don't want RL developing into USA style NFL ! Tacklers need to use enough strength to halt their opponents and no more. I love to see an artful light and running game with lots of deft kicking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bolton Leyther said:

Unless you're privy to broadcasting budgets and production costs, the figures you've quoted are simply guesses. The problem is, though, even if those figures are relatively accurate, I doubt Super League has that money to spare and there's no incentive from Sky Sports to pay it because they have nothing to gain.

But you're absolutely bob on with your comments in the post above regarding the oversimplification (as is Jasper re. the “sports fan” struggling to follow proceedings because of the speed at which it all happens). No matter what we watch, we always engage more with what we're watching when we have a better understanding of what's going on. It's hard to maintain enthusiasm and interest in something when it's just an abstract thing. John Wells is very good at the post-match analysis but things need to be explained as they happen. If the commentators focused less on how to play the sport and more on how the sport is being played we might find people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in rugby league develop a curiosity towards it, resulting in a wider appreciation of the sport.

The costs of the hardware are pretty accurate (though obviously rounded up), the costs of actual production is a guess but that's simply because it would need to be decided how that would be done but im confident you could do it for those figures. 

Its not a massive amount, even at SL level, about 10% of the current tv deal, but there is incentive for Sky to pay for it, because that's what they currently do. Sky meet the costs of production, if SL were to do that then Sky would make a saving there. Largely it would be cost neutral to them and they would have the option, if they wished of buying more content. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The costs of the hardware are pretty accurate (though obviously rounded up), the costs of actual production is a guess but that's simply because it would need to be decided how that would be done but im confident you could do it for those figures. 

Its not a massive amount, even at SL level, about 10% of the current tv deal, but there is incentive for Sky to pay for it, because that's what they currently do. Sky meet the costs of production, if SL were to do that then Sky would make a saving there. Largely it would be cost neutral to them and they would have the option, if they wished of buying more content. 

What evidence do you have that your quoted cost of the hardware is accurate?

The only way it would be cost neutral to Sky Sports would be if the increase in the outlay for the production of a match was offset by an increase in either new subscriptions or viewing figures. I think that's unlikely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bolton Leyther said:

What evidence do you have that your quoted cost of the hardware is accurate?

The only way it would be cost neutral to Sky Sports would be if the increase in the outlay for the production of a match was offset by an increase in either new subscriptions or viewing figures. I think that's unlikely.

You misunderstand me Sky wouldn't be paying for the increase in outlay for match production, they would pay more for the rights because SL had taken in the costs for production. SL would taken the costs of match production  which would be met in part by the Sky, the benefit to SL would be try to create economies of scale to make games 3, 4 and 5 cost les per game, and then sell that content on to sky and other providers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hemel Stag said:

Sky R.L. Coverage - Four things that could be changed to improve my enjoyment:

1.) Sound Quality - Commentators voices seem to be submerged in crowd noise. Much better on BBC coverage by comparison.

2.) Don't spend 45 mins talking before the game, Start the match a bit earlier and then talk about what actually happened afterwards

3.)  Make it more of a "Show"; would like to see what the Mascots are doing, Cheerleaders, Pyrotechnics etc

4.) Show more Championship matches.

I hadn't really thought about it but you're right about the sound quality. There's something really weird about how the noises of the game, including the commentary, come across. Even with the noise it never feels like there's an atmosphere - and that creates the worst impression possible.

  • Thanks 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

I hadn't really thought about it but you're right about the sound quality. There's something really weird about how the noises of the game, including the commentary, come across. Even with the noise it never feels like there's an atmosphere - and that creates the worst impression possible.

Surely this must have something to do with the ridiculous volume levels of the ref's mike. When you're trying to make yourself heard over someone shouting Mooove every 10 seconds the rest of the audio will always sound quiet.

I've no idea why Sky and the BBC put the volume level of the ref's mike up so high. It really jars with me and I'd be quite happy to see it binned, or at the very least offered as a red button option instead.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lapsed Leeds Fan said:

Surely this must have something to do with the ridiculous volume levels of the ref's mike. When you're trying to make yourself heard over someone shouting Mooove every 10 seconds the rest of the audio will always sound quiet.

I've no idea why Sky and the BBC put the volume level of the ref's mike up so high. It really jars with me and I'd be quite happy to see it binned, or at the very least offered as a red button option instead.

Would no ref's mike and the crowd volume cranked up be better? The refs mike could still be used in replays if incidents if needed. I don't know how much we gain from the ref's mike throughout the game anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

You misunderstand me Sky wouldn't be paying for the increase in outlay for match production, they would pay more for the rights because SL had taken in the costs for production. SL would taken the costs of match production  which would be met in part by the Sky, the benefit to SL would be try to create economies of scale to make games 3, 4 and 5 cost les per game, and then sell that content on to sky and other providers.

But Sky Sports are in charge of the production, not Super League. Brian Carney, John Wells, Phil Clarke etc. are employees of Sky Sports, as are the operators of the cameras.

And if Sky Sports are being asked to pay more for the rights (which could only take effect after the present contract has expired) it wouldn't be cost neutral to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bolton Leyther said:

But Sky Sports are in charge of the production, not Super League. Brian Carney, John Wells, Phil Clarke etc. are employees of Sky Sports, as are the operators of the cameras.

And if Sky Sports are being asked to pay more for the rights (which could only take effect after the present contract has expired) it wouldn't be cost neutral to them.

Which is why I'm suggesting that SL take that on. The operators of the cameras are generally freelancers but there is no reason we would ge tied to them anyway.

Sky would ge paying more for the rights but saving on production costs. 

Additional costs to sky (or another broadcaster) would only come for additional content (content they wouldn't pay production costs for).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the oversimplification of the game in comparison to other sports, and that the speed of the contest allows little time for explaining the action to anyone, never mind those unfamiliar with the game.

I've been a fan all my life and still find the descriptions of how teams set up an attack or their defensive alignment fascinating when explained by an expert such as Tony Rea.

When they do the analysis in cricket in the indoor nets examining bowling and batting techniques, we should have similar inserts into the pre-game show explaining how each of the teams likes to put part of its game plan into action.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cookiepuss said:

I agree about the oversimplification of the game in comparison to other sports, and that the speed of the contest allows little time for explaining the action to anyone, never mind those unfamiliar with the game.

I've been a fan all my life and still find the descriptions of how teams set up an attack or their defensive alignment fascinating when explained by an expert such as Tony Rea.

When they do the analysis in cricket in the indoor nets examining bowling and batting techniques, we should have similar inserts into the pre-game show explaining how each of the teams likes to put part of its game plan into action.

They did recently do a masterclass type thing that was similar in format to the cricket series. Jamie Jones Buchanan presented it and I remember Kevin Brown did one of them. It seems to have died a death, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of the scrum have the option of a 7 on 7 play instead. The rest of the team have to start with one foot on the touch line. 2 ppl with one foot on the 10m in from touch line, play the ball 10m in from touch.  

GET RID of the scrum.

Edited by southwalesrabbitoh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, southwalesrabbitoh said:

Instead of the scrum have the option of a 7 on 7 play instead. The rest of the team have to start with one foot on the touch line. 2 ppl with one foot on the 10m in from touch line, play the ball 10m in from touch.  

GET RID of the scrum.

Haven't you had enough of this yet? It's not even on the right topic.


Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough I think Sky have started to take more care about explaining some of the complexities of the game via the Wells segment - plus Carney always speaks in a bit more detail as the presenter. 

The problem then is that the dumbness of filling the commentary box with the likes of Baz and Tez who bang on about big hits and shoulder charges then drags the IQ of the broadcast down by a substantial amount. Phil Clarke used to be a bit fresh and used to use stats, but even he has just dumbed down beyond belief. He picks up on one point and drills it home all game irresepctive of what happens on the field to make him look clever. A Hudds game on TV recently showed this when all he banged on about was how they score more down the right flank which is unusual. That is interesting enough to be mentioned once, maybe twice, but it became the theme of the game.

I think the broadcasts would benefit from clear lines and roles. It's just a bit of a mess at the moment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is too quick these days. The uninformed blink and miss it. 

To a certain extent players in football will miss passes galore and make mistakes, but I do not see it being very edifying in RL to have dropped balls etc being paraded around to show how bad we are because we rush around a lot.

To be fair, most of what the football that the public watch are edited highlights with all the boring and mistake ridden play cut out.

Those with a long memory will remember Sam Leach who could edit a miserable 0-0 draw on the early Match of the Days and turn it into world beating cliff hanger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...