News Insightful and Inciteful - 2022 Media Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

5. No excuse for TV commentary cost-cutting anymore​

2020’s COVID pandemic, and the state border closures that ensued, forced TV and radio stations to think outside the box – literally.

For the first time, commentators were forced to call the game off screens in studios half a country away from the action, in so doing losing the feel and vibe of the game only possible to get a sense of live.

Veteran commentator Gerard Whateley spoke to Ashley Browne in his book, AFL 2020: A season like no other, describing the situation as ‘unfulfilling’.

“You were hostage to what was on screen,” Whateley said.

“If it wasn’t on screen you couldn’t call it, you couldn’t pre-empt it, and there was less to work with. It was unfulfilling to be honest.”

Yet two years on, and with no border closures to speak of, Fox Footy look to be regularly choosing to broadcast games with a commentary team based in a Melbourne studio – and it stinks.

It was most apparent in Adelaide’s clash with Fremantle on Sunday afternoon. Say what you will about Kelli Underwood’s commentary, but not even Dennis Cometti could have dealt with that situation and produced his best work. Little wonder Michael Frederick’s wonder goal wasn’t given a call to match.


I can understand the penny-pinching, given the world – and presumably Fox too – are still recovering from the financial hit of the pandemic. But you can’t tell me there aren’t a group of South Australia-based commentators free and willing to step in.

Equally, if Channel Seven can send a full team up to Brisbane to cover their game – and as a side note, Alistair Nicholson made an excellent debut as a TV AFL caller on Saturday night – then the onus is on Fox to do likewise.

To stick with what is currently being served up is an insult to fans of interstate clubs, who deserve to have their games brought to them with the same quality and devotion to coverage as Melbourne fans get.

I’ve never heard of Tim Miller in my life, but he makes a series of great points in that article.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

They’ve put about as much analysis into the Rioli decision i reckon. Gerard Whateley going on about how the jury got it so wrong … maybe it’s because they bothered to look at the other camera angle, Gerard? The one that clearly shows him going for a mark? I’m guessing you’re probably going off the still images.
Yeah he was. Even got the producers to flick the stills back from the one WC used at the tribunal to one that showed Willies hip and Rowells head touching, as if that wasn’t hypocritical.
 
Side note. Is there any websites or journalists I should be jumping on for unbiased AFL News?

I haven’t committed to it yet but Code Sports looks promising and more often than not the mongrel punt is pretty good
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)


5. No excuse for TV commentary cost-cutting anymore​

2020’s COVID pandemic, and the state border closures that ensued, forced TV and radio stations to think outside the box – literally.

For the first time, commentators were forced to call the game off screens in studios half a country away from the action, in so doing losing the feel and vibe of the game only possible to get a sense of live.

Veteran commentator Gerard Whateley spoke to Ashley Browne in his book, AFL 2020: A season like no other, describing the situation as ‘unfulfilling’.

“You were hostage to what was on screen,” Whateley said.

“If it wasn’t on screen you couldn’t call it, you couldn’t pre-empt it, and there was less to work with. It was unfulfilling to be honest.”

Yet two years on, and with no border closures to speak of, Fox Footy look to be regularly choosing to broadcast games with a commentary team based in a Melbourne studio – and it stinks.

It was most apparent in Adelaide’s clash with Fremantle on Sunday afternoon. Say what you will about Kelli Underwood’s commentary, but not even Dennis Cometti could have dealt with that situation and produced his best work. Little wonder Michael Frederick’s wonder goal wasn’t given a call to match.


I can understand the penny-pinching, given the world – and presumably Fox too – are still recovering from the financial hit of the pandemic. But you can’t tell me there aren’t a group of South Australia-based commentators free and willing to step in.

Equally, if Channel Seven can send a full team up to Brisbane to cover their game – and as a side note, Alistair Nicholson made an excellent debut as a TV AFL caller on Saturday night – then the onus is on Fox to do likewise.

To stick with what is currently being served up is an insult to fans of interstate clubs, who deserve to have their games brought to them with the same quality and devotion to coverage as Melbourne fans get.

Discussion about to send or not send commentators from Melbourne assumes that the only commentators with any knowledge come from Melbourne. There are retired players in all the footy cities. No-one can tell me not one of them is any good as a commentator. And I'll bet a few would jump at getting a gig in the media. But no, we have to send (or not) the wise men from Melbourne.
 
Discussion about to send or not send commentators from Melbourne assumes that the only commentators with any knowledge come from Melbourne. There are retired players in all the footy cities. No-one can tell me not one of them is any good as a commentator. And I'll bet a few would jump at getting a gig in the media. But no, we have to send (or not) the wise men from Melbourne.
And Pav (and his wife)
 
Id say your best bet is to watch the games you want... on mute... then come to Bigfooty and discuss.

Dont give ch7 or FOX Footy or Vic shit papers/websites the time of day

They have ruined the enjoyment of the game.

I blame social media too. Dont go on twitter after something even a little controversial has happened... its like a flood of idiots
 
Id say your best bet is to watch the games you want... on mute... then come to Bigfooty and discuss.

Dont give ch7 or FOX Footy or Vic sh*t papers/websites the time of day

They have ruined the enjoyment of the game.

I blame social media too. Dont go on twitter after something even a little controversial has happened... its like a flood of idiots

Its A Trap GIF
 

The league’s decision not to appeal Willie Rioli case adds to MRO confusion, writes Mark Robinson​


Glenn Archer had a major issue averted on Wednesday.

Frothing about Tuesday night’s tribunal hearing debate, Archer said that if Willie Rioli was suspended, he would’ve given up watching AFL.
That would’ve created problems, seeing as his son Jackson is playing at the Kangaroos, but the point was Archer was incensed with the commentary that Rioli should’ve been suspended for his hit on Matt Rowell.

“There’s no chance in hell that is a suspension,’’ Archer said.
Adding further to the tribunal fall-out, Archer believed Mitch Robinson, who received a week for the front-on collision with Port’s Xavier Duursma, should’ve been let off.

And to add further confusion surrounding head-high hits and who is and who is not playing the ball, Carlton great Mark Maclure was adamant Rioli should’ve been suspended.
But he agreed with Archer on Robinson.
The AFL ruled out appealing the tribunal’s decision on Rioli.

It was an odd position from the AFL because it officially disagreed with the tribunal’s findings, yet the league ruled out an appeal because it believed it would likely lose the case.

It’s odd because the AFL has stressed the importance of process and systems in a decision made by three men on a tribunal. But it is a decision the AFL admitted it didn’t like.

So what’s more important: The process or the correct decision?

Surely the standard bearer for head-high contact and all its consequences is the AFL and not three part-timers who sit every four weeks.
Who is running the competition — an independent tribunal or the biggest dog in the fight, the AFL?

The majority of the football world is understandably confused.
That includes the Brisbane Lions who also ruled out appealing the Robinson decision.
Archer acknowledged Rioli turned in the air when attempting to mark, but said Rowell also had to take blame for the collision.
“Willie’s running to mark the ball, Rowell is running back with the flight and Willie really can’t see him until the last thousandth of a second … so what’s he supposed to do?’’ Archer said.

“What everyone is trying to say is that when the ball is kicked, you’ve got to stop, look around, make sure no one’s coming and then make a decision whether you can mark the ball or not … WTF.

“The bloke who did the wrong thing was Rowelly running back with the flight of the ball.
“It was fantastic, but if you’re going to run with the flight, and if you can’t jump and turn yourself, that’s on you. And with 35 other people on the ground running around like cut cats, someone is probably going to run into you, so you have to cop that one.

“Willie can’t stop, he’s going to mark the ball, he doesn’t know the other bloke is running back with the flight. It happens so quickly.
“Then I have to listen to people tell me what he should or shouldn’t be doing. I’m sorry, but unless you’ve put yourself in that situation, not once but a lot of times, you actually don’t know what happens.
“It’s like you’re running for the ball (Rioli) and ‘s***, where did he (Rowell) come from’?”

Maclure said the Rioli decision was a “disgrace’’ and said he now had more questions than answers about protecting players’ heads.
“Willie didn’t touch the ball, he didn’t go for the ball at the end, and he’s taken the other bloke out … and it’s the other bloke’s fault?’’ Maclure said.
“Willie jumped, then saw him and then turned to protect himself. How did he get off?’’
Maclure was aware the tribunal ruled that Rioli was contesting the ball.

“OK, that’s their argument, move on,’’ he said.
“And you are allowed to turn the body to protect yourself, but if you hit them in the head, aren’t we protecting the head?”
The Lions were adamant Robinson had no case to answer and they had support from both Malcure and Archer.
“He bumped his shoulder, didn’t he? Aren’t you allowed to hit shoulder to shoulder?’’ Maclure said.
Archer argued that because Robinson stopped instead of barreling through Duursma, the AFL rules were working.
“Three or four years ago he would’ve smashed that bloke,’’ Archer said.

“But he stopped and thought, ‘I can’t run through him’, so he stopped and protected himself and still got a week. It’s crazy.
“The rules we are putting in place are working and well done Mitch for stopping. Although he (Duursma) got hurt a little bit, he could’ve got hurt really bad. Mitch should be applauded.’’
 
Last edited:

The league’s decision not to appeal Willie Rioli case adds to MRO confusion, writes Mark Robinson​


Glenn Archer had a major issue averted on Wednesday.

Frothing about Tuesday night’s tribunal hearing debate, Archer said that if Willie Rioli was suspended, he would’ve given up watching AFL.
That would’ve created problems, seeing as his son Jackson is playing at the Kangaroos, but the point was Archer was incensed with the commentary that Rioli should’ve been suspended for his hit on Matt Rowell.

“There’s no chance in hell that is a suspension,’’ Archer said.
Adding further to the tribunal fall-out, Archer believed Mitch Robinson, who received a week for the front-on collision with Port’s Xavier Duursma, should’ve been let off.

And to add further confusion surrounding head-high hits and who is and who is not playing the ball, Carlton great Mark Maclure was adamant Rioli should’ve been suspended.
But he agreed with Archer on Robinson.
The AFL ruled out appealing the tribunal’s decision on Rioli.

It was an odd position from the AFL because it officially disagreed with the tribunal’s findings, yet the league ruled out an appeal because it believed it would likely lose the case.

It’s odd because the AFL has stressed the importance of process and systems in a decision made by three men on a tribunal. But it is a decision the AFL admitted it didn’t like.

So what’s more important: The process or the correct decision?

Surely the standard bearer for head-high contact and all its consequences is the AFL and not three part-timers who sit every four weeks.
Who is running the competition — an independent tribunal or the biggest dog in the fight, the AFL?


The majority of the football world is understandably confused.
That includes the Brisbane Lions who also ruled out appealing the Robinson decision.
Archer acknowledged Rioli turned in the air when attempting to mark, but said Rowell also had to take blame for the collision.
“Willie’s running to mark the ball, Rowell is running back with the flight and Willie really can’t see him until the last thousandth of a second … so what’s he supposed to do?’’ Archer said.

“What everyone is trying to say is that when the ball is kicked, you’ve got to stop, look around, make sure no one’s coming and then make a decision whether you can mark the ball or not … WTF.

“The bloke who did the wrong thing was Rowelly running back with the flight of the ball.
“It was fantastic, but if you’re going to run with the flight, and if you can’t jump and turn yourself, that’s on you. And with 35 other people on the ground running around like cut cats, someone is probably going to run into you, so you have to cop that one.

“Willie can’t stop, he’s going to mark the ball, he doesn’t know the other bloke is running back with the flight. It happens so quickly.
“Then I have to listen to people tell me what he should or shouldn’t be doing. I’m sorry, but unless you’ve put yourself in that situation, not once but a lot of times, you actually don’t know what happens.
“It’s like you’re running for the ball (Rioli) and ‘s***, where did he (Rowell) come from’?”

Maclure said the Rioli decision was a “disgrace’’ and said he now had more questions than answers about protecting players’ heads.
“Willie didn’t touch the ball, he didn’t go for the ball at the end, and he’s taken the other bloke out … and it’s the other bloke’s fault?’’ Maclure said.
“Willie jumped, then saw him and then turned to protect himself. How did he get off?’’
Maclure was aware the tribunal ruled that Rioli was contesting the ball.

“OK, that’s their argument, move on,’’ he said.
“And you are allowed to turn the body to protect yourself, but if you hit them in the head, aren’t we protecting the head?”
The Lions were adamant Robinson had no case to answer and they had support from both Malcure and Archer.
“He bumped his shoulder, didn’t he? Aren’t you allowed to hit shoulder to shoulder?’’ Maclure said.
Archer argued that because Robinson stopped instead of barreling through Duursma, the AFL rules were working.
“Three or four years ago he would’ve smashed that bloke,’’ Archer said.

“But he stopped and thought, ‘I can’t run through him’, so he stopped and protected himself and still got a week. It’s crazy.
“The rules we are putting in place are working and well done Mitch for stopping. Although he (Duursma) got hurt a little bit, he could’ve got hurt really bad. Mitch should be applauded.’’
Sounds like Robbo wants to get rid of an independent tribunal.
WTF?

Might as well just let him and Gerard decide the penalty on a Monday night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top