Opinion 2018 Non-Crows Discussion - Part 2: Tom Doedee, Rising Star Nominee & Port's New Major Sponsor

[Geoffa32]

Small form factor cameras are unsuitable for broadcast.

Broadcast slow motion cameras are upwards of $100,000 each

It is a billion dollar industry.

Surely they can spend about $5 to $10m across the league to get this right.

Or do away with the review system all together.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Scorpus]

It is a billion dollar industry.

Surely they can spend about $5 to $10m across the league to get this right.

Or do away with the review system all together.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

They probably could but clearly they don't want to for something that happens once per match (if that)

 

[Rotayjay]

What I find infuriating is the commercialisation of the game. All the Toyota logos everywhere and even branding on the footballs themselves.

This is overkill.

The Telstra logos on the arcs and the Toyota logos in the goalsquare are silly, but what really shits me are the ad boards - their movements are well and truly overkill. I get that the purpose of an ad is to be seen, but the way they jump around is essentially a big '**** you' to the game and the viewer. 'Don't even look at the game, look at meeeeee'

 

[GreyCrow]

The Telstra logos on the arcs and the Toyota logos in the goalsquare are silly, but what really shits me are the ad boards - their movements are well and truly overkill. I get that the purpose of an ad is to be seen, but the way they jump around is essentially a big '**** you' to the game and the viewer. 'Don't even look at the game, look at meeeeee.'

There was one that annoyed me and it should annoy the company because I truly dont recall the name, but I thought flash bombs or people started taking thousands of pictures at the same time.

Very distracting and annoying and as noted a waste of money as I have no recall

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

They probably could but clearly they don't want to for something that happens once per match (if that)

And yet the goal review system gets brought up as a negative almost every single week.

 

[Scorpus]

And yet the goal review system gets brought up as a negative almost every single week.

Personally I think they should just get rid of the goal review. It's too expensive to do it properly so just don't have it at all.

 

[Godallblighty]

I tipped Brisbane today. The only one in my comp who did so

I tipped em too. So close, and yet....

 

[Geoffa32]

They probably could but clearly they don't want to for something that happens once per match (if that)

How much do the NBA and NFL spend getting their review systems to work?

We won't need to spend as much as they have. However if you are going to bring in such a system, you should take it seriously and get the best tools to implement the rule.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[pmar]

How much do the NBA and NFL spend getting their review systems to work?

We won't need to spend as much as they have. However if you are going to bring in such a system, you should take it seriously and get the best tools to implement the rule.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Isn't the problem that, like cricket with DRS, its currently the broadcasters responsibility to provide the cameras and infrastructure?

 

[MarcusP2]

How much do the NBA and NFL spend getting their review systems to work?

We won't need to spend as much as they have. However if you are going to bring in such a system, you should take it seriously and get the best tools to implement the rule.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

NBA and NFL are covering much smaller areas with cameras much closer to the action.

 

[mistylake]

The Telstra logos on the arcs and the Toyota logos in the goalsquare are silly, but what really shits me are the ad boards - their movements are well and truly overkill. I get that the purpose of an ad is to be seen, but the way they jump around is essentially a big '**** you' to the game and the viewer. 'Don't even look at the game, look at meeeeee'

Pretty distracting when going for goal you’d think.
I’d like to see them at golf and tennis tournaments. Those primmadonnas can’t even handle someone eating a packet of crisps.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Personally I think they should just get rid of the goal review. It's too expensive to do it properly so just don't have it at all.

I mean, it's not like the AFL can make use of high quality slow-motion camera for any other purpose that would enhance the viewing experience.

Considering some of the crap that the AFL spend money on, I think investing the money to get the goal reviews right is well worth the expenditure.

 

[Geoffa32]

I mean, it's not like the AFL can make use of high quality slow-motion camera for any other purpose that would enhance the viewing experience.

Considering some of the crap that the AFL spend money on, I think investing the money to get the goal reviews right is well worth the expenditure.

If we can't get it right, scrap it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[SugarShane]

What I find infuriating is the commercialisation of the game. All the Toyota logos everywhere and even branding on the footballs themselves.

This is overkill.

I wouldn't mind if it contributed to cheaper days at the footy. But when the cheapest seat at a Crows game is $44 and a Coke and burger sets you back the best part of $20, it's pretty annoying to then be bombarded with ads for 3 hours too.

Advertisers, thanks to my day out at the footy I have no money left to spend on your products. Especially the Funeral Services place whose name I can't remember right now that was on the LED ad boards a few times Saturday night, because there's no better place to start thinking about funeral services than a night at the footy.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I tipped em too. So close, and yet....

I wish I'd known that beforehand haha!

 

[mistylake]

View attachment 493418

A lot to like about this latest Squiggle. Port missing the 8, Melbourne missing the 8, Carlton getting the spoon....only bad thing is having to play the Hawks at the G in a final.

Let’s see how their Round 8 predictions go.
Especially the margins.

 

[arrowman]

Pretty distracting when going for goal you’d think.

I thought that last week when JJ was kicking for goal at the southern end. Three bands of moving / flashing lights in his face. Now maybe you could say "meh, that's his job, there's crowd noise and people waving flags and stuff" but really - would it be so bad to turn off the ads for 30 seconds when there's a set shot?

Oh, wait - that's when they get their maximum exposure.

 

[arrowman]

because there's no better place to start thinking about funeral services than a night at the footy.

That ad was running at the wrong AO home game

 

[GROTTO]

And again, they don't have many of them because they are very expensive

Lets face it when technology becomes cheaper and cheaper, this will be standard practice in all AFL games probably within 5-10 years.

One day in the future we will look at the review system being so primitive with technology that is being used today.

 

[arrowman]

Small form factor cameras are unsuitable for broadcast.

True, but at the same time the footage from a goal review camera doesn't have to be broadcast quality (admittedly it does have to be suitable for a big enough display for the reviewer to see detail).

Just as a hypothetical: Let's assume you can get a suitable camera for $20K. I think you'd need at least 4 at each end of the ground - 2 fixed on the goal line* and another 2 under manual direction following the play up to say 30m from goal.

(The manually directed cameras don't have to be producing pretty, well framed images for broadcast, just following the ball from a couple of angles.)

That's 8 cameras x 9 games = 72 cameras x $20K = $1,440,000. Plus operating costs including the manual camera operators.

Which is very doable IMO, but as has been said above, if you can't get it right, don't do it at all, and the same principle applies to a large outlay like this. Spend up to $2 mill on cameras just for goal reviews, and people will be expecting perfection.

* In theory you could get away with one camera on each behind post, trained inwards to cover the whole goal line and therefore able to detect e.g. mark or behind as well as goal reviews. But the goal posts would then get in the way of some shots. Put a camera inside each of the 4 posts and the total cost is now over $2 mill.

 

[PCORF]

Rance more important than Martin

Let’s see how their Round 8 predictions go.
Especially the margins.
View attachment 493559

I reckon Carlton will finally win this weekend.

 

[arrowman]

Let’s see how their Round 8 predictions go.
Especially the margins.
View attachment 493559

The Port logo that Squiggle uses looks like a Renault badge

 

[Scorpus]

True, but at the same time the footage from a goal review camera doesn't have to be broadcast quality (admittedly it does have to be suitable for a big enough display for the reviewer to see detail).

Just as a hypothetical: Let's assume you can get a suitable camera for $20K. I think you'd need at least 4 at each end of the ground - 2 fixed on the goal line* and another 2 under manual direction following the play up to say 30m from goal.

(The manually directed cameras don't have to be producing pretty, well framed images for broadcast, just following the ball from a couple of angles.)

That's 8 cameras x 9 games = 72 cameras x $20K = $1,440,000. Plus operating costs including the manual camera operators.

Which is very doable IMO, but as has been said above, if you can't get it right, don't do it at all, and the same principle applies to a large outlay like this. Spend up to $2 mill on cameras just for goal reviews, and people will be expecting perfection.

* In theory you could get away with one camera on each behind post, trained inwards to cover the whole goal line and therefore able to detect e.g. mark or behind as well as goal reviews. But the goal posts would then get in the way of some shots. Put a camera inside each of the 4 posts and the total cost is now over $2 mill.

There would be lots of additional costs aside from just the cameras. Setting up the infrastructure alone to support an additional 4 slow motion cameras would be a small fortune.

And even then, $20k is extremely optimistic for a broadcast suitable camera. I know you say it doesn't need to be "broadcast quality" but it does need to fit into a broadcast production workflow and that requires specific broadcast features. $20k for that sort of camera and supporting hardware would be a bloody steal; we're more talking like $200k.

I think we're more looking like this: $200k per camera x 4 per venue x 6 venues* = $4.8 million + $1m infrastructure + $1m yearly operating costs. So around a $6m initial outlay + $1m per year to run the system

*separate cameras needed for MCG, Etihad, Optus, AO and then shared between Gabba/Metricon and Spotless/SCG

That said the AFL did make $650m in revenue last year with a $49m profit

 

[Next Gen Rookie]

True, but at the same time the footage from a goal review camera doesn't have to be broadcast quality (admittedly it does have to be suitable for a big enough display for the reviewer to see detail).

Just as a hypothetical: Let's assume you can get a suitable camera for $20K. I think you'd need at least 4 at each end of the ground - 2 fixed on the goal line* and another 2 under manual direction following the play up to say 30m from goal.

(The manually directed cameras don't have to be producing pretty, well framed images for broadcast, just following the ball from a couple of angles.)

That's 8 cameras x 9 games = 72 cameras x $20K = $1,440,000. Plus operating costs including the manual camera operators.

Which is very doable IMO, but as has been said above, if you can't get it right, don't do it at all, and the same principle applies to a large outlay like this. Spend up to $2 mill on cameras just for goal reviews, and people will be expecting perfection.

* In theory you could get away with one camera on each behind post, trained inwards to cover the whole goal line and therefore able to detect e.g. mark or behind as well as goal reviews. But the goal posts would then get in the way of some shots. Put a camera inside each of the 4 posts and the total cost is now over $2 mill.

There's only *6 grounds being used for the week's 9 games, so the cost could reduce there.

But 17 different venues throughout the season (could move 1 set of cameras from say Ballarat, to use in China, to then use in NT)

 

[Runnin Blue]

Small form factor cameras are unsuitable for broadcast.

Broadcast slow motion cameras are upwards of $100,000 each

I’m not talking about a pinhole camera here. These particular cameras are probably the size of a tennis ball.

Why would it be unsuitable for broadcast exactly? The AFL already broadcast footage from some goal line cameras that are clearly of a lower quality than the regular cameras.