Channel 7's coverage.....

[saintspremiers]

Apart from Kingy's busted Hammy, the only other disappointing thing about the game was Channel 7's pathetic coverage.

Talk about B-grade amateur hour!

Hardly any stats during the game on screen, Timmy has no friggin clue about anything (ie King injury), no meaty stats apart from the end of the game, bugger all!

I reckon channel 31 would do as good a job as Channel 7.

[Thinline]

Buckley aside (who sounds embarrassed half the time) it is seriously appallling. MacAvaney is terrible, Commetti is a cliche and Watson is just plain old dense...Imagine not mentioning the absence of a farking injured RUCKMAN for two quarters...Sweet Jesus...

[Enrico_Misso]

PATHETIC !

That overhead shot was like looking at ants.
They kept switching from the wing camera to the one behind the goals so you were never quite sure which way we were kicking.

Rubbish coverage.

And who was that clown in the embedded in the Port box ?

[OneEyedSainter77]

Appalling camerawork, appalling commentary and appaling coverage.

[SaintDebi]

PATHETIC !

That overhead shot was like looking at ants.
They kept switching from the wing camera to the one behind the goals so you were never quite sure which way we were kicking.

Rubbish coverage.

And who was that clown in the embedded in the Port box ?

Funny you should make that comment about ants. I commented during the game that if I wanted to watch ants I'd buy an ant farm. The Ch 7 camera work is pathetic. Completely missed showing a shot at goal by Roo at one point.

[saint66au]

Its not the camerawork....its the direction.

Frankly I think they have too many cameras and feel compelled to use them all as often as possible...for as short amount of time as possible. This results in constant "crossing the line" ie taking shots of a player from opposite sides of the ground consecutively, making it look like hes turned and faced the other way when hes actually standing still. Its a cardinal sin in drama as its very disorienting. Lost count of the amount of times Seven do it

Also....when you are replaying a mark or free and you hear the ump call "Play on!!" DITCH THE BLOODY REPLAY AND GO BACK TO LIVE ACTION!!

Bruce n Dennis were sooo tiresome by the end. They lost interest in the actual game after 1/2 time and just blathered on about irrelevant nonsense. Bruce is at his best in close games. During blowouts you get the feeling he'd rather be at Morphetville or Flemington

Buckley and Matthews were excellent, they cut thru the comedy show and at least tried to keep the discusssion on the play as it unfolded

Loved the evil "get outta my chair" stare that Cripper gave Bruce Abernathy in the Port box at 1/4 time lol. Wasnt that insightful having him in there...NOT

[OneEyedSainter77]

Its not the camerawork....its the direction.

Frankly I think they have too many cameras and feel compelled to use them all as often as possible...for as short amount of time as possible. This results in constant "crossing the line" ie taking shots of a player from opposite sides of the ground consecutively, making it look like hes turned and faced the other way when hes actually standing still. Its a cardinal sin in drama as its very disorienting. Lost count of the amount of times Seven do it

Also....when you are replaying a mark or free and you hear the ump call "Play on!!" DITCH THE BLOODY REPLAY AND GO BACK TO LIVE ACTION!!

Bruce n Dennis were sooo tiresome by the end. They lost interest in the actual game after 1/2 time and just blathered on about irrelevant nonsense. Bruce is at his best in close games. During blowouts you get the feeling he'd rather be at Morphetville or Flemington

Buckley and Matthews were excellent, they cut thru the comedy show and at least tried to keep the discusssion on the play as it unfolded

Loved the evil "get outta my chair" stare that Cripper gave Bruce Abernathy in the Port box at 1/4 time lol. Wasnt that insightful having him in there...NOT

Spot on. The whole post is actually spot on Michael. Still, if their crappy coevrage is showing a great St Kilda win - I ain't complaining..... much.

[Griggsy]

well there was also the nauseating AAMI signs.

[falka]

Channel 7 is a joke.

They never show live football.

I'm sick of this near live bull sh*t that demitriou craps on about.

We should all ring 7 send emails etc, show some live footy before Finals.

Between now and the finals, you will not see one live game on 7, surely this is a sick joke, They are absolutely pathetic.

Don't worry about how bad commentry is, you can turn this down, but because they aren't live, they are a joke.

I'm so angry, let foxtel have it live, to think you can't see live football (when interstate at least) despite the big dollars is appalling.

Boo to 7

Boo to AFL for not enforcing live footy

Can everyone ring or email 7 and AFL every day for the rest of the year, lets be heard, give us what we deserve.

Go Saints

[bergholt]

How does the telecast of a football game finish at 11:30pm? Ridiculous.

And yeah, how did they miss Blake going into the ruck? I was asking the question straight away. And they showed Dawson going down hard and grimacing - then forgot about it completely. Maybe they should have followed it up?

Yes, they lost interest in the second half, but didn't we all? I'm not so annoyed about that.

I think they're very good with overall tactics, but they don't do the basic things well.

[bendigo bob]

One word sums up channel 7's broadcast - Shizenhouse!! and I dont care who correts the spelling.

[Beej]

The one thing that really annoys me about 7's coverage...

After a goal is kicked the commentary team begin to analyse it and it is here when you start to think, "ok, they're staying with the coverage and they're not going to break for a commercial"

And then they break for a commercial. 7 is the only station that does this. On the others they break immediately after the goal.

This bother anyone else? Anyone else even notice this about channel 7??

[ozrulestrace]

Not that Channel 10 is any better.
Their coverage in the sports news for last night's bulletin was nil.
Not a cross to the game, anything about the weather and the influence it may have on the game -nothing
It was all about the Anzac Day game, blah blah blah and all the other games.
Only mention of the Saints was Garry Davey talking about the odds for TAB Sports Bet.

It was like there was no game on last night.

No good enough Channel 10.

As for Seven's coverage-nothing has changed since they were awarded the rights.

[yipper]

Happy that Lethal and Bucks are on there as they actually talk about the game and analyse it pretty well. All the ad breaks were damned annoying and the different camera angles. However, in some of the wide angle shots you do get the picture of how the Saints set up all over the field when they havent got the ball, they really do close of all the options for their opponents to move the ball forward. Fascinating.

[Liam_G]

The one thing that really annoys me about 7's coverage...

After a goal is kicked the commentary team begin to analyse it and it is here when you start to think, "ok, they're staying with the coverage and they're not going to break for a commercial"

And then they break for a commercial. 7 is the only station that does this. On the others they break immediately after the goal.

This bother anyone else? Anyone else even notice this about channel 7??

You'll find that they do this because the football they are showing is not live. I hate the fact Channel 7 do not show live football, but to be honest, what you said above is the only consolation I feel we actually get with their delayed football coverage.

During the telecast, the ad break is called and taken directly after each goal. But the commentators will continue to discuss/show replays during the ad break due to the same telecast being used for break-free Fox Sports replays, name-a-game DVDs etc. They can't have silence for 30 seconds.

But, due to their delayed telecast, they actually air some/most/all of this discussion/replays and then insert the ad break afterwards. If they were showing it live, the ad break would be directly after each goal and we would not get this discussion/replays, as we would come back from the 30 second ad break at the centre bounce.

As I said, I would much rather enjoy live football and I wish Channel 7 would do so, but at least we get a bit more after-goal coverage due to the delayed nature of the telecast. A minuscule consolation in my books, but a consolation none the less.

[Beej]

The one thing that really annoys me about 7's coverage...

After a goal is kicked the commentary team begin to analyse it and it is here when you start to think, "ok, they're staying with the coverage and they're not going to break for a commercial"

And then they break for a commercial. 7 is the only station that does this. On the others they break immediately after the goal.

This bother anyone else? Anyone else even notice this about channel 7??

You'll find that they do this because the football they are showing is not live. I hate the fact Channel 7 do not show live football, but to be honest, what you said above is the only consolation I feel we actually get with their delayed football coverage.

During the telecast, the ad break is called and taken directly after each goal. But the commentators will continue to discuss/show replays during the ad break due to the same telecast being used for break-free Fox Sports replays, name-a-game DVDs etc. They can't have silence for 30 seconds.

But, due to their delayed telecast, they actually air some/most/all of this discussion/replays and then insert the ad break afterwards. If they were showing it live, the ad break would be directly after each goal and we would not get this discussion/replays, as we would come back from the 30 second ad break at the centre bounce.

As I said, I would much rather enjoy live football and I wish Channel 7 would do so, but at least we get a bit more after-goal coverage due to the delayed nature of the telecast. A minuscule consolation in my books, but a consolation none the less.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Channel 10 doesn't do this though, and 9 didn't do this whenever they had the rights.

It's just that for my whole life I've known that if they begin analysing a goal they were going to stay with coverage and if they were going to break for a commercial, they would do it immediately after the goal.

Nowadays they begin to analyse the goal, I'll settle in getting ready for the next bounce, and then BANG, they go to a break.

I just find it frustrating.

Couldn't they break immediately after the goal, come back and analyse the goal before the bounce?

[Liam_G]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Channel 10 doesn't do this though, and 9 didn't do this whenever they had the rights.

It's just that for my whole life I've known that if they begin analysing a goal they were going to stay with coverage and if they were going to break for a commercial, they would do it immediately after the goal.

Nowadays they begin to analyse the goal, I'll settle in getting ready for the next bounce, and then BANG, they go to a break.

I just find it frustrating.

Couldn't they break immediately after the goal, come back and analyse the goal before the bounce?

I agree, Channel 7 definitely do it differently to the other networks. When Network 10 show a delayed coverage, they do not treat their viewers with such contempt and actually show it in as much "real-time" as possible, meaning usually 30 second ad breaks, directly after goal and then directly back into the centre bounce. Channel 7 seem to treat viewers like we don't know any better.

I'd rather they did as you said too, break immediately then back to discuss and show replays and wait for the bounce. It would make more sense. But unfortunately C7 and "make sense" have never really gone together too well.....

[duckduckduckgoose]

seven spent all its $$ on getting the rights, and is now using the television equivalent of 2 tin cans and a piece of string to broadcast it.
terrible.

[Enrico_Misso]

So given they had the "luxury" of being able to add extra commercials etc because it wasn't live -
why did they still miss passages of play ?

eg after Roo got clobbered they showed a few replays of the thuggery.
Then they went back "live" and Port were running the ball out of the backline.
I still have no idea what happened to Roo's free kick.

That is just bad coverage.

[JohnE]

Well at least you don't have to wait until 11.30pm (Qld) for channel 7 to begin showing the game!! I thought I was living in 1956, listening to the game on the 'wireless'....

[saint66au]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Channel 10 doesn't do this though, and 9 didn't do this whenever they had the rights.

It's just that for my whole life I've known that if they begin analysing a goal they were going to stay with coverage and if they were going to break for a commercial, they would do it immediately after the goal.

Nowadays they begin to analyse the goal, I'll settle in getting ready for the next bounce, and then BANG, they go to a break.

I just find it frustrating.

Couldn't they break immediately after the goal, come back and analyse the goal before the bounce?

I agree, Channel 7 definitely do it differently to the other networks. When Network 10 show a delayed coverage, they do not treat their viewers with such contempt and actually show it in as much "real-time" as possible, meaning usually 30 second ad breaks, directly after goal and then directly back into the centre bounce. Channel 7 seem to treat viewers like we don't know any better.

I'd rather they did as you said too, break immediately then back to discuss and show replays and wait for the bounce. It would make more sense. But unfortunately C7 and "make sense" have never really gone together too well.....

Part of the reason the AFL have allowed the extra time after a goal is to allow the networks to show replays as well as a 30 sec ad. AFAIK in "near-live" games (Fri night, Sat night) they are not allowed to make breaks after goals longer than they are naturally at the ground. Channel 10 did it in 2002 in the infamous draw v Sydney at the Dome, when only 4 goals were kicked in the first half. It was noticed by viewers and the AFL kicked em in the bum.

[SaintWodonga]

As a former TV cameraman who has filmed many many hours of footy, I see a lot of people mistake bad camera work for bad directing.

Last night the camera selection by the director was very poor indeed.

Yes channel 9 was better, but they gave Rugby League prefrence north of the border, for nine to get it back they have to work out a better situation north of the border. Maybe use one the secondary channels that free to air TV have access to.

[SaintDebi]

As a former TV cameraman who has filmed many many hours of footy, I see a lot of people mistake bad camera work for bad directing.

Last night the camera selection by the director was very poor indeed.

Yes channel 9 was better, but they gave Rugby League prefrence north of the border, for nine to get it back they have to work out a better situation north of the border. Maybe use one the secondary channels that free to air TV have access to.

Not singling out cameramen for bad work. Just expressing frustration at Ch 7's coverage in general.

[saintspremiers]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Channel 10 doesn't do this though, and 9 didn't do this whenever they had the rights.

It's just that for my whole life I've known that if they begin analysing a goal they were going to stay with coverage and if they were going to break for a commercial, they would do it immediately after the goal.

Nowadays they begin to analyse the goal, I'll settle in getting ready for the next bounce, and then BANG, they go to a break.

I just find it frustrating.

Couldn't they break immediately after the goal, come back and analyse the goal before the bounce?

I agree, Channel 7 definitely do it differently to the other networks. When Network 10 show a delayed coverage, they do not treat their viewers with such contempt and actually show it in as much "real-time" as possible, meaning usually 30 second ad breaks, directly after goal and then directly back into the centre bounce. Channel 7 seem to treat viewers like we don't know any better.

I'd rather they did as you said too, break immediately then back to discuss and show replays and wait for the bounce. It would make more sense. But unfortunately C7 and "make sense" have never really gone together too well.....

Part of the reason the AFL have allowed the extra time after a goal is to allow the networks to show replays as well as a 30 sec ad. AFAIK in "near-live" games (Fri night, Sat night) they are not allowed to make breaks after goals longer than they are naturally at the ground. Channel 10 did it in 2002 in the infamous draw v Sydney at the Dome, when only 4 goals were kicked in the first half. It was noticed by viewers and the AFL kicked em in the bum.

If the AFL kicked the networks in the bum it was a best a negligent, low impact and body contact, at best a reprimand, or nothing at all for good behaviour!

If Dimwit was fair dinkum, he'd have FORCED all interstate games featuring Vic clubs to broadcast LIVE into Melbourne, end of story.

Does he really believe that for the half a dozen games per year that it would mean such a huge drop in bidded rights??

Surely it's a small price to pay to keep the supporters on side!

[sunsaint]

I am not sure which planet I was on but..
channel 9 games werent live anymore than 7/10
The commentary team basically moved from 9 to 7
9 had advert breaks after goals.
Prime time evening games will always have more adverts
If you want to hear the commentary between goals, you have to get fox.

NEVER I repeat NEVER
give Nine the rights while Maguire is still around. And you can throw in Brian "collingwood" Taylor and James "eddie maguire wannabe" Brayshaw.
Sometimes people forget how bad they were