A lot to like in this:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-11/what-if-broadcasters-are-the-source-of-afl-image-problem/12437678

(Mods: couldn't find an existing topic, merge please)

Simple answer...

Stream multiple camera angles and allow the viewer to switch. (Most TV's are big enough for 2 and 4 split screens if you like to watch that way.)

Formula 1 has done it for years.

Why is commentary sacrosanct... we still watch the ads if we have just the crowd noise

The problem is FTA hanging onto a dying model

Nowadays I watch via Kayo on around 30 minute delay at the start thus allowing me to skip breaks etc

Awesome artixle. The broadcasting if games has been horrible for a long time, particularly since channel 7 regained the rights. The camera angles are horrible and make it impossible to see what is happening strategically across the field. The commentary is so bad it defies belief. Channel 7 wants the commentators to be the stars, their "personalities" to be bigger than the game.

The atmosphere is also rubbish as the broadcasters turn down the crowd volume so we can hear Hamish and BT's "witty" zingers. It's just terrible and amateurish all round.

22 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Awesome artixle. The broadcasting if games has been horrible for a long time, particularly since channel 7 regained the rights. The camera angles are horrible and make it impossible to see what is happening strategically across the field. The commentary is so bad it defies belief. Channel 7 wants the commentators to be the stars, their "personalities" to be bigger than the game.

The atmosphere is also rubbish as the broadcasters turn down the crowd volume so we can hear Hamish and BT's "witty" zingers. It's just terrible and amateurish all round.

These are the reasons why I much prefer to go to games. Cannot do this year and my interest is less not helped of course by our poor play. Of course you can turn off the sound which I often do. It is they same with talent shows on tv it is more about the judges than the competitors.

Edited July 11, 20204 yr by old dee

It seems so easy to fix.  At least they should try it for a few matches involving clubs who have no chance of making the eight.  I mean the camera angles.  There is no way to fix the commentators.

Commentators are appalling.. From BT and wowee, the package etc etc

Bruce: delicious, confected excitement, "great call Duck" etc

No f'n idea about tactics etc

Special comments are a joke. 

Camera angles, close ups, ads, pathetic interviews, lack of meaningful stats

Unwatchable

Great article.  Thoughtful, articulate,  well reasoned.

Solution- sound down, radio up

I don’t have an issue with Camera angles

But the TV Commentary is disgraceful. Listen to old replays. The Commentators never questioned the game, just called what was in front of them

It is just so bad. I wish FTA would listen to the audience 

10 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don’t have an issue with Camera angles

But the TV Commentary is disgraceful. Listen to old replays. The Commentators never questioned the game, just called what was in front of them

It is just so bad. I wish FTA would listen to the audience 

Agree about the commentary, but I'm surprised you are happy with the camera angles.      I'm in total agreement with the criticisms listed in the article.

Yesterday there was a few times when all we saw was a ball bouncing on a green(ish) background.

What a great article. I agree with DJ in that they should simply provide more camera angles to their audience. Fox used to do it on occasional games and given what we pay for Foxtel, they should certainly do it now.

One big issue I have with commentary is that they continually state the obvious, they tell us what we can already see.

With the ground size there is so much going on that we don't see and it would be nice if special commentary experts actually told us a bit more...if they did their job. They could even do a little bit of analysis if that's not too hard to ask for.

Currently I'm not sure how many recently ex coaches we have doing special comments but I would suggest there are none. A player only has limited expertise and they are often being chosen on their name as a player & personality status rather than their ability to see the game. Saint Nick, Del, Jono, Matty, Duck, Lingy, are all terrible...and Jobe is just shocking.

The other night is a prime example...why did Geelong get back in the game. Danger, Gazza, Sel...all good reasons but it must go deeper. What were Brisbane doing wrong, what changed to momentum...if wasn't just the stars digging in.

In the 3rd Q the big 'O' did all the ruckwork, where was Stef Martin? I think he was on the bench for the whole Q, I saw him there at one stage but he could have been forward. Did this have any effect on the game Jobe? I don't know. How much game time did he play? who knows. Did they take in an unfit player?

The standard of ball to ball commentary is appalling, but let me say the standard of experts commentary is worse because we have no experts in the commentary box....

8 minutes ago, sue said:

Agree about the commentary, but I'm surprised you are happy with the camera angles.      I'm in total agreement with the criticisms listed in the article.

Yesterday there was a few times when all we saw was a ball bouncing on a green(ish) background.

I don’t want 5 different angles of the same play. It becomes confusing very quickly. 
A Medium Wide Shot should be used more. 
 

The present problem is that Cameras are either Ultra Wide or extreme Close up

I would prefer the middle ground

 

32 minutes ago, KLV said:

Solution- sound down, radio up

Doesn't work with the 7 second delay of TV

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don’t want 5 different angles of the same play. It becomes confusing very quickly. 
A Medium Wide Shot should be used more. 
 

The present problem is that Cameras are either Ultra Wide or extreme Close up

I would prefer the middle ground

 

I agree about not wanting multiple changing angles.  But there are far too many close-ups.  Medium wide with occasional wide shots replacing the regular checks on the shaving skills of players who have marked the ball.

Just now, sue said:

I agree about not wanting multiple changing angles.  But there are far too many close-ups.  Medium wide with occasional wide shots replacing the regular checks on the shaving skills of players who have marked the ball.

Exactly what i mean

The Medium Wide on a Flat Sreen should be the Principle Camera Angles

In their defence this season they have been using tighter camera angles to hide the crowd absence.

Out of interest why are they sticking the crowd in spots they are rarely seen

As for play to play commentary.

It was a pity the day Dennis retired, he really did add colour to the game.

The broadcasters don’t care that their commentators sh1thouse because idiots like watching idiots on TV, and the sad truth is that the vast majority of people watching footy are in fact, idiots. 

I'm a film maker. Everything written in the article is accurate IMHO. It goes without saying on 'Land that the game is appallingly covered by the broadcasters and commentary is horrific. Try explaining the game to an American just from what's shown on the television. It's impossible. Now go to the ground and explain it during play. Immediate understanding.  

It beggars believe that channel 7 have tried to bring us 'sounds of the game' (i.e. a player miked up on the ground) and the player doesn't say anything. This is a worthwhile innovation, but requires the player to verbalise his/her thought patterns while playing the game. Imagine a player 'sneaking out the back' as the play is unfolding up the field and hearing their commentary instead of Bruce and Taylor taking pot-shots at each other? It'd be brilliant, but the AFL is just not interested in innovation. Never has been. Pathetic really.

Secondly, why arn't players and umpires fitted with cameras? The AFL played around with this some years ago and dropped it. It all became just too hard I suspect. It would have involved thinking to really make it work. Imagine a struggle in the goal square shot in 4K from the goal umpire's viewpoint with accompanying audio? 

Thirdly, get rid of commentary as we currently understand it. Wire all players, runners, doctors, trainers and umpires with audio and find the world's best sound engineers and sense-makers and put them in the control box. Their mandate is to bring us the best audio feeds that explains the game from the participant's perspective as it's unfolding. We'd know why Jonathon Patton is distressed rather than commentators speculating for 15 minutes and being 100 miles off the mark.  

Unfortunately, this type of innovation is unlikely to happen. When left to their own devices, the AFL (and particularly the players' thinking) and the broadcasters move at snails pace. 

Edited July 11, 20204 yr by Queanbeyan Demon
Typo

40 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

In their defence this season they have been using tighter camera angles to hide the crowd absence.

Out of interest why are they sticking the crowd in spots they are rarely seen

Maybe because the lack of numbers would make the artificial crowd noise seem laughable.

14 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

I'm a film maker. Everything written in the article is accurate IMHO. It goes without saying on 'Land that the game is appalling covered by the broadcasters and commentary is horrific. Try explaining the game to an American just from what's shown on the television. It's impossible. Now go to the ground and explain it during play. Immediate understanding.  

It beggars believe that channel 7 have tried to bring us 'sounds of the game' (i.e. a player miked up on the ground) and the player doesn't say anything. This is a worthwhile innovation, but requires the player to verbalise his/her thought patterns while playing the game. Imagine a player 'sneaking out the back' as the play is unfolding up the field and hearing their commentary instead of Bruce and Taylor taking pot-shots at each other? It'd be brilliant, but the AFL is just not interested in innovation. Never has been. Pathetic really.

Secondly, why arn't players and umpire fitted with cameras? The AFL played around with this some years ago and dropped it. It all became just too hard I suspect. It would have involved thinking to really make it work. Imagine a struggle in the goal square shot in 4K from the goal umpire's viewpoint with accompanying audio? 

Thirdly, get rid of commentary as we currently understand it. Wire all players, runners, doctor's, trainers and umpires with audio and find the world's best sound engineers and sense-makers and put them in the control box. Their mandate is to bring us the best audio feeds that explains the game from the participant's perspective as it's unfolding. We'd know why Jonathon Pattern is distressed rather than commentators speculating for 15 minutes and being 100 miles off the mark.  

Unfortunately, this type of innovation is unlikely to happen. When left to their own devices, the AFL (and particularly the players' thinking) and the broadcasters move at snails pace. 

I don't mind being held by the hand in sports commentary, as long as what is being said is constructive and insightful.

I think what you propose here is far too chaotic, but each to their own and I'm glad there's a fellow filmmaker on DL.

What hope is there when we are subjected to the likes of Brererton. He is God awful and omnipresent.  Brad Johnson is so vanilla that he induces sleep. There is no one with any authority or personality. 

Re the camera angles. When I go the game I typically sit on the one spot high up in the grandstand and watch the whole game from that single spot. Even on a big footy ground I can get a feel for what is happening.

Unless the image is severely shrunk it is impossible to reproduce this view on even a wide screen tv. What would help would be more interesting views from behind the goals more often during the game instead of the boring repeated replays of marks and goals. Show us how and why it happened just like they do on the weekday tv shows where they review the games.

I know Kingy is often ridiculed but his analysis is generally perceptive and analytical. Dermie tries to give the bigger picture in words when it cannot be shown. Bruce is less understandable than lfhbxn scbvclkjwnzmnqav.

18 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

I'm a film maker. Everything written in the article is accurate IMHO. It goes without saying on 'Land that the game is appallingly covered by the broadcasters and commentary is horrific. Try explaining the game to an American just from what's shown on the television. It's impossible. Now go to the ground and explain it during play. Immediate understanding.  

It beggars believe that channel 7 have tried to bring us 'sounds of the game' (i.e. a player miked up on the ground) and the player doesn't say anything. This is a worthwhile innovation, but requires the player to verbalise his/her thought patterns while playing the game. Imagine a player 'sneaking out the back' as the play is unfolding up the field and hearing their commentary instead of Bruce and Taylor taking pot-shots at each other? It'd be brilliant, but the AFL is just not interested in innovation. Never has been. Pathetic really.

Secondly, why arn't players and umpires fitted with cameras? The AFL played around with this some years ago and dropped it. It all became just too hard I suspect. It would have involved thinking to really make it work. Imagine a struggle in the goal square shot in 4K from the goal umpire's viewpoint with accompanying audio? 

Thirdly, get rid of commentary as we currently understand it. Wire all players, runners, doctors, trainers and umpires with audio and find the world's best sound engineers and sense-makers and put them in the control box. Their mandate is to bring us the best audio feeds that explains the game from the participant's perspective as it's unfolding. We'd know why Jonathon Patton is distressed rather than commentators speculating for 15 minutes and being 100 miles off the mark.  

Unfortunately, this type of innovation is unlikely to happen. When left to their own devices, the AFL (and particularly the players' thinking) and the broadcasters move at snails pace. 

at least bring in player ID graphics - icant stand the commentary