Camera confusion

[Grumpstee 13]

Does anyone else have trouble  with the crazy camera coverage? 

There is an obsession with showing coaches, injured players being treated, and replays of how injuries occured often being shown in preference to the actual live play. 

2 Examples.

in Q4 at 6:30

Langdon collides with Lloyd  and then  Reid gets the ball and kicks it.

We do not see the ball in flight because we immediately cross back to Lloyd  who is doubled over. 

We then cross back to the ball at the end of its flight being marked by Salem.

In Q4 at 4:55

Picket marks (lovely pass from Spargo)  and goes back and kicks a point.

We are then shown a replay of a previous passage of play involving Viney .

The next thing we see is the ball being thrown in on the opposite side to the Viney replay and we do not actually know how the ball got there because WE DO NOT SEE THE KICK IN.

This is just a sample from the last 7 minutes - there were many more. 

Alf Potter would be turning in his grave. 

Great last quarter effort. 

 

[Demonland 66,601]

100% agree with this.

If they are going to navigate away from what is currently happening to show a replay then they should have a picture in picture box with LIVE play.

It's happening a lot this year and I suspect it is due to COVID reduction in production staff.

Obviously this year the commentators and the production is all being done from Melbourne. Where is the production done in a normal year? From the ground or from another location?

[binman 39,117]

2 hours ago, Grumpstee said:

Does anyone else have trouble  with the crazy camera coverage? 

There is an obsession with showing coaches, injured players being treated, and replays of how injuries occured often being shown in preference to the actual live play. 

2 Examples.

in Q4 at 6:30

Langdon collides with Lloyd  and then  Reid gets the ball and kicks it.

We do not see the ball in flight because we immediately cross back to Lloyd  who is doubled over. 

We then cross back to the ball at the end of its flight being marked by Salem.

In Q4 at 4:55

Picket marks (lovely pass from Spargo)  and goes back and kicks a point.

We are then shown a replay of a previous passage of play involving Viney .

The next thing we see is the ball being thrown in on the opposite side to the Viney replay and we do not actually know how the ball got there because WE DO NOT SEE THE KICK IN.

This is just a sample from the last 7 minutes - there were many more. 

Alf Potter would be turning in his grave. 

Great last quarter effort. 

 

Totally agree. The last one was infuriating given where the match was at. They didn't even have a replay of it.

And to make things worse, soon after they were showing goody talking to fritsch on the bench in the little break for no reason.

The other thing that did my head in is all rhe talking and conversation  between darcy  when the ball is in motion. Call the bloody game!

[Lefty 357]

The whole production of the footy this year has been a shambles. I understand that the commentators are watching on a TV screen and I believe that this hampers their ability to call the game properly because they, like us, can't see what is happening down field. I would assume they would have more than one camera position available to them unlike us who are at the mercy of what they show us at any one time. The end result is they are flying blind to whatever is happening that isn't being filmed.

They do have the boundary riders who are on the spot but they are on ground level and often times you need a bit of a higher unobstructed view to get a sense of what is happening.

This is perhaps what I miss most about not being able to go to the footy. Watching on the Telly is just not the same not to mention not getting an atmosphere or the smell of a meat pie or the taste of light beer from a plastic cup.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,588]

Not being at the game so having limited vision is understandable.  But some of the poor commentary practices are inexcusable and come down to poor standards setting and management.  Waffling on with some of the extraneous crap they do while the ball is in general play is disrespectful to their viewers.  By all means provide some insights, entertainment and analysis during the numerous breaks in play, but when the play is on, just CALL THE BLOODY GAME.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

I think we notice the mistakes because most of the camera work is actually pretty good this year. Finally, the directors have realised that close ups of play are unhelpful and that medium distance and sometimes long distance views, including those form behind the goals, are better for giving a true perspective of the game. 

 

[Diamond_Jim 12,036]

If you want to see how well commentary can be done during covid watch Sky's coverage of Formula 1.

While the racing is often predictable the commentary and camera work is first class.

The commentators are on course in masks. In this sense they don't try to hide the virus..they embrace it visually which in these times is very important.

[rjay 24,066]

I suspect they are using local camera people.

Not schooled in AFL.

It's pretty obvious as they often lose the ball.

No feel for the game.

If they're are using Vic crew then we've got big problems...

I hope they can sort it for the finals.

[Deeoldfart 7,822]

Whatever the reason,  it gives me the tomtits!

[roy11 3,042]

Yeh some weird cuts and other times I’ve yelled ‘zoom out’ at the tv lol

[layzie 29,804]

Thank you thank you thank you I could not agree more it's been an absolute joke this year. That injury and the play going on infuriates me every time it happens. And that GWS kick in that ended up out of bounds and they didn't seem to have any vision of it? What was the deal with that? My dad was asking what happened and it's hard enough explaining in a normal game let alone when one is as tense as that one. 

[layzie 29,804]

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Not being at the game so having limited vision is understandable.  But some of the poor commentary practices are inexcusable and come down to poor standards setting and management.  Waffling on with some of the extraneous crap they do while the ball is in general play is disrespectful to their viewers.  By all means provide some insights, entertainment and analysis during the numerous breaks in play, but when the play is on, just CALL THE BLOODY GAME.

Yep, the waffle on was embarrassing on Sat night. One thing Richo tends to do a lot this year and it's getting pretty irritating is he gets a bee in his bonnet about some decision that was made and harps on for a while and when you think it's finished on it's own volition and the subject and play has changed you can literally feel he's going to chime in again and show his frustration and [censored] a dead horse on that stupid point, of course he does. The example being the deliberate by Toby Greene and how 'that's not what the rule was brought in for' and a minute later 'that's not deliberate'. For what it's worth I don't see how a handball that goes out on the full with no teammate their isn't deliberate. 

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

How many times were we watching players running around without the football even in sight? Where was it? I don't think even the camera people knew. Poor coverage. And the commentary is dribble and getting worse every week.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,588]

2 hours ago, layzie said:

The example being the deliberate by Toby Greene and how 'that's not what the rule was brought in for' and a minute later 'that's not deliberate'.

Yep Richo totally gave me the [censored] on Saturday night as well and was a prime culprit for the useless waffle factor.  

That call regarding Green was a huge stretch.  Would have been a fair call to say there was a lot of those frees that don't get paid and it was a bit marginal, but don't let a reasonable assessment of things get in the way of a commentator basically baracking for one side over another in these situations - another aspect which they are often really bad at.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

OMG Just heard the biggest load of hogwash from that Hutchy defending the coverage of the football as being absolutely fantastic when Caroline Wilson asked the networks to please bite the bullet and send their commentators to the actual games (which means having to quarantine and put themselves out for their jobs) because the commentators not being live at the ground is not great for football or the fans. He then attacked her for not taking up the offer to go up to Queensland herself because she wanted to stay here for her family etc. She does not commentate AFL games you dolt. Why are you making that comparison. It is not relevant.

Her point was valid. The commentary is not up to scratch if they are not at the ground. Hutchy always wants to get personal and attacks with false logic. He is so conflicted and compromised with his involvement in his media company. He should let people have an opinion without carrying on like a spoilt brat. Give him a lollipop. He acts like an overgrown child.

[rjay 24,066]

1 hour ago, Dame Gaga said:

OMG Just heard the biggest load of hogwash from that Hutchy defending the coverage of the football as being absolutely fantastic when Caroline Wilson asked the networks to please bite the bullet and send their commentators to the actual games (which means having to quarantine and put themselves out for their jobs) because the commentators not being live at the ground is not great for football or the fans. He then attacked her for not taking up the offer to go up to Queensland herself because she wanted to stay here for her family etc. She does not commentate AFL games you dolt. Why are you making that comparison. It is not relevant.

Her point was valid. The commentary is not up to scratch if they are not at the ground. Hutchy always wants to get personal and attacks with false logic. He is so conflicted and compromised with his involvement in his media company. He should let people have an opinion without carrying on like a spoilt brat. Give him a lollipop. He acts like an overgrown child.

I definitely think they need to send their camera crews up but as for commentary I don't think it would make much difference to the standard.

It has been poor for years.

They never comment about anything going on out of camera view anyway. I don't know why but the expert commentators only tell us what we can see on our own screens and never give real insight.

The ball by ball commentary will improve if the camera follows the play.

 

[binman 39,117]

5 hours ago, layzie said:

Yep, the waffle on was embarrassing on Sat night. One thing Richo tends to do a lot this year and it's getting pretty irritating is he gets a bee in his bonnet about some decision that was made and harps on for a while and when you think it's finished on it's own volition and the subject and play has changed you can literally feel he's going to chime in again and show his frustration and [censored] a dead horse on that stupid point, of course he does. The example being the deliberate by Toby Greene and how 'that's not what the rule was brought in for' and a minute later 'that's not deliberate'. For what it's worth I don't see how a handball that goes out on the full with no teammate their isn't deliberate. 

Two things annoyed me about how they called that incident. Three actually.

The first is Cameron ling was talking. I simply cannot stand him. Clueless ans seems to be incredibly dismissive of the dees.

The second was that not one of those clowns disagreed with Langdon's deliberate earlier in the game,  which was more marginal in so far as he kicked it under pressure 40 odd metres, forward. And ling said yep, obvious 50. But argued the greene wasn't!

Third. Richo is wrong. I think. My understanding was the rule was to be interpreted as it was incumbent on the player to keep it in play, in order to keep the game moving and reduce stoppages. The only out is if it is miscued and/or a teamate is really close (not in 'the vicinity' you peanut ling).

So the rule was, contrary to richos stupid comment, brought in for that exact sceario  - ie a players whose skills they dribble over pretending to accidently handball it out of bounds 

[rjay 24,066]

5 hours ago, binman said:

Two things annoyed me about how they called that incident. Three actually.

The first is Cameron ling was talking. I simply cannot stand him. Clueless ans seems to be incredibly dismissive of the dees.

The second was that not one of those clowns disagreed with Langdon's deliberate earlier in the game,  which was more marginal in so far as he kicked it under pressure 40 odd metres, forward. And ling said yep, obvious 50. But argued the greene wasn't!

Third. Richo is wrong. I think. My understanding was the rule was to be interpreted as it was incumbent on the player to keep it in play, in order to keep the game moving and reduce stoppages. The only out is if it is miscued and/or a teamate is really close (not in 'the vicinity' you peanut ling).

So the rule was, contrary to richos stupid comment, brought in for that exact sceario  - ie a players whose skills they dribble over pretending to accidently handball it out of bounds 

My favourite line from commentators...

"He disguised it well"

Then they go into meltdown when a player gets called on it.

[layzie 29,804]

6 hours ago, binman said:

Two things annoyed me about how they called that incident. Three actually.

The first is Cameron ling was talking. I simply cannot stand him. Clueless ans seems to be incredibly dismissive of the dees.

The second was that not one of those clowns disagreed with Langdon's deliberate earlier in the game,  which was more marginal in so far as he kicked it under pressure 40 odd metres, forward. And ling said yep, obvious 50. But argued the greene wasn't!

Third. Richo is wrong. I think. My understanding was the rule was to be interpreted as it was incumbent on the player to keep it in play, in order to keep the game moving and reduce stoppages. The only out is if it is miscued and/or a teamate is really close (not in 'the vicinity' you peanut ling).

So the rule was, contrary to richos stupid comment, brought in for that exact sceario  - ie a players whose skills they dribble over pretending to accidently handball it out of bounds 

I just watched it again (Thanks to Stats pro, cheers again for this gamechanger), and you're right Ling was just as bad. "Under enormous pressure with Daniels in the area". Firstly I'm not sure if Daniels was as close as they thought unless he was on the other side of the boundary line. Then there's the terrible call by Darcy "Greene, gains a few metres for his team" give me a break. Maybe in 2005 that would have been a territory gainer but you've had more than enough time to get used to those tactics being a thing of the past.

I might be a bit off track but I just feel the ball going over out on the full makes a better case for deliberate, I didn't think he was slung around in the tackle that much that it affected his handball, gotta disguise it better if you're going to do that stuff. 

[sue 8,479]

Frankly I don't think the commentary is any worse when the commentators are not at the match.  (That is not meant as a compliment).   But even so, there are grades of deplorable with Chanel 7 taking the prize by a long way.

But I have to give some praise to the directors for at long last giving us more wide angled views, something I've been banging on about for years.  But more please! 

Still too many shots where a handball goes out of frame to god knows where and whom.   And the shots allowing us to check how well the player taking a mark or free had shaved that morning when we'd rather see his options downfield. That is the perfect time for a wide shot since the situation at the actual ball is very simple (unlike when a disputed ball is bouncing around a pack).

[In Harmes Way 7,617]

5 hours ago, layzie said:

I just watched it again (Thanks to Stats pro, cheers again for this gamechanger), and you're right Ling was just as bad. "Under enormous pressure with Daniels in the area". Firstly I'm not sure if Daniels was as close as they thought unless he was on the other side of the boundary line. Then there's the terrible call by Darcy "Greene, gains a few metres for his team" give me a break. Maybe in 2005 that would have been a territory gainer but you've had more than enough time to get used to those tactics being a thing of the past.

I might be a bit off track but I just feel the ball going over out on the full makes a better case for deliberate, I didn't think he was slung around in the tackle that much that it affected his handball, gotta disguise it better if you're going to do that stuff. 

My take on all of this Layzie is that we should have rules that judge the action not interpretation.

Either change the rule so there are no throw ins and the opposing team gets the kick in all circumstances where the ball crosses the line, or do away with the rule and throw them all in like they did 30 years ago and nobody complained. These stupid umpire interpretation based free kicks for what they think a player was intending to do, with an oval shaped ball no less, is killing the game. 

[Smokey 4,146]

20 hours ago, Demonland said:

It's happening a lot this year and I suspect it is due to COVID reduction in production staff.

I would have thought that if there's less production staff, that we would see a less manipulated broadcast; not more. 

[DeePressed 114]

Agree totally.

Also commentary is at an all time low.

[layzie 29,804]

1 hour ago, In Harmes Way said:

My take on all of this Layzie is that we should have rules that judge the action not interpretation.

Either change the rule so there are no throw ins and the opposing team gets the kick in all circumstances where the ball crosses the line, or do away with the rule and throw them all in like they did 30 years ago and nobody complained. These stupid umpire interpretation based free kicks for what they think a player was intending to do, with an oval shaped ball no less, is killing the game. 

Exactly IHW, the idea should be to minimize interpretation and have umpires guessing player motives like a judge. 

[Salems Lot 2,392]

Dees v Dogs round 22 1987. Now that was a commentary!