By Redb
October 9th 2008 @ 12:09am
Loading ...The AFL coverage needs modernising
The AFL needs to take control and develop the way the sport is covered by television if it wishes to show the game at full panoramic throttle. The visual medium via free to air, pay TV, HD TV or the Internet creates a tremendous opportunity to promote the game.
However, the AFL needs to take the ball and kick a goal rather than leave it to the blundering TV networks to rush a behind.
The Umpire Cam used by Channel 10 in the AFL’s Hall of Fame Tribute match this year was an hilarious failure.
What were they thinking? But at least they tried.
Channels 10 and 7 do an okay job of broadcasting the AFL - four to six cameras scattered around the boundary line and on the upper tier, a mobile camera for reporting of injuries and breaks and, if you’re lucky, a ‘sky’ cam at Finals time.
A lack of cameras robs the audience of some of the more spectacular aspects of the game - goals kicked on tight angles, high marks, ball movement speed, leading players and up close views of tight fierce contests for the ball.
AFL is played at two levels – ground and air.
The TV networks seem to think that the long distance ant view is appealing, or in the opposite direction, that an up close view of a player after they’ve kicked a goal or taken a mark is what the public want to see.
No, we want to see how the action unfolded at an angle that demonstrates the action in full view.
Goals need to be covered with the camera behind the player, and great marks captured at ground level to show elevation.
No doubt the ball moves faster in Aussie Rules than in any other football code in the world.
The use of an air blimp during the finals offered a snippet of the ball speed in an AFL game. Usually shot at the opening bounce if the ball came out first up, it came out at lightning speed.
Too often the image was slightly pixelated as digital zooms typically are. And unfortunately the Director choosing the camera angles would quickly move to another more traditional camera angle.
High definition offers the AFL hope because zoomed views will remain sharp and offer the flexibility of panning in or out with the action.
The longer answer though is in the number of TV cameras and where they are positioned.
One of the great inventions for capturing running speed is the camera on a track that runs along the boundary in the rugby codes or next to the running track in the Olympics. But that is not enough: we need the track camera to also be at ten to fifteem metres.
It probably needs to be mounted on the second tier of a stadium, like the MCG.
Do you leave it up to the stadium owners or TV networks to develop and pay for these innovations?
Not in my opinion.
The AFL needs its own visual coverage team. It may even be able to sell the technology back to the TV networks or stadium owners.
But only one party has a true vested interest in taking the necessary technological steps forward.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(13)
Brett McKay said | October 9th 2008 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Redb, you’re spot on here for the AFL, and having taken a couple of non-AFL mates down to a few games in Melbourne this year - who both walked away having thoroughly enjoyed the games from our behind-post seats (rather than side-on on TV) - I couldn’t agree more that the “traditional” methods of coverage are in need of a shake-up. That said, the somewhat multi-dimensional freeze-cam favoured by Nathan Buckley on 7’s Fri night coverage is a good start, albeit for frozen clips.
The same could also be said for all sports coverage in Australia too, and the driver for change could well be the ability for commercial channels to multi-cast through digital platforms (whether it’s SD or HD). The decision to allow multicasting is before the Communications Minister currently, so the outcome will surely be interesting, for broadcasters and viewers alike.
sheek said | October 9th 2008 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Redb,
You’re right of course. AFL is best seen live, & trying to translate it effectively to TV has always been a vexing problem. Now we have the technology.
Of course, you always have the ‘follow the ball’ shot. But in smaller boxes you could have the ‘bird’s eye’ overall view, & perhaps one or two (or more) other options for the viewer. He could pick & choose which box frame he wants enlarged at any time.
In other words, he becomes his own TV director, picking which camera footage he wants to see at a particular time. It would re-define TV for the viewer.
Rugby league, in its eternal quest to simplify the game, which is commendable but not always wise (simple, like cheap is not always the best option), translates very well to TV, which explains its appeal as a lounge room viewing game. Not so Aussie rules, which as mentioned at the top, is a breathtaking game to take in live.
Pippinu said | October 9th 2008 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Redb
top piece!
Aussie rules is a tough game to cover on TV - very difficult to do it justice - big ground, long kicks, ball moving at breakneck speed over big distances, 36 players running in all directions, including on and off the field in a form of lightening tag team. The ball is buried in a pack one second, and within a split second it has moved off down the ground, cameras struggling to work out where it went exactly.
But I think you are right that the new technologies are going to be a blessing for the game.
My small wish list:
1. As much as possible, let’s watch the ball heading towards goal from behind the player kicking it.
2. When news or sports shows give us highlights - don’t just show the bloke taking a set shot - show the lead up play - that’s the real story!
3. Combos of the in-tight stuff close up, and long range shots showing the link play, where players are running too, the false leads, etc.
Rich_daddy said | October 9th 2008 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Red b,
Interesting article
Certainly technology plays a big in the quality of a television broadcast. I think Channel 9’s cricket coverage has benefited enormously from technological innovations over the years. Unfortunately AFL doesn’t quite have the same capacity in my opinion to allow for new technology without it being a failure (re the umpire cam mentioned in your article).
The other factor is that the AFL probably does not want technological advances in T.V coverage for fear of jeopardising success in Queensland and New South Wales. The AFL want bums on seats, and better T.V coverage won’t help that. Sure a better coverage may encourage some people to go see a live game, but I doubt that is the way the AFL would be thinking. Better coverage would be good, but the networks need a period with which to tinker around with ideas. Pre season would be a good time to do that.
Redb said | October 9th 2008 @ 10:22am | Report comment
thanks to all for their views.
rich_daddy,
I dont think you can ever substitute going to the game over watching on TV. The crowd, the atmosphere, the panoramic view that is beyond most focal features of any camera.
However, for those who cant get to the game television is the next best thing. I beleive the gap between watching the game live and on TV is too wide and if the AFL is to compete with other sports on TV in it’s non-traditional areas (who are used to a different football experience) it needs to translate the appeal of the game at its optimum best.
I agree pre season is a good time, but the TV networks dont take it all that seriously so the AFL should step in with the innovations/development of coverage.
Cricket has come along way, so to motor racing, I watched a bit of the motogp at the ‘Island’ on the weekend and the camera angles on the bikes were amazing. Great stuff - almost a virtual experience.
Brett,
Yes i’m fan of the Buckley freeze frame to demonstrate tactics and its ability to rotate the scene ala the Matrix (virtual style). I’d like to see a high mark shot in a simiilar way and then twirled around to show all angles.
Redb
Dave said | October 9th 2008 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
Redb
Agree that TV coverage can be better at AFL and other team sports.However you only have to look at some of the old games. even back in the 90s to see how much coverage has improved. l dont think there will be an overnight revolution in TV coverage but it will continue as it has over the last 30 years with small changes occuring from time to time as technology improves.
Wonder if its possible to put a tiny camera into a player wearing a skull protector? Surely there is some way of making it safe and small enough not to be intrusive. Obviously the shot from that camera could only be used sparingly but may give a new perspective as the ball is heading towards the player in the forward line, particularly as many marks are now uncontested.
l reckon there could be one put in such a cap of a goalkeeper like Czech for Chelsea who wears a skull cap. What about Lloyd as he jumps on the pack to take a mark? Could be used at least in the replay of the mark if the shot was good enough.
Millster said | October 9th 2008 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Rich Daddy - key difference is that cricket has enormous amounts of dead time which it needs to fill with such gimmicks in order that viewers don’t have to hear endless drivels about the seagulls or how pretty some nearby [insert local feature] is or what the latest bit of “500 editions only” sports memorabilia is. Technology and over-analysis is absolutely vital to making the televising of cricket even half-palatable.
Much harder with AFL which has constant multi-dimensional movement throughout the quarters, and where intrinsic interest is maintained throughout. I must say though, while I agree that AFL is a game that is significantly better seen live, TV does do a reasonable job and I don’t see the need to throw tons of new features at the game. I also think networks may want to settle and see how the new TV deals coming up for most codes in the coming 3-4 years pan out before making major investments in technology.
On a small note though something needs to be done about the shadowing across the MCG on the last weekend in September. I’ve thought each year that its been sunny that the cameras have really struggled with dynamic range and exposure when play moves fast between the full-sun side and the shaded side. This is a major issue and a detractor from the telecast of the league’s most important game each year.
Michael C said | October 9th 2008 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
Millster -
absolutely agreed re the shadowing at the MCG - - which just begged for more closer shots that weren’t compromised by sun glare - - - and this is a perfect illustration of why the AFL GF should be roughly a 4.30pm start rather than a 2.30pm start.
I reckon part of the brief for the new northern stand had been to put a roof on such that people would demand a later start GF.
BigAl said | October 9th 2008 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
The key to better coverage is the ability to select your own camera view - i.e become your own TV director as someone mentioned earlier. This was promised years ago with the coming of digital/HD transmission.
This may well involve more cameras etc.
re. that, not sure why chanel 9 officially dumped their much vaunted skycam of a few years ago but personally I found it made me feel slightly nauseous ??
Interestingly, that is why Virtual Reality has come to a bit of a dead halt after being touted to take over the world
- i.e. the camera imagery required made people feel sick.l
BigAl said | October 9th 2008 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
Re. the light & shade problems with this years grand final - it seemed to be worse than ever ! maybe it’s because we don’t see that many games broadcast at that time these days.
I won’t be surprised to see it used by the networks to argue for the event to be switched to twilight/evening.
Redb said | October 10th 2008 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Dave,
They tried a camera mounted on the Umpires’ shoulder (think parrot on a pirate…argh!), didn’t work at all. The camera jerked around too much i think a similiar one mounted in the skull cap would be just as painful to watch.
I agree the coverage has improved, but only in terms of improved ant views - they needa mobile camera that follwos the action. This may mena some areas in the stadium wil become restricted viewing but that is one reason why the AFL needs to take control of the technology.
Big Al, Sheek,
The interactive select your own views and multiple screeens are Ok as long as the TV is big enough (i have a plasma). However if the shots (taken from multiple anlges) are not there to begin with, they offer little improvement. Have used Foxtel and live interactive a few times, its pretty lame IMO.
Redb
Brett McKay said | October 10th 2008 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
Millster, MC, Big Al et al re. the MCG shadowing,
If they ran the AFL configuration north-south at the ‘G like they will with the cricket wicket (and like most other grounds in Australia do, for this very matter!!) instead of the current east-west, they wouldn’t have the shadows at one end like we’ve all noticed, and nor would one team be running into the sun.
A simple re-allignment could fix everything, but I suspect the allignment might be dictated by the new stands?? Perhaps those more across Grand Old Girl (to pinch Roy and HG’s favourite line) might have something to add..
Michael C said | October 10th 2008 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Brett McKay -
alas, the MCG is about 160m by 140m roughly in match config - - running east-west - - and that running North-South isn’t really an option.
Personally, I’ve always preferred the ‘G at night anyway - - as during the day, if you’re on the southern side, the lower angle winter sun means you look more at silhouettes than at players (less of an issue now with the taller stands with the broader roof).