Australia is a sports-mad nation. Many of us would have spent countless hours of our youthful years throwing or catching a ball.
We would have had visions of ourselves all grown up with honed skills in our preferred sporting activity ready to deliver for our country on the international stage.
We played sport because we loved it but we also had that young optimism that one day we would take the place of our idols and continue their great legacy.
We didn’t want to just enjoy what the greats did. We wanted to feel like we were a part of it. Even as we grow up and that dream begins to, or has already, become too farfetched, we still want to be a part of the experience and the broadcasters know it.
That would explain why most referees and umpires wear cameras on their heads and why our national cricket captain has a hands-free microphone more commonly seen on American Idol or the X-Factor. It would also explain why there are more cameras on a footy field than there are on the set of a National Geographic documentary. The sports-viewing experience is becoming more and more interactive with every passing day, and while it sounds like a positive development there are reasons some of us feel more cautious than excited.
Looking to the news of the cricket world in the past week we are presented with a couple of noteworthy examples of how the broadcaster has overstepped the line, looking more like a pitch invader than the live coverage team.
In the fifth ODI match between India and Australia at the SCG, the brash Virat Kohli was denied four runs when his lofted backfoot cut shot was fielded not by a man wearing green and gold, but by a metallic spider on strings invasively hanging above his head. And while ardent Australian cricket fans would have loved the outcome, the young Indian strokeplayer had every right to feel aggrieved.
In this instance the high-tech camera affectionately known as Spidercam had deprived a national team in an international contest of valuable runs on the board.
And if that weren’t bad enough, Channel Nine again found themselves getting a little too close to the action in the following T20 match. As a mic’d up Steve Smith shaped up to take strike, the commentary team asked questions of his comfort level, match situation and so on, giving the television viewing audience an insight into what it might feel like out in the middle.
An arguably distracted Smith uncharacteristically struck out in a match-defining moment. The dismissal ignited a post-match debate on whether the broadcaster’s access had gone too far.
Smith being the diplomat that he is, downplayed the incident, placing no blame whatsoever on Channel Nine. However if we have to ask the question of whether the broadcast (a tool used to telecast the match, not be a part of it) is interfering on the sporting contest, then it probably is.
When the opposition captain starts suggesting fines to the broadcaster for interference then perhaps it is time to acknowledge the sport is being impacted by these technologies, as MS Dhoni said late last week.
“I have always felt there is a need for balance. At the end of the day it is a spectator sport, people watching on television, but at the same time four runs can matter, especially when it is a close game. Those four runs can be crucial. Everyone gets penalised, why not have the same system for the Spidercam? Say, ‘Okay if you get hit, 2000 dollars per hit.’
The opposition to the current telecast trend by the Indian side is not subtle. In addition to Dhoni’s comments, a fired-up and arguably unsporting Virat Kohli, made chatting hand gestures to Smith after his ‘distraction dismissal.’
In saying this, it is hard to deny the success of the interactive experience as demonstrated though the recently finished Big Bash League.
Kevin Pietersen and Brad Hodge for the most part looked very comfortable in their roles as providers for Channel Ten. The microphone performances clearly worked well in a competition that is as much entertainment as it is sport. Perhaps more telling though, was Pietersen’s request to be left alone by the on-air panel while in bat until he was comfortable at the crease.
Whether we agree with one side’s opposition or not, the question is do we really need to be this involved in the contest as it happens?
There are some things that the viewer just doesn’t need to be a part of. When we go to the zoo we can appreciate the beauty and power of a bengal tiger without jumping into the cage with it.
We love our sport. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be as close as possible to the action but when vital plays can be attributed to an overly-infatuated broadcaster rather than the players on the field, then perhaps it is time for the fan experience to get back behind the boundary ropes before crowd catches start actually counting as dismissals.
Loaf of Bread
Roar Rookie
Haha. Same to you, good sir.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
And Nine bring in Alyssa Healy on to commentate, and tell us how being mic'd up help her in her ininngs. You couldn't make this stuff up
Linus Fernandes
Roar Rookie
"Crowd catches counting as dismissals".. that's a good one.. and given the number of out-of-the-ground hits occurring in T20 cricket with shortened boundaries and bowlers simply helpless spectators to the carnage unleashed by brutish willows... they surely should!
Happy Hooker
Guest
I may not agree with you Mitchell, but I will defend to the death your right to love it!
Paul D
Roar Guru
I guess we’re going to have to disagree on the spidercam issue – my stance is that any impact on the game that it has is so minor as to not be worth worrying about. A pertinent example of a similar nature is the fact that we now have smaller sightscreens, to allow for more seating behind the bowler and better views. During the Perth test match the sightscreen broke down and failed to move, resulting in a delay of 17 minutes. First ball after the lengthy break in play, Kane Williamson nearly nicked Starc to the slips but the ball dropped short. Another instance where commercial considerations impacted on the game. However I didn’t see anyone demanding larger sightscreens be installed as a result – we accept that sometimes something will go wrong, and we move on, accepting these minor inconveniences as the price for greater involvement or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps there should be more stringent guidelines about when the camera can be used – and where it should be “resting” when not in use – my personal view is that it should be in a similar spot to where the wicketkeeper stashes the helmet behind the wickets, but I think any solution to this needs to involve retaining the spidercam, rather than junking it altogether – the broadcaster clearly wants to use it, and I think therefore we should adapt to the reality that it’s going to be used. My point regarding the seagull is obviously that we accept these natural hazards without batting an eyelid, I fail to see why we shouldn't take the odd camera related interference in much the same manner. I don't distinguish between natural and artificial hazards - in fact I think artificial hazards are less of a concern simply because we can control them to a certain extent. Hence my point above about firm guidelines relating to use of the camera.
Train Without A Terminus
Guest
Ah the traits of a decent umpire: A mind like a steel trap, the ability to miss nothing and having a sense of humour... BTW Paul, until the ball hit spidy the other night (preventing runs) it was also a hypothetical situation. In relation to the diference between seagulls and spidercam: 1) Which one was placed on (or over if you're pedantic) the ground by the broadcaster? 2) Which one is free to go when they feel like hitting the beach? 3) Which one... well if you need me to explain the differences then you really should hang up the whites. Spider cam! Spider cam! Does whatever a spidercam does! Can he swing from a web? No he can't He's a tool of the broadcasting fools Lookout! He is the spider cam!!
Loaf of Bread
Roar Rookie
Who would? It's far too charismatic. Just because you don't love Spidercam doesn't mean Mark Nicholas and I can't.
Happy Hooker
Guest
All right, so a handful of Channel 9 commentators like it. They're hardly going to speak unfavourably of it, are they?
Paul D
Roar Guru
Yes, let's cherry pick an utterly contrived hypothetical situation - indeed, the worst possible scenario - to make your point. Please tell me how that's any different to the ball striking a seagull and falling to earth. Also - are you aware since upgrading to a terminus your new acronym is T W A T?
Kaks
Roar Guru
Well you're going to be disappointed, I wont be outraged if something like that occurs when these incidences generally dont happen, why would I get worked up about some sheer bad luck? "What outrages me is the outrage about the faux outrage rather than the outrage about the actual incident which really should have provoked a reasonable level of outrage…" Yes, we should all get outraged because of something that barely ever happens. Jog on...
HB
Guest
The commentators should stop interacting with the player when he's at the striker's end. Pretty simple really.
mattyb
Guest
Sorry it was a few days ago so my memory has changed to suit my own needs perhaps.The point still stands though.I have decided though that I must still be outraged over this.I'm not overly interested if the players didn't seem to mind,Smith didn't mind about the Mic and wasn't forced to put it on but some seem outraged,so I choose to be outraged about this.I to have a right to be outraged.I had to watch a bowler walk back to his mark twice to deliver the one ball.I feel my time was completely wasted.
Loaf of Bread
Roar Rookie
I'm expecting its own Channel 9 sitcom soon.
Loaf of Bread
Roar Rookie
I disagree. It is spoken about on-air with much fondness.
Larney
Guest
Well the proof will be in the pudding then if Smith decides not to do it which I suspect will be the case.
Happy Hooker
Guest
The high tech camera may be known as spidercam, but there is certainly no affection involved.
Train Without A Terminus
Guest
When did Kohli start batting left handed?
Train Without A Terminus
Guest
Kaks, I can't wait for your lengthy exposition on the intrusiveness of technology, not to mention your venting of rage, when Australia loses a test match because the 4 runs needed for the win are stopped by spider cam and the 10th wicket falls next ball. This incident may well have been in a fairly meaningless ODI but if you take your blinkers off for a second it's not difficult to comprehend a situation where it's not so meaningless.
Charles Plowdog
Guest
It wasn't Kohli, it was Raina and I think Faulkner came in before he was ready. Maybe he should have been ready but no-one seemd to mind at the time.
Train Without A Terminus
Guest
What outrages me is the outrage about the faux outrage rather than the outrage about the actual incident which really should have provoked a reasonable level of outrage...