Fox Sports has cheated rugby fans and themselves in thousands of hours of coverage by anticipating kicks from set pieces, rucks and mauls, by switching from close-ups of the action to wide shots of plays.
The result has been two-fold – viewers miss the close-up action and skills, often in crucial moments of matches, and are left straining to see tiny figures off in the distance.
And as this happens 30-40 times in a Super Rugby or Test match it adds up to seven to ten minutes per game of lost close-ups of some of the best action – slick passing, big hits, defenders shutting down moves.
It comes down to a lazy, legacy element of TV coverage of rugby where for decades broadcasters have traditionally had their match directors and vision switchers assume going from a close up to a wide shot was going to best visually inform audiences.
It stems from the days when ABC TV covered club rugby. There was very little analysis of game coverage with a basic number of cameras. And no one, it seems, has ever complained. Or, at least, not to broadcasters.
Unless you have some understanding or experience in what is possible with television coverage it’s assumed going to a wide shot was the best and possibly only way covering the action – even if the viewers could be barely make out players on the far side of the field, let alone the frustration of missing some of the close-up action.
Fox Sports should immediately instruct their matchday producers, directors and vision switchers (who actually press the button to go from one camera to another) to reverse the procedure.
In other words, hold on the close-up action until the ball is actually kicked. Then, and only then, should they opt for the wide shot. In fact, many times in today’s games, halfbacks or five-eights don’t take the kicking option.
The difference this can make to covering a game of rugby was highlighted by the way US television covered the All Blacks games in recent years in Chicago.
Not only did they not always opt for pulling out to a wide shot they very often stayed with close-up framing of all of the action throughout the game, particularly tackles, rucks and mauls.
The visual impact for the viewer was much greater and provided much more of a sense of being right on edge of the field near the action.
An interesting comparison is how rugby league is covered. Because league takes some minutes to move up the field TV camera framing is mostly close or medium-close. You very rarely see wide, or even medium wide, shots during tackle sets.
Watch this week’s opening round of the 2019 Super Rugby competition, and count the number of times the broadcaster anticipates kicks – and how much of the close-up action and skills you miss because of that.
Come on Fox Sports. You otherwise do a pretty good job of covering the matches.
Here’s one thing that’s easily fixed – and delivers audiences a much more satisfying viewing experience.
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
TC Good article! Cheers KP
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
So you don’t mind Rupert trying to drive the political agenda through his “independent” media to enrich himself? It’s just monetising sport that’s the issue.
P2R2
Roar Rookie
hear hear...
P2R2
Roar Rookie
wow....
P2R2
Roar Rookie
Of course they won't...they are idiots
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
In Sheek’s defence here, I reckon Uncle Rupert probably does.
In brief
Guest
As Bentham noted when his Panopticon model was rejected by British Parliament, only a parliament which didn't have the people's best interests at heart could have made such a decision. Democracy is socialism in the sense that the goal must be to serve the common good. Unbridled Capitalism quickly descends into oligarchy.
In brief
Guest
A more germane question is do you object to democracy? That is our fundamental tenet- not capitalism.
In brief
Guest
Yes and no. Yes, sideshots are needed, but no Fox coverage isn't great. Hard to put a finger on it but they manage to make even exciting games look a bit mundane. By contrast the English premiership is always good to watch even when the games are a bit dull. So some tweaking might help. Worst commentators don't help.
Glen
Guest
As a Rugby League fan I love seeing the wide shot including how the line is set instead of the play the ball. Super League coverage is far superior in that regard in my opinion. Channel 9 and Fox always show the close ups unfortunately.
sheek
Roar Guru
You wouldn't know what my reasons are. You merely assume. And I have no inclination to enlighten you.
sheek
Roar Guru
Ed, Yeah, I do love The Australian newspaper. But if/when it goes I'll find something else. We're not spoilt for options these days.
John Hanrahan
Guest
Well informed comments. If World Rugby stripped back some of the more technical rules and changed some penalties to tap kicks instead of shots at goal the game as a spectacle would improve immensely. Rugby demands a much greater spread of skills than league. Simplifying or removing a lot of the technical offences in scrums and rucks would should be a World Rugby priority.
Lano
Roar Guru
That's nonsense. Fox have been so ultra-competitive to the extent they now monopolise much of the media. That's the purpose of competition buddy - to win and ultimately monopolise. However, the perfect definition of a capitalist is ''to maximise the rate of return on an investment.'' You're wrong either way.
John R
Roar Guru
Definitely doesn't help. My take is that the unfavourable time zones are the biggest culprit. Games in Aus/NZ/Japan are on at good times, but SA/Arg, not so much. The irregularity of the scheduling makes it hard to attract 'strays'.
Harold
Guest
I assume you are talking about the Fox local coverage . I prefer the NZ coverage but perhaps that is because the standard of play is higher, the commentators are generally better (ie no Phil Kearns) or I don't usually have a vested interest.
soapit
Guest
twas i would say that not being on fta has had a significant part in killing the game over the last 15 years. at this point sticking it on fta wont magically solve anything particular but should be part of the long term future. mind you kayo really does change things, so much more affordable..
Dr Bombay
Guest
Yes. Especially when the capitalists are actually anti-competition like Fox.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
Again, it depends on one’s definition of ‘capitalism’.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Nah. The fact that not enough people with Fox Sports choose to watch Rugby is what's killing it. If most Fox viewers watched rugby, FTA would pay a motza. BBL got high ratings on Fox then moved to FTA. The high ratings on Fox are the first part. Answer me this. If a tiny percentage of Fox subscribers watch rugby, why will more than that same percentage of the population watch rugby? If Super Rugby got triple the TV numbers of FTA they'd never renew the contract.