• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
ITV miss another goal (merged)
<<
<
44 of 54
>>
>
daved2424
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by drykid:
“For the nth time the bet paddy power were offering was for "the broadcaster to show any ad during play of any match in South Africa"”

Yes we all know that, but the discussions about delay revolve around the idea that whoever sabotaged knew that they were sabotaging the goal, which is not possible.
jeffersbnl
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by drykid:
“I guess; but it seems to me that by continuing to show SD on the HD channel they're just creating an impression with viewers that they still aren't on top of things. So it's a gamble whichever way they decide to play it.”

Agreed- but its a far bigger gamble to risk it happening again if you think theres a chance it will. That would be even more damaging than whats happened already.
daved2424
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by jzee:
“The gap seems very fine, if the delay between BBC HD/ITV1 HD and talksport MW is 8 seconds, yet the time from beginning to encode and finally seeing it on consumer's TV's can be less than that (6 seconds was just quoted), it would still leave the possibility to hear the goal and then press the go to ad switch.”

Yeah so two seconds max which still won't be quite that long because the commentator needs to react, very fractional delay from SA. And then the goal was at least a couple of seconds after the ad break was cued.
tellytart1
13-06-2010
I've just timed it.

ITV1 HD via freeview is about 3 seconds behind ITV1 SD via Freeview. From experience I know that the MPEG2 encoding for ITV1 SD take about 1 second, therefore ITV1 HD via freeview is about 4 seconds behind real time. (Real time reference as measured at the signals entering Chiswick Park).
Do Not TX
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by drykid:
“For the nth time the bet paddy power were offering was for "the broadcaster to show any ad during play of any match in South Africa" (according to the Daily Mail, anyway.) Therefore being able to predict the goal in advance is irrelevant. I'm not saying deliberate interference is the most likely explanation; but there are plausible - if unlikely - motives for maliciously interrupting the feed that don't hinge around being able to predict the goal in advance.”

Technically, no adverts were screened. Only a sponsorship bumper, (which legally is not and must not be an advert) an ITV1 HD ident, and nine seconds of black screen. Strictly speaking, Paddy Power would be justified in not paying out.

If anyone made a significant bet on that outcome you can guarantee that the bookmaker would be making enquiries of their own before paying out in any case. It would be madness to do something like this on purpose because you'd never be able to collect.
jeffersbnl
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by drykid:
“For the nth time the bet paddy power were offering was for "the broadcaster to show any ad during play of any match in South Africa" (according to the Daily Mail, anyway.) Therefore being able to predict the goal in advance is irrelevant. I'm not saying deliberate interference is the most likely explanation; but there are plausible - if unlikely - motives for maliciously interrupting the feed that don't hinge around being able to predict the goal in advance.”

Do you not think there are system logs?

Do you honestly think anyone working in such a setup would be that stupid to try it? And you could have a nice charge of fraud on your hands if you tried it.
drykid
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by daved2424:
“Yes we all know that, but the discussions about delay revolve around the idea that whoever sabotaged knew that they were sabotaging the goal, which is not possible.”

Fair enough; like I said earlier from what informed people have said on this thread I don't see why people are still pursuing that one. But it's good to try and separate out the different theories nonetheless if you're gonna debunk them.
sarge99
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by drykid:
“I guess; but it seems to me that by continuing to show SD on the HD channel they're just creating an impression with viewers that they still aren't on top of things. So it's a gamble whichever way they decide to play it.”

Yeah they'd be better just owning up and saying they've got a HD transmission problem and stop switching between SD/HD until they've got the proper answer. Just upscaling SD without additional explanation is only going to lead to more annoyance amongst fans - most people would rather hear the truth rather than silence or denial - but ITV would probably be too scared to admit the truth. HD back on Freesat as I type this.
drykid
13-06-2010
ooh we're in HD again now. Who knows for how long, though.
Cordless
13-06-2010
HD logo is back on Freesat 119.
And definitely in HD not upscaled.
kgollop
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by drykid:
“ooh we're in HD again now. Who knows for how long, though.”

Was about to post the same
RazorD
13-06-2010
*touches wood HD lasts for more than 3 minutes*
drykid
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by jeffersbnl:
“Do you not think there are system logs?”

I would certainly hope there are.

Quote:
“Do you honestly think anyone working in such a setup would be that stupid to try it? And you could have a nice charge of fraud on your hands if you tried it.”

But like I said before; it's near impossible to prove that someone acted deliberately if they maintain they simply got confused in the excitement and pressed the wrong button. And no-one is gonna get fired for a one-off "mistake" I would hope.

Yeah it would be a stupid thing to do. But then again greed makes people do stupid things. And once again I'm not saying it's the likeliest explanation, just that to my mind it isn't disproven.
jzee
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by Do Not TX:
“Technically, no adverts were screened. Only a sponsorship bumper, (which legally is not and must not be an advert) an ITV1 HD ident, and nine seconds of black screen. Strictly speaking, Paddy Power would be justified in not paying out. ”

LOL, good point!
jeffersbnl
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by drykid:
“ And once again I'm not saying it's the likeliest explanation, just that to my mind it isn't disproven.”

I think there have been enough explanations offered to disprove it. If you want to believe wild speculation rather than people who've worked in those situations thats up to you.
t0264
13-06-2010
hehe you've got to see the funny side of it
same thing happened last year, ITV accidently cut to a commercial break and they missed a goal - twice in a row what are the chances
never the less it's still quite amusing particuarly since I was wondering a few weeks ago if ITV were gonna cock up in one of their matches
drykid
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by Do Not TX:
“Technically, no adverts were screened. Only a sponsorship bumper, (which legally is not and must not be an advert) an ITV1 HD ident, and nine seconds of black screen. Strictly speaking, Paddy Power would be justified in not paying out.”

Well, agreed. But then again, I never said it was a successful attempt :P Adverts do tend to follow sponsorship bumpers though; maybe someone else stepped in when they realised what was happening.

Quote:
“If anyone made a significant bet on that outcome you can guarantee that the bookmaker would be making enquiries of their own before paying out in any case. It would be madness to do something like this on purpose because you'd never be able to collect.”

Yeah, but attempts at fixing sports events for betting scams happen quite often, and are exposed as such (look at snooker, for istance...) The intelligent response is that only an idiot would try it, but sometimes people act like idiots *shrugs*
jeffersbnl
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by drykid:
“Well, agreed. But then again, I never said it was a successful attempt :P Adverts do tend to follow sponsorship bumpers though; maybe someone else stepped in when they realised what was happening.”

Or, far more likely, the HD system waited for adverts from the SD playout system, but there weren't any.

Someone stepping in wouldn't have been as 'clean' as that. (As in the sponsorship bumper, the ident and black screen)

Infact- near the end of an F1 race in 2003 the post race ad break for half the ITV regions was triggered early by an automatic system. The adverts were dutifully played out (from the Nothern transmission centre) and then the race action returned- by which point the race had finished. When the right time came for the break there weren't any ads- the system had already played them- so we 'enjoyed' and ITV1 caption instead.
Flyer 10
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by daved2424:
“Yes we all know that, but the discussions about delay revolve around the idea that whoever sabotaged knew that they were sabotaging the goal, which is not possible.”

Live programs often have a small delay so things can be bleeped out if needed. Something was bleeped out on the F1 qualifying yesterday.

Its still possible.
RazorD
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by Flyer 10:
“Live programs often have a small delay so things can be bleeped out if needed. Something was bleeped out on the F1 qualifying yesterday.

Its still possible.”

That tone was a technical fault, not a deliberate bleep! They've airred colourful language from drivers before on the F1 coverage, so i don't think there is a big enough delay to add a bleep!
drykid
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by jeffersbnl:
“I think there have been enough explanations offered to disprove it.”

But I didn't say that the betting theory must be true because there were no other possible explanations; therefore merely offering other (admittedly more plausible) explanations doesn't in any way disprove an alternative theory. The only attempt at truly disproving that theory I've seen so far is that "no-one would be that stupid". Which is a valid point, but how does that actually disprove it, in objective terms?
BigFoot87
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by t0264:
“hehe you've got to see the funny side of it
same thing happened last year, ITV accidently cut to a commercial break and they missed a goal - twice in a row what are the chances
never the less it's still quite amusing particuarly since I was wondering a few weeks ago if ITV were gonna cock up in one of their matches ”

It never seems to happen during one of ITV's live (and lame) reality/talent shows, does it?

If the live announcement of the X-Factor winner was 'swapped' for an tissue-paper advert, poor old DS would crash and people would be demanding that the EU stepped in.
jeffersbnl
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by drykid:
“But I didn't say that the betting theory must be true because there were no other possible explanations; therefore merely offering other (admittedly more plausible) explanations doesn't in any way disprove an alternative theory. The only attempt at truly disproving that theory I've seen so far is that "no-one would be that stupid". Which is a valid point, but how does that actually disprove it, in objective terms?”

It doesn't but what has been shown are reasons why it would be even more difficult to achieve- if they'd wanted to try it - assuming the ads are taken from the SD feed- (which given what happened seems quite likely) it would have been better (and, in theory more likely to succeed) by 'accidentally' triggering the break on ITV 1 SD.
Flyer 10
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by BigFoot87:
“It never seems to happen during one of ITV's live (and lame) reality/talent shows, does it?

If the live announcement of the X-Factor winner was 'swapped' for an tissue-paper advert, poor old DS would crash and people would be demanding that the EU stepped in.”

Probably because its a different company doing it and the sports company are clearly incompetent, thats undeniable.
jeffersbnl
13-06-2010
Originally Posted by Flyer 10:
“Probably because its a different company doing it and the sports company are clearly incompetent, thats undeniable.”

Neither last night nor the same thing during the Everton v Liverpool incident are the fault of ITV Sport. Its totally out of their hands. Its the fault of Technicolor, who do the transmission for ITV. So its just as possible it could happen during The X Factor or any live show.
<<
<
44 of 54
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map