• 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
NFL - UK Broadcasting Thread
<<
<
58 of 64
>>
>
Ads
25-09-2016
Originally Posted by mromega:
“http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin.../Issue_290.pdf

Page 44”

Its completely ludicrous of OFCOM. They are creating a far worse viewer experience by causing constant jumps to a blank screen. I notice that they didn't receive one complaint about this either, they noticed it through their Orwellian sounding 'monitoring'.
popeye13
25-09-2016
It was a technical breach and nothing more than a word in their shell-like.
It is stupidity and again shows why OFCOM needs serious reform.
I stand by my statement previously though, that the likelihood of Sky being found in breach is slim at best
Bosox
25-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ads:
“Its completely ludicrous of OFCOM. They are creating a far worse viewer experience by causing constant jumps to a blank screen. I notice that they didn't receive one complaint about this either, they noticed it through their Orwellian sounding 'monitoring'.”

Yeah it's insane.

I was watching some college football on BT/ESPN last night and it was a CBS game and they even cut away when CBS were doing their promo for 60 Minutes! What are they trying to achieve?
Bosox
25-09-2016
3 weeks in and Dara's not getting any better as a presenter. Can they really persist with this for a whole season?
Nova21
25-09-2016
New hair extensions this week
brundlebud
26-09-2016
Originally Posted by popeye13:
“It was a technical breach and nothing more than a word in their shell-like.
It is stupidity and again shows why OFCOM needs serious reform.
I stand by my statement previously though, that the likelihood of Sky being found in breach is slim at best”

Why would they be any less likely than BT to be in breach if they committed the same offenses.

I agree it's a daft requirement, but you can guarantee that eventually someone does something stupid and runs up a big bill calling Papa John's in America (or whatever) and then OFCOM get criticised for not doing their job properly.

Most rules are there to protect those with the least common sense...
kevthelutonbee
26-09-2016
Originally Posted by Nova21:
“New hair extensions this week”

For Mr Reynolds?
hendero
26-09-2016
Originally Posted by Bosox:
“3 weeks in and Dara's not getting any better as a presenter. Can they really persist with this for a whole season?”

I never thought I'd miss Kev, but at least he had chemistry with the rest of the guys in the studio.
stevebluejay
26-09-2016
Originally Posted by hendero:
“I never thought I'd miss Kev, but at least he had chemistry with the rest of the guys in the studio.”

Haven't been watching Sky in studio stuff as i watch Redzone, but i did see Kev featured in a London pub in week 1, has he been used since or was that his only appearance?
popeye13
26-09-2016
Originally Posted by brundlebud:
“Why would they be any less likely than BT to be in breach if they committed the same offenses.

I agree it's a daft requirement, but you can guarantee that eventually someone does something stupid and runs up a big bill calling Papa John's in America (or whatever) and then OFCOM get criticised for not doing their job properly.

Most rules are there to protect those with the least common sense...”

You'd be hard pushed to blame it on OFCOM for someone being a bonehead!
OFCOM isn't there to do that either.

They'd be less likely because BT were only found in technical breach of the rules because OFCOM were snooping. No complained and the fact is non of the broadcasters can do much to stop this and if one of the broadcasters were to challenge a ruling from OFCOM about something like this in court, they'd likely win as there harm to a viewer is zero, the broadcaster isn't paid for the ads, they don't want the ads on there but they're taking a 3rd party feed that has these on which makes entirely beyond their control.
OFCOM would have to clearly show where the harm was. There is non!

The rules are stupid and OFCOM needs serious reform, but so do NFL International and MLB International, for the fact they still send out the feeds with all this crap on anyway.
Its massively unprofessional for a start and when broadcasters are having to put the feeds on a 10 second delay to catch these ads and cut away in time, you know you're having the piss taken.
Li4m
26-09-2016
Originally Posted by popeye13:
“The rules are stupid and OFCOM needs serious reform, but so do NFL International and MLB International, for the fact they still send out the feeds with all this crap on anyway.
Its massively unprofessional for a start and when broadcasters are having to put the feeds on a 10 second delay to catch these ads and cut away in time, you know you're having the piss taken.”

MLB provides an international feed for the All Star Game and the World Series. It always used to do likewise for one of the League Championship Series, but I honestly can't remember if they still do that. (The production and personnel involved in the world feed changed last year.)

I don't really see how it's feasible for them to provide a clean world feed for many other games though. It's not just on-air graphics — lots of the on-air promos are read out by one of the commentators, so you'd need a separate commentary team as well. Who's going to provide that? There are 15 games on most days; MLB could provide a separate feed of one designated game each day, but what happens if BT wants to show a different game, or multiple games?

I'm far less aware of what goes on with NFL broadcasts, although I know there's a Super Bowl world feed (which the BBC have taken in the past). In-game promos seem to be less of an issue but maybe that's because all the games are shown nationally, while the majority of MLB games are televised by local broadcasters who tend to run a lot more advertising during the games than ESPN, Fox, and TBS.
Bosox
27-09-2016
Re having world feeds, maybe I'm wrong but I think most viewers would be massively opposed to this. For my part I want to see the American broadcast that are Americans are watching. For one thing the commentators and production on a world feed are inevitably going to be worse than the American broadcast (if they were better then they would be the ones broadcasting to America).
Li4m
27-09-2016
Originally Posted by Bosox:
“Re having world feeds, maybe I'm wrong but I think most viewers would be massively opposed to this. For my part I want to see the American broadcast that are Americans are watching. For one thing the commentators and production on a world feed are inevitably going to be worse than the American broadcast (if they were better then they would be the ones broadcasting to America).”

Yes and no, I think. Gary Thorne did the MLB world feed for years and I suspect there are plenty of people who'd rather hear him than Joe Buck. But then, I take the point that people want to feel they're getting the more "authentic" American broadcast.
brundlebud
27-09-2016
Originally Posted by popeye13:
“You'd be hard pushed to blame it on OFCOM for someone being a bonehead!
OFCOM isn't there to do that either.”

I know - but the argument would be that "OFCOM should have rules in place to stop this". Not my argument - I agree that you'd have to be a bonehead to do this, let alone to think this needed regulating... but apparently somebody does, because it's there...

Quote:
“
They'd be less likely because BT were only found in technical breach of the rules because OFCOM were snooping. No complained and the fact is non of the broadcasters can do much to stop this and if one of the broadcasters were to challenge a ruling from OFCOM about something like this in court, they'd likely win as there harm to a viewer is zero, the broadcaster isn't paid for the ads, they don't want the ads on there but they're taking a 3rd party feed that has these on which makes entirely beyond their control.
OFCOM would have to clearly show where the harm was. There is non!”

I wouldn't agree that they are less likely - in fact I would have said that if anything it would have made it more likely that having found a breach, OFCOM would have done a further set of sweeps of similar programming.

It's not likely that the broadcaster would take legal action over it, since it's clearly a breach. To overturn the decision the broadcaster would have to show evidence that they weren't in breach, not that OFCOM would have to prove further that there was any harm caused (which is a slightly different scenario for a technical breach like this than for something which is the result of a complaint, usually because the complaint is alleging some form of harm, unfairness or defamation)

Quote:
“The rules are stupid and OFCOM needs serious reform, but so do NFL International and MLB International, for the fact they still send out the feeds with all this crap on anyway.”

This doesn't seem to be so much of an issue with the NFL International and MLB International feeds - more those provided by an independent broadcaster, who is, naturally, being paid to mention their sponsors.

Quote:
“Its massively unprofessional for a start and when broadcasters are having to put the feeds on a 10 second delay to catch these ads and cut away in time, you know you're having the piss taken.”

I agree that it looks unprofessional, but given the regime that we have for oversight of broadcasting, it isn't a surprise. Perhaps OFCOM does need reforming to remove some of this kind of intervention, but there would, presumably, need to be some sort of known demand for it beyond a few folks moaning on a bulletin board.

The feed delay isn't really anything new. In fact, IIRC, WWF/E were put on a 7 second delay for all their live programming back in the late 90s or early 2000s, because they ran in to trouble with the US broadcasting authorities (might have been for the Pillman incident), and I think they still run on it.
Fieldmouse83
28-09-2016
I really disapointed Sky are not making the usual 50min dowloadable weekly highlights/round up shows. The BBCs shows are utterly pathetic and unwatchable for me.
platty
29-09-2016
Wrong thread. Lol
Staffs Steve
29-09-2016
Week 4 Television matches and commentators;

Friday 01:30 Miami @ Cincinnati – CBS / NFL NET – Jim Nantz, Phil Simms, Tracy Wolfson.
Sunday 14:30 Indianapolis @ Jacksonville – CBS - Greg Gumbel, Trent Green, Jamie Erdahl.
Sunday 18:00 Oakland @ Baltimore – CBS - Andrew Catalon, Steve Beuerlein, Steve Tasker, Chris Fischer.
Sunday 21:00 Denver @ Tampa Bay – CBS - Spero Dedes, Solomon Wilcots.
Monday 01:30 Kansas @ Pittsburgh – NBC – Al Michaels, Cris Collinsworth, Michele Tafoya.
Tuesday 01:30 NY Giants @ Minnesota – ESPN Sean McDonough, Jon Gruden, Lisa Salters.

Sky Sports 1 for TNF and MNF. BBC 2 for International Series. Sky Sports 2 for other Sunday matches.

In America it’s a Fox doubleheader with Seattle @ NY Jets and Dallas @ San Francisco being the main games. CBS has nationwide coverage of the International Series match - Indianapolis @ Jacksonville. That is followed by regional coverage. Denver @ Tampa Bay is listed as the primary match.

US coverage maps can be found at http://506sports.com/nfl.php?yr=2016&wk=4
Alex2606
03-10-2016
5.5 rating in the US Overnights for Jax/Ind, down on the 7.2 for NYJ/MIA last season and the lowest of the four games nationally broadcast in that slot.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016...-singleheader/

Sports ratings are down across a lot of the board in the States this year and, unlike last year, it had competition from events like the Ryder Cup, but it'll be interesting to see what ratings are like for the other UK games (especially Washington/Cincinnati)
ukdude7
04-10-2016
Colts v Jags on BBC2 averaged 351k with a peak of 406k. Down from the Bills v Jags (384k) last season but up on Jets v Fins (290k) last year which was also directly opposite the Rugby World Cup. The terrestrial numbers for live NFL games seems to run counter to the claims of continued fan growth. However....

Mark Waller Head of NFL International is claiming the highlights shows on BBC1 and 2 are getting 1 million viewers EACH across broadcast and digital.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/09/28/n...-london-mexico
Aftershow
04-10-2016
Originally Posted by Ads:
“Its completely ludicrous of OFCOM. They are creating a far worse viewer experience by causing constant jumps to a blank screen.”

Absolutely. The constant jumping to the BT logo/music when watching MLB (and, to a slightly lesser extent, NCAA football) is immensely irritating.
IanFergus
04-10-2016
About thirty years ago, Dutch tv had rules forbidding any advertising during televised sports events. By the time they had managed to edit football highlights (blanking out advertising boards and shirt sponsors), the coverage was hideous.
walaboobah
04-10-2016
Originally Posted by Bosox:
“3 weeks in and Dara's not getting any better as a presenter. Can they really persist with this for a whole season?”

She's dire, her voice really grates like dragging your nails down a blackboard! Glad I have gamepass access now and pretty much get the US broadcast feed. Much better
Bosox
04-10-2016
I see Red Zone is on Sky Sports Mix again this Sunday, great news. Wasn't it originally announced as the first 4 weeks only? Hopefully it might continue throughout the season now.
JCR
04-10-2016
Sky now has one big advantage over gamepass, not having to watch this in the ad breaks- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8erEp_TL-UM
popeye13
05-10-2016
Originally Posted by JCR:
“Sky now has one big advantage over gamepass, not having to watch this in the ad breaks- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8erEp_TL-UM”

I just puked in my mouth a little....
<<
<
58 of 64
>>
>
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