For Your Viewing Displeasure

As a passionate sports fan, I am a big critique of how television channels broadcast sport. Television sports coverage should include the following basics:

The sport is shown in it’s entirety. That is, the entire match including every play, pass, goal, bowl, pitch, hit is shown from start to finish including extra-time. Just like if you were actually at the game.
The sport should be shown live if possible.
The commentators should be an expert in that sport and also have the media training and skills to deliver this expert knowledge to the audience. The commentary should add to the viewers experience.

I don’t think this is too much to ask, do you?

Well, when it comes to Channel 7’s coverage of the Australian Open every summer, it apparently is too much to ask.

Their coverage is absolutely awful. It is so frustrating to watch and at times cringe-worthy. It is not enjoyable, which is a shame because some of the best athletes in the world are on show in Australia.

So without further ado, let me list the crimes that channel 7’s Australian Open coverage is guilty of.

1. The night-session coverage is not shown live in some Australian states

This one personally affects me the most. During Australia’s summer, the eastern states adopt daylight saving except for Queensland. TV programming in Queensland is affected by this if certain programs are to be shown live. The coverage of the Australian Open is advertised as “LIVE”. But, when it come to the night session, Queensland’s coverage is delayed by 1 hour because of daylight saving.

The reason behind this is that channel 7 refuses to move the nightly news at 6pm and their “hard-hitting” and “full of integrity” current affairs program at 6.30pm. Not only in Queensland, but also in South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia where they are discriminated against by being in a different time zone anyway, regardless of daylight saving. Remarkably, Western Australia has a 3 hour delay for their night session!!!

What a joke!!!

For those not on Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time, if we don’t want to accidentally find out what the score is, we need to go into hibernation mode. We can’t turn on the radio. We can’t go onto a sports or news website. We can’t use twitter or facebook. We can’t even use channel 7’s Australian Open website that they advertise during the delayed tennis coverage!

Don’t channel 7 know that we live in this technology age where we can get information at the press of a button. It’s not the 1970’s. Wake up to yourself channel 7!

Channel 7 is basically giving a big “fuck you” to anyone not on the same time-zone as Sydney and Melbourne.

Also, I feel somewhat deflated and disconnected from the sports contest when I know it’s not live. Though I have not seen the contest before and I don’t know what’s going to happen, I feel that I’m not watching the same event as someone who is watching it live. Part of watching a big, live sports coverage is the fact that there are thousands or even millions of other people right around the country and the world watching the exact same thing that you are, at the same time. It makes you feel part of something much bigger than just watching something on TV. This is a big part of watching sport at home that I don’t think TV channel executives understand.

2. Some matches during the daytime session are not shown live anyway

Again, channel 7 must think people stop their lives and have no access to internet or radio when their coverage is on. The other day I was watching Tomic play Lopez. Half-way through this match, Alicia Molik’s match started on another court. They advertised throughout Tomic’s match that they will show the Molik match straight after Tomic’s is finished. However, at the conclusion of Tomic’s match I was surprised to see Molik and her opponent walk out of the locker room and down to the courts to begin the match. This is because I had seen on facebook that Molik had lost the first set.

I appreciate that channel 7 are trying to show as much of the Australian players as possible. But there is little point showing the full, delayed match when the score is easily accessible on radio and the internet. Either pick up the match live at the point where it currently is or, even better, use one of the other digital channels channel 7 owns to show both matches, concurrently live. Yes, let’s actually use this technology called digital television for what it was designed to do! But god forbid we replace reruns of Full House with live grand slam tennis!!!

3. Missing the first point of a new game because of advertising

There is nothing more annoying as a sports fan watching a match on TV and missing the first ball, first play or first point because the commercial break went too long. I think most sports fans can put up with commercials during a match as long as it is during the “break” in the sport.

However, channel 7’s ability to miss the first point of a game is remarkably high. Not only do the commercials sometimes run overtime, they’ve come up with a number of other ways to miss the action and annoy the viewer. For starters they have this “sounds of the game” segment which is sponsored by telecommunications company Optus. Basically, its 30 seconds of listening to a game of tennis played days ago (and sometimes it’s not even tennis). This segment clearly adds nothing to the coverage and is a thinly veiled extra commercial that runs into showing the actual tennis. Another annoyance is crossing to the host in the main studio to talk about what’s coming up. Again, no point to showing the host as channel 7 frequently tells us what’s coming up in between games anyway.

But to top that all off, the other day lead commentator Bruce McAvaney said it was “the perfect time to rejoin us”... after an ace had been served... not the perfect time at all!!!

4. Cringe-worthy self-promotional advertising

During games when the players don’t need to change ends (and hence channel 7 can’t throw to a regular commercial break), channel 7 often throws in a 10-15 second advertising promoting a television show that will begin in the weeks following the tennis. This ad often incorporates a tennis theme which just makes it sound corny. Then the commentators get in on the act after the ad is over and it just makes for horrible and awkward television. It really takes away for the authenticity of watching high class sport when these unashamed, cringe-worthy self-promotion advertisements continually pop up during the coverage and take away from what the real event is.

5. Commentators not on the same wave-length

When I was watching the Tomic match the other day, one commentator in the booth asked the commentator in the grandstand (again pointless because they have to whisper and they are just going to get sunburnt too) a question specific to the state of the game. Something like, how should Tomic approach playing this type of opponent in the second set after just winning the first set? The grandstand commentator then proceeded to not answer the question at all and rambled about Tomic’s general attributes that had nothing to do with a strategy or approach to beating this specific opponent in this specific situation. It wasn’t even like the commentator just used old sport cliches to answer the question. He just didn’t answer the question at all! This happens all the time during channel 7’s coverage. Commentators ask each other questions and half the time the answers they give have little or no resemblance to the original question proposed. It’s either they are not actually experts in their field, or they don’t have the media skills and training to formulate questions and answers that are insightful, relevant and add to the pictures being shown.

In my opinion, channel 7 needs to lift their game immeasurably. As the main broadcaster in Australia of 1 of the 4 grand slams in tennis, you would think they would aim to provide a top quality broadcast. The Australian Open is very popular to Australians so it’s a perfect opportunity to showcase how serious and how good channel 7 is at broadcasting these big events.

But it is far from good. It’s awful to watch. Just like serving a double-fault on match point.

Video Killed The Umpire Star

As a sports fan, there are two things we want when our team is playing from the referees, umpires or officials. The first is fairness in the umpire’s calls. The second, and in my opinion more importantly, the umpire’s calls and the process of decision making should also be consistent.

Fairness is the umpire’s ability to make the correct decision. If a foul has occurred then the umpire should call a foul. If the ball has crossed the line for a goal then the umpire should call a goal. Consistency, on the otherhand, deals with the umpire’s ability to make the same decision when the same scenario or situation occurs at multiple times throughout a match. Regardless whether the umpire made the right or wrong decision the first time, the umpire should stick with that decision for similar situations throughout the match. Consistency also relates to using the same decision making process regardless of the state of the game or if technology needs to be used to help make that decision.

It is this consistency that I argue is more important to a sports fan. Umpires are human and can make mistakes but they should continue to call similar incidents the same way so that the players and fans know what to expect. Otherwise, it feels like the rules are changing throughout the game, which is worse than getting a bad decision.

The Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) currently used in test cricket smacks of inconsistency.

As can be seen at the 2.20 mark in the video, umpire Aleem Dar raised his finger and gave the batsman out. However, about 10-15 seconds later, something has made umpire Dar reconsider and check if a no-ball has been bowled. So he goes to the 3rd umpire and it so happens that the bowler had indeed bowled a no-ball and Prior was given not-out.



The correct decision was made, so that is fair. But the process is erroneous as there is so much inconsistency is how the process of making this decision occurs.

Firstly, why did it take him so long to think that it may have been a no-ball? Normally, the umpire knows as soon as he has bowled it that it’s a no-ball or not - no more than 1 or 2 seconds. It took him 10-15 seconds to reconsider his original decision. This is completely inconsistent. Why should the umpire be allowed that long, or even longer, to make this decision when normally it’s done in 1 or 2 seconds. This is changing the decision making process - massive inconsistency.

Furthermore, how long has the umpire have to change his mind or go to the third umpire for some help? Is he supposed to go to the third umpire straight away? If he doesn’t have to, which it seams he doesn’t based upon what Aleem Dar did, how long does he have to change his decision? 5 seconds, 10 seconds? The time it takes for the batsman to walk off? I’m not sure if there are guidelines in place, again highlighting inconsistency.

Also, if it has taken the umpire 10 to 15 seconds to make a 1-2 second decision then his ability to umpire must be questioned. There’s a possibility that he has missed other no-balls during a wicket but never went to to the 3rd umpire to check them out. If the technology is being used to try and make a fair and consistent decision then should we be checking all wickets for no-balls?

Or what about close no-ball calls for deliveries in which there was no wicket and thus he could not refer them? If your team loses by a run then not calling a no-ball is as important as not calling a wicket. Should the umpire be allowed to check close no-balls even when a wicket does not fall? We check sixes and fours so why not?

Finally, should the umpires be allowed to “challenge” their own decisions? I don’t have a problem with umpires going straight to the 3rd umpire if they are uncertain. But if the umpire is certain enough to make a decision (either out or not) then I’m at a loss at why they would need to challenge their own decision 10-15 seconds later. This might get the fairer decision but the process is very much inconsistent.

Like many things in modern-day cricket, the UDRS needs a bit of work. Otherwise the following situation may occur and that is just not cricket...

Australia is batting second in the 2015 World Cup final at the M.C.G. against England. It is the very last ball of the game. Australia needs 1 run to tie the game and thus win on a countback while England needs 1 wicket to win the match. James Anderson bowls the last ball and gets Josh Hazlewood to knick the ball to the keeper and is given out by the umpire. The Barmy Army go wild, the English players go crazy and start celebrating on the field. After about 20 seconds and with hand-shaking occurring the square-leg umpire has a second thought and goes to the 3rd umpire to check if England had too many players behind square-leg, constituting a no-ball. On the big screen, it is shown that England do indeed had too many players behind square leg and the ball is now called a no-ball. The game is now tied and Australia win the World Cup.

Wouldn’t that just be an awful way to end a World Cup final? The decision maybe be correct but it would be a flat, almost hollow feeling - for both sets of fans and players. Things need to be changed so that the correct decision is made without causing this ludicrous and completely avoidable situation. With the process as it is now, this could be an ugly reality.

Why Qatar & Russia Won The World Cup

First of all - Congratulations to Russia and Qatar on winning their respective bids to host the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups.

They played FIFA’s game the best.



Hate it or love it, bidding for World Cups and Olympics are a game - just like the dirty game of politics - and with every game there are rules, regulations and a referee. You have to know what people want (usually money or power) and make sure you have that want. You also have to know how far you can bend the rules without breaking them. It also helps to get the referee on your side, or even have one of your own as one of the decision makers.

There are some people blaming our presentation video on why we didn’t get the World Cup. True, it could’ve been better and showed more of our footballing prowess and history. But really, the presentation video is just an act; a theatrical display and almost ceremonial finish to the bid. It is inconsequential. The executive committee members would’ve known who they were voting for before they all got to Zurich a few weeks ago.



For example, in the 2018 voting, the Holland/Belgium bid received 4 votes in round 1 and then only 2 in round 2. If the committee members were voting for what they thought was the best bid in round 1 how can they lose votes? That doesn’t make sense. Possibly, the votes for this bid was propped up in round 1 to keep it in and to help eliminate the best-ranked bid in England.


There are also reports that some countries had “assurances” from voting executive committee members that they would vote for their bid but went back on their word and voted elsewhere. Oh no! They lied! That never happens in politics does it? Have none of these bids watched an episode of Survivor before? The only assurance you get is when that name is read out by Jeff Probst.

I don’t believe for a minute there is this conspiracy against the 3 English-speaking countries. Australia, U.S.A. & England remarkably only got 6 votes between them (12 votes was needed for a successful bid, Australia got 1 and England 2) though had the 3 best assessments of all the World Cup bids. While some of the FIFA executive committee members have said England’s bid was hampered because of their media, I don’t think this would’ve impacted on the other 2 bids. I just think that the other countries played FIFA’s game better even if their bids were more risky.

Jess Fink breaks down Qatar’s successful bid quite well. One of the key plays made by the Qatari bid was that it promised to build demountable stadiums and ship them off to Africa. This helped to sure up the African vote.

More importantly, the Asian Football Confederation president, Mohamed Bin Hammam supported a Qatari World Cup from the outset. With Australia, South Korea and Japan also coming from the Asian confederation, the president’s influence was always going to make sure that Qatar’s bid would face-off against the U.S.A.. After all, he gets a vote too.

Furthermore, Bin Hammam was reportedly threatening to run against current FIFA president Sepp Blatter for the top job in world football if Qatar didn’t host the World Cup. Give Qatar the World Cup and Sepp Blatter gets what he wants, unabated power for a 4th consecutive term as FIFA president.

This is called playing the game, or more importantly, playing FIFA’s game. I’m sure Russia had similar ploys to beat off its rivals’ bids. After all it does have similar sums of money.

Don’t get me wrong, a World Cup in Qatar is going to be awful. It will lack atmosphere, it will not be a celebration of the best football in the world. It will not be a month-long party and festival that it should be. There will be little to see or do outside of football, it will be unbearably hot (40-50° C) if it is hosted in June/July and there will be no one there to fill these vast stadiums up. There will also be severe restrictions on the consumption of alcohol. It will only be hosted in 2 cities. The 2022 World Cup in Qatar will be awful for fans. This will be shame for the Arab-world. The World Cup deserves to go to this part of the world for the first time and for it to a be a celebration of Arab culture and the Arab people. But not in this way, and not by the bid presented.

But since when has FIFA made decisions for the fans? Not for a while. If it did we’d have goal-line technology by now. It makes decisions for themselves - so they can continue to receive what they want - usually, money and power.

So congratulations again to Russia and Qatar. Well done, you played the game best.

But I won’t see you there in 2018 and 2022. It’s Brazil 2014 or bust. Who’s joining me?

Grand Finals with no winners, football matches with no fans and Games organisers with no idea

Plenty to talk about as we come to the end of the Australian ‘footy’ season for 2010 and on the eve of the 19th edition of the Commonwealth Australia-England-Canada games.

AFL

Last weekend’s drawn grand final will be remembered as one of the greatest grand final’s of all time. It was just a shame that after a massive build-up to the game and the extremely high-level of play shown by both teams that it was all for nothing. What’s the point of having a replay if the semi-finals and preliminary finals all go to extra-time if required as will the replay this weekend if it is drawn again? The only thing I could think of was the extra $8 million the AFL will receive from a Grand Final Pt II. But can we just for once, for the sake of the players and the fans, not think about money. Let the players play extra-time, let’s get a result on the day, let’s know who the champion is on the biggest day of the year. The players and the fans deserve this at least. The flat, empty feeling I had after the game must have been nothing compared to what the fans and the players must have felt. As Nick Maxwell said immediately post-game (often the best time to get an honest opinion out of athletes) to not have extra-time on grand final day is an absolutely joke in sport’s modern and professional era and this needs to lead to a change in the rules.



NRL

One of my favourite days of the year (if not my favourite) is NRL Grand Final day that will take place this Sunday. St. George-Illawarra Dragons will play the Sydney Roosters in a battle between the best defence in the league and the best attacking halves combination this season. Expect this grand final to be one of the lowest-scoring in modern history. The last time these two teams played, St. George got up 19-12 after losing their 2 previous matches and with the Roosters on a 5-game winning streak. The Dragons will go in as favourites with the bookies as they are the minor premiers. However, I see the game going down to the wire, if not to extra-time. In tight grand finals, better defensive teams usually get up. So that’s why I’m tipping the Dragons to win by 1 point.

On a side note, it was great to see Brett Stewart cleared of the sexual assault allegations earlier this week. Let’s hope he can resurrect his career, learn from his experiences from this incident and get back to the level he was at 2 years ago. If rugby league can allow criminals, drugos, and drunks back into the game and reward them with representative jerseys, large salaries and high-profile media positions then Brett Stewart shouldn’t have a problem getting back to the top of the sport.

Commonwealth Games

Originally called the British Empire Games, the catastrophe that is the Commonwealth Games in Delhi, India is not a shining example of the might of the British Empire. It’s probable closer to the Brittas Empire. Corruption (in a country where over 800 million people live on less than $2 a day), blown budgets, construction delays, faulty construction, dirty and inhabitable athlete accommodation and threats of dengue fever and terrorists attacks have already assigned this event to one of the worst in modern sport. In today’s professional era, only a handful of countries win the majority of the medals and for the last few editions the Commonwealth Games had been ridiculed as an ego boost for countries such as Australia, Great Britain and Canada to thrash or flog the other countries in the Commonwealth - similar to a 18 year old playing in the under 11’s.
 


The absolute amateur and appalling organisation of these Commonwealth Games in a country that had much to gain could in fact kill-off the Commonwealth Games for good - especially if the 80% chance of a terrorist attack rings true. I think the athletes who are going over to compete are brave and are trying to do their upmost to keep the spirit of the Commonwealth Games alive. However, I support 100% the athletes who don’t go - the high risks far outweigh the rewards. The people I feel the most sorry for are the people of India whose country’s image will be forever tainted. For such an amazing and exotic country, the country’s development and growth out of poverty will become that much harder because of worst Commonwealth Games in history.

A-League

For the sport that I love so much, and that I sacrifice so much for, it’s really sad to hear about the health of the sport of football (soccer) in Australia. While the head honchos at the Football Federation Australia wax lyrically about how great the A-League is, it is in fact spiralling downward. Jesse Fink’s blog at The World Game has done a fantastic job of bringing these matters to light.

• The FFA are refusing to allow North Queensland Fury to sign more players and help financially support the club until they find a better business model while Adelaide and Brisbane are being financially propped up.

• By all reports, the new team to enter the competition next season, western-Sydney based Sydney Rovers, will not happen as the money and the skilled-players in the A-League are already spread quite thin across the other clubs.

• Crowd numbers (average, not aggregate - FFA, don’t skew the stats!) are at an all-time low. Highlighted none more so than the Gold Coast’s awful attendance rates. A combination of poor marketing and an ego-centric owner has lead to sub-2000 fan turn-outs. However, the biggest reason that has affected all teams is starting the season as the NRL and AFL were reaching the end of their seasons and the start of their finals. The A-League must change this as they can never compete with AFL / NRL finals series.

The A-League is in an unhealthy state and I guarantee that the teams and structure of the league will be significantly changed in less than 5 years time to allow the league to survive in the long-term. Run by the current autocratic and anonymous FFA board, the league in it’s present model will not survive without change.

Pakistan: The Black Sheep in the International Cricket Family

Last weekend during the 4th test match against England, it was revealed in The News of The World that a man had been arrested for paying Pakistani players to bowl no-balls at specific times during the match. While this might not be the worst case of “fixing” in cricket, it is yet another damning and ugly incident involving Pakistan cricket. There now must be calls to remove Pakistan from playing international cricket because of the the systematic cheating, rorting and unprofessionalism that has diseased the game in Pakistan.



The biggest issue that has always hung around the performance of the Pakistan cricket team is match-fixing. An expression a number of Australian players have used to describe how the Pakistan team plays over the years is “You’re never sure what Pakistan team will turn up on the day - they are unpredictable”. By the allegations and the incidents over the decades, this could be paraphrased as “Are all of the Pakistan players playing to win or are they playing for something more sinister?”

Rumours and allegations of match-fixing involving Pakistan have been around since 1979-80 when players were accused of throwing matches during a tour of India. There were also allegations of throwing the World Cup semi-final in 1987 against Australia.

One of the first, substantiated incidents of match-fixing involving Pakistan occurred during the 1st test match against Australia in Karachi in 1994. It was revealed that well-renowned Pakistan batsman AND captain Salim Malik offered Mark Waugh, Tim May and Shane Warne $70,000 each during the test match to perform badly to allow Pakistan to win after Australia was in a strong position. The Australian players declined the money. However amazingly enough, Pakistan chased down the target of 314 runs with 1 wicket remaining - the 12th largest successful run chase ever at the time. A Pakistan government judicial inquiry banned Malik for life and fined six top players

Many other match-fixing incidents have occurred since then including the infamous Hanse Cronje affair and the subsequent findings of the report into match-fixing. It appears now that countries such as South Africa and India, teams that have been riddled with match-fixing by some of their top players in the past, have now implemented strategies to eliminate match-fixing and have disassociated themselves with past players, coaches and officials who have previously been linked with match-fixing. However, the stench of match-fixing has never really gone away from the Pakistan team.

After the 1999 World Cup, an inquiry found no credible evidence to suggest Pakistan players had fixed their loss to minnows Bangladesh during the tournament. At the 2007 World Cup, coach Bob Woolmer was found dead in his hotel room after a loss to even bigger minnows Ireland. A conclusive autopsy was never reached and some conspiracy theorists believe people associated with high-stakes gambling may have had something to do with his death. More recently, Australia remarkably won the Sydney test match earlier this year after Pakistan were 206 runs ahead after the first innings. It was the 6th largest deficit to overcome to win a test match.

However, it is not only match-fixing that has made Pakistan cricket an unprofessional, dishonest and disrespectful body. The Pakistan cricket board appears to have no structure or no systems in place to nurture young talent to develop them into international quality players. The board is also unpredictable in picking teams - not necessarily based upon form - but based upon a hidden agenda, favourites or something other. For example, captain Mohammad Yousuf and former captain Younis Khan were banned FOR LIFE for losing every game in the series in Australia - though they were one of the best performing players, not only during the tour, but throughout the past 10 years. However, this ban was overturned within 3 months - probably because Pakistan was playing so poorly during the first two test matches against England. Any player for the Pakistan cricket team would never feel secure in their position in the team, regardless of their on-field performance. Maybe this is the reason why Pakistan players try to make as much money as they can in the limited amount of games they are involved in.

Another blight on the Pakistan game is the association of performance-enhancing drugs with some of it’s players. In 2006, Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif were both found guilty of taking nandrolone and banned for two-years. However, because of the unpredictability of the Pakistan board and the procedures in place to deal with such incidents, their bans were acquitted. Suspiciously, in 2007 both of these players were withdrawn from the World Cup squad due to injury reasons just minutes before they were to leave for the tournament. By withdrawing from the team, they avoided being drug tested.

Other incidents include, the aforementioned Bob Woolmer death, bowlers called for throwing and the terrorist attacks on the umpires and Sri Lankan team buses during a test match in March 2009. To date, international cricket has still not been played in Pakistan.

All in all Pakistan cricket is a joke. From the players, to the playing staff, to the board and even the government, Pakistan cricket is a corrupt, unprofessional and highly disorganised sporting body the brings down the international repetition of the sport and lets down the fans of a country that lives and dies by cricket. Pakistan cricket should be banned for bringing the game into disrepute, for allowing systematic cheating and for not providing the systems and policies in place to prevent the aforementioned incidents from occurring. If action is not taken against Pakistan now, then the same atrocities will continue to occur and the game of cricket will continue to be tarnished for years to come.

Technology in Sport: Should we have it?

One of the hottest topics of debate in all of sport that polarises opinion is the use of technology to assist officials in making on-field decisions. In the red corner is the supporters of technology. They are adamant that the use of technology helps officials make more correct decisions (supposedly the main reason why technology is implemented) and thus reduce the confrontation and backlash from players, coaches and fans when their team gets screwed over. Then in the blue corner are the opponents to technology. They believe that technology will interrupt the flow or authenticity of the sport,  that bad calls are part and parcel of the sport and that they even up over time or that it simply won’t work to reduce refereeing mistakes.

This debate was recently reignited in AFL after a controversial goal-line incident during the big 1st v 2nd match between Collingwood and Geelong. In short, the goal-line umpire thought the Geelong player had failed to kick the ball in time before crossing the line and hence awarded a behind (1 point) instead of a goal (6 points). The television coverage showed a goal-line replay of the incident and revealed that the player had clearly kicked the ball before crossing the line and therefore a goal should’ve been awarded.



AFL is one of the few sports in the modern era that does not use technology. It doesn’t even use audio equipment for officials to communicate with each other. Last week’s incident has supporter’s of technology demanding the use of video replays to help officials rule on close goal-line decisions. Even the league’s umpiring boss believes video technology could’ve prevented three mistakes made by goal umpires in the last round of matches. Other incidents such as when a ball grazes the goal post could also be reviewed though the AFL is contemplating changing it’s unique rules regarding shots on goal hitting the ‘woodwork’.

The biggest question to ask is how would video technology work in AFL? AFL is a very fast, free-flowing sport which has few breaks during the normal course of play. The game is not designed for every close goal-line decision to be checked before play can resume again - especially if the original decision by the umpire is to ‘play on’. Video replays and referee challenges work fantastic in sports such as NFL where there is a break after every single play. A decision to review a play, either by a coach or by a tv official can be done during these breaks thus not interrupting the live play of the game.

The best way that AFL could implement video replays is to use the system currently used in league and union. If the referee is not sure if a try has been scored correctly, he goes to the video referee to help make the decision. Fortunately for AFL, close goal-line decisions are few and far between and the rules defining how a goal is scored is quite clear meaning that the technology would work quite well. In the NRL however, the rules governing how a try is scored has become quite muddied while it feels that at least every second attempted try is sent to the video referee. Fans have become frustrated that trys that look legitimate during live play are not awarded because of a bizarre interpretation using slow-mo replays. The NRL is the best example of video technology going wrong. It is a severe blight on the game where fans are continuously frustrated by either delays in awarding clear trys by going to the video referee or, even worse, getting the decision wrong after using the video technology.

Another sport hotly debating the use of technology is the biggest game in the world - football (soccer). Most people would’ve seen or at least heard about the goal that wasn’t awarded for England against Germany in the second round of this year’s World Cup. On video replay, it was clearly shown that the ball had crossed the line and should’ve been awarded a goal. In that game, the goal would’ve levelled the scores up at 2-all. Even before this incident, FIFA had experimented with implementing a chip inside the ball that would alert the referee if the ball had crossed the line or not. However, FIFA’s president was a staunch opponent of implementing goal-line technology, but has changed tact since this incident. Ironically, England had a goal scored against them in their very next match that failed to fully cross the line.



Like AFL, football is a continuous free-flowing sport that doesn’t have many breaks. Therefore, it’d ruin the game if a referee decided to go to a video referee (or if there was a challenge system used by the players or coach) and thus the play would then be stopped whilst everyone waits for the decision. Goal-line technology that could send a signal back to the referee almost instantaneously would be the only method viable that would still allow the game to flow freely. It also helps too that the definite of a goal is pretty simple and clear - something a try in the NRL is not.

So while we are in the midst of the technology-age, the use of such devices to help make crucial refereeing decisions is varied from sport-to-sport. Has the technology alleviated and reduced officiating errors in the sports that have used it? I think if you ask a cricket or a rugby league fan they would say “no”. However, at the same time you have fans in sports that don’t use technology demanding it be introduced so that their team is not treated unfairly. But really, since was professional sport ever fair? Well that’s another blog for another day...

Melbourne Heart on Life Support

The Melbourne Heart is Australian football’s (soccer) newest franchise who kicked off their first ever game on Thursday night with a 1-0 home loss to the Central Coast Mariners. While not a great first-up on-field performance for a team that looks like a babershop quartet reunion, it’s their off-field performance that will require regular check-ups if it’s to grow up into a successful sporting team.

Pic via backpagelead.com.au

The Heart franchise have a massive challenge ahead of them but they have already started well. They’re recruited a coach from The Netherlands in an effort to play a very technical, and by extrapolation, successful European style of play while the squad features a number of Socceroos, though even if some of them are past their best. Furthermore, according to reports they have around 4000 members and even have Jon Bon Jovi as their international no. 1 ticket holder. They also will play out of the brand new 30,000 seat AAMI Park, custom built for rectangular sports in Melbourne.

However, the biggest challenge the Heart will face both on and off the pitch will be big brother - the Melbourne Victory. The Victory have a 5 year head start on the Heart and are probably the A-League’s most successful club on and of the pitch. Two time grand final winners, three-time grand finalists, twice top of the league at the end of the home-and-away season and biggest average attendance for the last 4 years is just a glimpse at what the Victory has achieved. They have a very strong and passionate supporter base that saw over 55,000 people turn up to the 2007 grand final played at Etihad Stadium where they beat Adelaide 6-0.

Because the Victory are so successful and have this large and loyal following, it’s going to be very hard for the Heart to break into this market for a number of reasons:

1. Most sports fans are ferociously loyal to their team. They’ll wear the colours, fork out money for season tickets and merchandise, they’ll sing the songs and bag the opposition to align themselves with a club that means so much to them and which they can identify with. Melbourne football fans are no different so I can’t see many Victory fans jumping ship to follow the Melbourne Heart. In fact, Victory fans will see the Heart as an intruder playing in their own backyard and they will already harbour feelings of resent towards them. Assuming all the football fans in Melbourne have aligned themselves with the Victory, where is the Heart going to draw their supporter base from? They are both named Melbourne and they will both play out of the same stadium. They are in essence selling the same product as the Victory is to the same people that have already invested their time, effort, money and lives to for the past 5 years.

2. While Melbourne is regarded as the sports capital of the world, that doesn’t mean it’s population has an unlimited amount of money to support every single sporting team within and around the city. It already has 9 AFL clubs which is passionately and religiously supported as it is the home of AFL. It also has the Melbourne Storm in the NRL which has found difficulties trying to break into the Melbourne market selling a ‘foreign’ game. Along with Melbourne’s two football teams it will have the Melbourne Rebels rugby union team which will play in the Super 15 competition in 2011. The city also has the Vixens in the ANZ Championship and the Tigers in the NBL. Melbourne also hosts a number of grand once-a-year events such as the Australian Open, Australian Formula 1 grand prix, AFL Grand Final, Melbourne Cup and the Boxing Day cricket test match. With so much sport in one city, mortgage paying Mum’s and Dad’s can’t afford to prop up and support every team and every league in the city.

3. The quality of the product that the Heart will attempt to sell to the public will need to be of the highest-order to attract new fans if it is any chance of staying a float. Even before it was revealed that the Melbourne Storm were extravagantly rorting the salary cap, News Ltd who owns the team still made a financial loss each year to prop the club up even though the Storm was the most successful team of the past 10 years. Some of the best and most exciting players in the world of rugby league were playing for the Storm each week but the TV ratings, sponsors and fans have not been there to assure the future of the Storm. While football is a much more attractive sport to Melbournians than rugby league, the Heart will need to produce a high quality product that is better than the Victory if it wants to entice new fans, and sponsors, to the game. Just being something new will not guarantee long-term survival.

4. The quality of the product could be affected by the lack of quality footballers that either play in the A-League or in the developmental or second-tier leagues around the country. Most, if not all young Australian footballers quickly go overseas to hone their skills in better leagues with better coaches with the influence of a pro-football culture. The players playing in the A-League are obviously second, third or fourth rate. There are not enough really good young footballers to have some leave and still have the rest be of good quality that provides an exciting game to watch. Most teams are scrapping the barrel with the Australian players - there’s not enough to go around the 11 teams (and soon to be 12 next year). The Heart will hope it finds a few gems that have yet to leave our shores and that it’s Dutch coach can play a stylish and successful type of football with the players at his disposal.

5. The A-League is still a very new league to the Australian public. While the ALF and NRL have been around in various forms for over 100 years, the A-League is only 5 years in and is still trying to find it’s feet in every city in which it has a team. While the early signs were encouraging, a numbers of teams have needed the Football Federation Australia to help prop them up with financial support, average crowd numbers have dropped and matches can only be watched on TV with a foxtel subscription. The A-League is still struggling to  become financial sound and to have a very marketable product. The Heart couldn’t have asked for a much tougher league to join (apart from the NBL...).

These are the some of the major issues facing the Heart as it’s struggles for survival. The A-League’s newest addition to the family will be on life-support from the moment it begins it’s life. Football fans around Australia (possibly sans Victory fans) would love to see the Heart be successful and stick around for the long haul. However, the other sporting codes will do it’s upmost to stop the Heart’s beat ticking. Nurse - get the crash cart ready.