Footy commentary in the "heyday" versus present

[Deepthroat]

A lot of commentary inside the footy media bubble these days along the lines of how the game is not the same anymore, it used to be better and the heyday has passed.

It's worth watching some old games to not just look at the game style and the big names but also to note the commentary methods of the main players from back in previous eras. Sandy Roberts, Drew Morphett, Ian Robertson, Bruce McAvaney, Dennis Commetti etc.

Note how they called free kicks. They generally called them after they were paid. They called them for what was paid and they moved on. They didn't play armchair umpire like most of their flashier contemporaries. They didn't inflict their poor interpretation of the rules on the audience like most of their contemporaries. AND the broadcast was so much better for it.

The special comments folk discussed the play, they discussed where one team was exploiting and advantage. They did not sit there and dedicate 15 mins of gametime every Friday night to lamenting the deliberate out of bounds rule like a special comments guru like Richardson does. They gave the audience insight. They did not dwell on a 50/50 call and have a round table vote on whether it was deserved or not.

I find modern calling is essentially ripping us off as an audience by constantly going to these cheap hypothetical type discussions when there is a game of footy begging to be called like old.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Don’t forget those modern commentators guessing if it’s a goal or not (before the ball has gone through), hyping up the moment to big note themselves, then inevitably getting it wrong.

 

[windyhill]

Don’t forget those modern commentators guessing if it’s a goal or not (before the ball has gone through), hyping up the moment to big note themselves, then inevitably getting it wrong.

Derwayne the absolute team leader on this.

 

[thejester]

Derwayne the absolute team leader on this.

Brayshaw did the absolute reverse last night. Sounded like Neale's dog had died until he realised it had gone through.

 

[Tenens Pila]

Don’t forget those modern commentators guessing if it’s a goal or not (before the ball has gone through), hyping up the moment to big note themselves, then inevitably getting it wrong.

That's a combination of them calling off a monitor at South Melbourne and the dumb*ss Director instructing the camera operators to constantly zoom in on the ball, removing any perspective of height, distance or accuracy, instead of having the goal umpire in shot.

How often is there a cutaway to the crowd or players for reaction while the ball is still in flight, when at that moment, we have absolutely no idea if it was a goal or not.

Ideally:

• Wide shot until the goal umpire steps forward
• Tight shot on goal umpire's signal.
• Player / crowd shots for reaction

 

[1989]

That's a combination of them calling off a monitor at South Melbourne and the dumb*ass Director instructing the camera operators to constantly zoom in on the ball, removing any perspective of height, distance or accuracy, instead of having the goal umpire in shot.

How often is there a cutaway to the crowd or players for reaction while the ball is still in flight, when at that moment, we have absolutely no idea if it was a goal or not.

Ideally:

• Wide shot until the goal umpire steps forward
• Tight shot on goal umpire's signal.
• Player / crowd shots for reaction

You are absolutely spot on. The wide shot allows the perspective to remain and keeps the goal umpire and players on the goal line in shot. You can still see the ball in a wide shot and also whether the players and goal umpire are moving, standing still, moving forward if the ball's going to fall short, watching it sail directly over their heads, celebrating, etc. This is the most infuriating camera aspect of the coverage. They do it in the cricket too. What is the point in zooming in on the ball when you can see nothing around it and your perspective is ruined?