Sportscene Watch 19/20

[Monkey Tennis]

30 minutes ago, The Master said:

Well, yes, I am arguing that. They made the decision to send multi-cameras OB and on-site commentators to both Celtic v Brechin and Dunfermline v Morton which meant that no matter what happened (convincing wins, drab 0-0s, whatever) they were getting 15 minutes or so of highlights and 5 minutes or so of analysis each (same with Aberdeen v St Mirren, but that was shown live earlier in the day so is a bit different). Which means effectively yes, Celtic and Dunfermline being “featured” was set in stone as soon as the cameras were set up and ready. 

So the argument shouldn’t about the amount of coverage they got last night, it’s about choosing the game to be “featured” in the first place. It’s a subtle but important difference.

I made the point further up that the last non-televised Celtic home game in the Scottish Cup was vs. Arbroath in 2012/13. That had a couple of cameras, and got 2-minute “voiceover” highlights, which means it isn’t always the case that the Old Firm are pandered to. And as I also pointed out further up, Aberdeen v St Mirren was chosen as the BBC’s live game when Celtic v Brechin was sitting there on a plate for them.

Dare I also point out that it’s not uncommon for football highlights shows to lead with high-scoring games, regardless of how predictable they are. MOTD (which seems to be the benchmark according to some on here) routinely leads with Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool etc. winning 4/5/6-0 at home to relegation-threatened teams.

You're making this worse.

The subtle distinction you're observing is much less relevant than you seem to be alleging.  Yes, the problem is to do with editorial decision making at the BBC and whether that decision was made weeks ago or yesterday afternoon, makes sod all difference to the fact that huge prominence was given to the very least attractive tie.  That's not said simply with the benefit of hindsight - it was very evident before the game began as well as two minutes into it.

You seem to think we should be pathetically grateful that Celtic's wasn't the live match.  You also seem to be bizarrely arguing that Celtic's coverage isn't necessarily disproportionate, by highlighting that it's five years since they've not had a game properly televised.

I've honestly no idea why you're leaping to the BBC's defence here.  I get your point that flimsy gripes can undermine genuine ones.  This is very firmly in the genuine category though.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Monkey Tennis

[The Master]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

You're making this worse.

The subtle distinction you're observing is much less relevant than you seem to be alleging.  Yes, the problem is to do with editorial decision making at the BBC and whether that decision was made weeks ago or yesterday afternoon, makes sod all difference to the fact that huge prominence was given to the very least attractive tie.  That's not said simply with the benefit of hindsight - it was very evident before the game began as well as two minutes into it.

You seem to think we should be pathetically grateful that Celtic's wasn't the live match.  You also seem to be bizarrely arguing that Celtic's coverage isn't necessarily disproportionate, by highlighting that it's five years since they've not been screened live.

I've honestly no idea why you're leaping to the BBC's defence here.  I get your point that flimsy gripes can undermine genuine ones.  This is very firmly in the genuine category though.

For a start we don’t know that Celtic v Brechin was originally meant to be featured. It was an easy place to divert cameras to following the postponement of Albion Rovers v St Johnstone. But I accept we’ll probably never know  if that was the case.

There wasn’t “huge prominence”. It got the same amount of coverage as Aberdeen v St Mirren and Dunfermline v Morton - 20 minutes including anlaysis (out of an 80 minute show).

I’m not saying we should be “pathetically grateful that Celtic’s wasn’t the live match”. I’m saying that accusations of pandering to Celtic are somewhat undermined by the fact their game wasn’t chosen by the BBC to be live when it was available. 

My point about the last non-televised game wasn’t to try and highlight Celtic’s lack of coverage. It was to demonstrate that the last time they weren’t “featured” the result was a shock, and almost certainly attracted flack (“biggest result in Arbroath’s recent history and there’s only two cameras” etc.). Imagine if there were only two cameras there yesterday and Brechin pulled off a shock; this place would be in meltdown. 

I’m defending the final production last night. They weren’t going to not show extended highlights of Celtic v Brechin just because ended up being a walk in the park. They’d committed the resources (rightly or wrongly; in my opinion, wrongly) and that was that.  They also can’t commit enough resources for every game to potentially be “featured”. Taking out the live games, you’d need at least 56 cameras to provide something approaching half-decent coverage. 

Had East Fife comfortably beaten Brora yesterday, nobody would have batted an eyelid at there only being one camera there. But people expect those who make editorial decisions to be psychic; an argument can be made for Motherwell v Hamilton and Queen of the South v Partick Thistle to have been featured games. But surely to goodness nobody genuinely believes East Fife v Brora should have even been on their radar?

[Monkey Tennis]

27 minutes ago, The Master said:

For a start we don’t know that Celtic v Brechin was originally meant to be featured. It was an easy place to divert cameras to following the postponement of Albion Rovers v St Johnstone. But I accept we’ll probably never know  if that was the case.

There wasn’t “huge prominence”. It got the same amount of coverage as Aberdeen v St Mirren and Dunfermline v Morton - 20 minutes including anlaysis (out of an 80 minute show).

I’m not saying we should be “pathetically grateful that Celtic’s wasn’t the live match”. I’m saying that accusations of pandering to Celtic are somewhat undermined by the fact their game wasn’t chosen by the BBC to be live when it was available. 

My point about the last non-televised game wasn’t to try and highlight Celtic’s lack of coverage. It was to demonstrate that the last time they weren’t “featured” the result was a shock, and almost certainly attracted flack (“biggest result in Arbroath’s recent history and there’s only two cameras” etc.). Imagine if there were only two cameras there yesterday and Brechin pulled off a shock; this place would be in meltdown. 

I’m defending the final production last night. They weren’t going to not show extended highlights of Celtic v Brechin just because ended up being a walk in the park. They’d committed the resources (rightly or wrongly; in my opinion, wrongly) and that was that.  They also can’t commit enough resources for every game to potentially be “featured”. Taking out the live games, you’d need at least 56 cameras to provide something approaching half-decent coverage. 

Had East Fife comfortably beaten Brora yesterday, nobody would have batted an eyelid at there only being one camera there. But people expect those who make editorial decisions to be psychic; an argument can be made for Motherwell v Hamilton and Queen of the South v Partick Thistle to have been featured games. But surely to goodness nobody genuinely believes East Fife v Brora should have even been on their radar?

I've not highlighted other individual games but I do know that no psychic powers were required to anticipate a Celtic "walk in the park".  It's scandalous that it was featured when it was by an absolute mile the least intriguing of all the matches.

We should not be subjected to this crap.

[The Master]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

I've not highlighted other individual games but I do know that no psychic powers were required to anticipate a Celtic "walk in the park".  It's scandalous that it was featured when it was by an absolute mile the least intriguing of all the matches.

We should not be subjected to this crap.

I'm sure Celtic v Arbroath was predicted to be a "walk in the park" and ended up as one of the shocks of the round.  

It's the same reason behind every Man Utd FA Cup game from the fourth round in 2005 being shown live, before the run stopping with the third round this season. Exeter City went to Old Trafford and drew 0-0 in a game predicted to be a "walk in the park". After that, the broadcasters didn't dare miss a Man Utd FA Cup game, home or away, regardless of opposition, in case the same happened.

[Monkey Tennis]

30 minutes ago, The Master said:

I'm sure Celtic v Arbroath was predicted to be a "walk in the park" and ended up as one of the shocks of the round.  

It's the same reason behind every Man Utd FA Cup game from the fourth round in 2005 being shown live, before the run stopping with the third round this season. Exeter City went to Old Trafford and drew 0-0 in a game predicted to be a "walk in the park". After that, the broadcasters didn't dare miss a Man Utd FA Cup game, home or away, regardless of opposition, in case the same happened.

So the OF need covered in perpetuity and you're ok with that?

[The Master]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

So the OF need covered in perpetuity and you're ok with that?

Oh look, a straw man.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, The Master said:

Oh look, a straw man.

Do you think so?

I don't see how I've misrepresented what you're saying.  Can you explain it for me?

[The Master]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

Do you think so?

I don't see how I've misrepresented what you're saying.  Can you explain it for me?

Given that I've done so several times already and you've failed to understand, I'm not sure it's worth me wasting my time.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, The Master said:

Given that I've done so several times already and you've failed to understand, I'm not sure it's worth me wasting my time.

What have I failed to understand?

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick, but I think I understand exactly what you mean, but disagree strongly. 

 Go on - indulge me.  Explain just which part of your logic I'm struggling to get my feeble little head round.

[pandarilla]

He made it clear he didn't agree with the decision to choose the Celtic game.

 

He was just showing some rational thought in working out why that might be the case, rather than getting all het up over not very much.

 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

16 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

He made it clear he didn't agree with the decision to choose the Celtic game.

 

He was just showing some rational thought in working out why that might be the case, rather than getting all het up over not very much.

 

 

He contradicted himself though.

He doesn't agree with the decision, yet clearly believes it cannot be otherwise.  I don't need the rationale, such as it is, explained.

It's transparent.

[pandarilla]

He contradicted himself though.
He doesn't agree with the decision, yet clearly believes it cannot be otherwise.  I don't need the rationale, such as it is, explained.
It's transparent.

He's pointing out that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[7-2]

3 hours ago, coprolite said:

the commentary on the short highlights annoys the hell out of me.  Why do they need to tell you what's just about to happen?  

3 hours ago, coprolite said:

You're right. 

If something's been shite for ages there is no point in making it better.

Spot on. It does my head in especially when someone's about to take a penalty. Let me see the fucking outcome myself for God sake! Sometimes I watch the C5 lower English league programme and a lot of the games suffer from the problem. However a lot don't, proving that it's easy enough for the voiceover person to consider the viewer. Some simply just don't do it. There is just no excuse for the style.

 

[Dons_1988]

It’s not so much having Celtic as a featured game, it’s dedicating 25 minutes to it.

The game was and was always going to be a complete non event. Celtic were always going to win that game comfortably without getting out of 2nd gear.

The analysis of it felt so forced, there really wasn’t that much to say about it.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

He's pointing out that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Well I'll have to point out that that's bollocks then.

The BBC would not have been damned had they chosen not to make the Celtic game one that received the full OB treatment, other than by tiresomely entitled Celtic supporting morons.

[pandarilla]

Well I'll have to point out that that's bollocks then.
The BBC would not have been damned had they chosen not to make the Celtic game one that received the full OB treatment, other than by tiresomely entitled Celtic supporting morons.

And if brechin had managed to get a result? Then you've got 2 minutes of the biggest result.

Folk on here would definitely be complaining in those circumstances.

[pandarilla]

I know a few folk have been comparing sportscene to motd - but is it just me that finds their urban grime rapping adverts for the fa cup really annoying?

 

It just seems totally out of place.

 

 

[South Lanarkshire Jag]

8 hours ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

 Once they'd decided to use the multi camera set up there, it had to be a main game but once it was clear there was no shock why not stick it on nearer the end?

On a slight tangent but regardless of positioning of the Celtic fixture in Sportscene, first, second, a millionth, they would have had a multi camera set up. This is because Celtic, and Rangers, use a separate third party to cover their games at home as they broadcast them on Celtic and Rangers TV. It wasn't specifically the BBC picking that game for a multi camera set up - it was always already going to be there.

[RandomGuy.]

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that you can't have more than ten seconds worth of highlights because there's only one camera at the game. 

[Monkey Tennis]

5 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

And if brechin had managed to get a result? Then you've got 2 minutes of the biggest result.

Folk on here would definitely be complaining in those circumstances.

But that was very very unlikely indeed.

It wasn't covered in case we got a shock.  It was covered because lots of people like watching the OF teams.

You really do appear to be saying the OF will need full coverage at all times just in case.  When diddy fans get this mindlessly sycophantic, we're really in trouble.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Monkey Tennis