This is likely to be my last blog post for 2018, and will just cover off some recent observations, as well as some pointers from the year as a whole.
Recent observations:
- So far I'm really enjoying the Foxtel coverage of the cricket. The mix in the commentary teams is about right, and I like the ground audio and flying fox initiatives. Haven't watched any of the Channel 7 coverage, so it's a little hard for me to comment on that. One reason for not watching any Channel 7 coverage is because of the lack of ads on Foxtel. Initially I thought I might miss the ads, but now I like the uninterrupted coverage, and I think the commentators are doing a better job of filling the time between the ads as well.
- I've been asked and accepted a position on the committee of the Hunter AFL Masters. I think it's a good opportunity to see how governing a sports association works from the inside, as well as having the potential to open up networking opportunities with the AFL more broadly. Also looking forward to playing a bit more AFL next year.
- I have my own office at Uni! This is because I accepted a 0.6 contract for 12 months as Course Coordinator. It's pretty sweet.
- Also, the idea of an AFL Fan Survey on pirating behaviour is probably off the cards, as it will require too many ethical hurdles to try and basically get people to admit to illegal behaviour. However, I've engaged some people from previous interviews, and will also do my own non-incriminating searches when the AFL season rolls around next year.
- Received another knock-back for my Fan Studies paper from a journal. Always hard to take, but trying to take on the feedback and built it into a better submission.
- Looking at getting a Swans membership next year, to fully lean into the fan experience. There's a 5-match country membership available, and there are seat upgrades available, so I'm hopeful I can sit near my mate who is already a member. Depending on Masters commitments, should be able to make at least 5 games.
- Looking at a trip to Melbourne for AFL next year as well with at least one other mate. Early plan is to go during the ANZAC Day weekend, which would be massive.
- AFLX announced their 4-team captains choice format for the coming summer. It copped plenty of criticism online, but I'm still a fan. Like the format, like the game, don't see the downside. I'm sure it's just the incumbency and resistance to change that generates so much negativity. It might be a case study for fan identity and authenticity...
Reflections on the year:
- Really had some great interviews this year. Actually looking forward to starting to analyse some of the data next year.
- Some good conferences this year as well. ANZCA was ok, as it helped build some networks while not presenting anything myself. Money in Sport was good for much the same reason. Probably the OTT summit was a highlight as it put me in touch with some participants for the research, as well as revealing the latest industry trends.
- The injury that prevented me from going to Coffs for the AFL Masters Carnival was the low-point, no doubt about it. The ankle is now mostly healed, but the opportunity to play at that level after all the training we went through will always be missed.
- Looking forward to being full-time at Uni in 2019. Focus on study and teaching, and hopefully not getting too distracted by the admin side of things.
And finally...
Just simply can't wait for the AFL to start again. Really looking forward to the women's game, AFLX, and of course, the real deal rolling out. Don't think the Swans will make much noise, but still plenty to look forward to.
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Participant Observations 15/11/18 - Kayo KO'd for now
As outlined in my last post, I signed up for Kayo a week ago. Since then, I spent a few nights watching via the new platform, and not a whole lot changed other than what I wrote about. However, I did experience some instability on the platform using the multiscreen function.
But I have now ended my free trial with the platform, and the main reason is that I get specific content with Foxtel Now that doesn't come on Kayo - that is, my non sports content - and until I know exactly what is going to happen with Foxtel Now, I'll keep using it so I can get channel like the Comedy Channel and Showcase, where I get a small but important amount of content.
For example, Westworld (my favourite non-sports show on all of television) is only available on Foxtel in Australia, as it is a HBO production, and Foxtel have the license for all HBO content in Australia.
The same goes for Mr Robot, and Game of Thrones. Some comedy shows such as Broad City, Veep, and Curb seem to appear first on Foxtel as well in Australia, and given the uncertainty of them appearing on other platforms in a timely manner, I'm not willing to completely forgo Foxtel Now and solely invest in Kayo while an option still exists for me to have that certainty.
However, I also feel like I did my bit while I had Kayo. I took part in no less than THREE (!) surveys in six days. One qualitative, one quantitative, and an exit survey that was also largely quantitative.
I diligently filled them out, pointing out the positives and negatives of the service. I also posted something on Twitter about it, and someone responded to my Tweet, expressing much the same sentiment, so I feel like it was somewhat justified (although that reply now seems to have been deleted...)
https://twitter.com/ed_reddin/status/1060836456237740033
It's not to say I won't be back, just I don't want to lose the non-sport content I get now, without knowing if I can get it anywhere else, or if Foxtel will launch a similar product to Kayo that hosts non-sport content and how much that would cost.
But I have now ended my free trial with the platform, and the main reason is that I get specific content with Foxtel Now that doesn't come on Kayo - that is, my non sports content - and until I know exactly what is going to happen with Foxtel Now, I'll keep using it so I can get channel like the Comedy Channel and Showcase, where I get a small but important amount of content.
For example, Westworld (my favourite non-sports show on all of television) is only available on Foxtel in Australia, as it is a HBO production, and Foxtel have the license for all HBO content in Australia.
The same goes for Mr Robot, and Game of Thrones. Some comedy shows such as Broad City, Veep, and Curb seem to appear first on Foxtel as well in Australia, and given the uncertainty of them appearing on other platforms in a timely manner, I'm not willing to completely forgo Foxtel Now and solely invest in Kayo while an option still exists for me to have that certainty.
However, I also feel like I did my bit while I had Kayo. I took part in no less than THREE (!) surveys in six days. One qualitative, one quantitative, and an exit survey that was also largely quantitative.
I diligently filled them out, pointing out the positives and negatives of the service. I also posted something on Twitter about it, and someone responded to my Tweet, expressing much the same sentiment, so I feel like it was somewhat justified (although that reply now seems to have been deleted...)
#Kayo platform goes ok. Split screen and key moments a real plus. EPG could be better, and no app to Chromecast from, but overall 👍. Monthly subscription for sport gone from $120 to $35 in just over 12 months. @Foxtel @FOXSportsAUS pic.twitter.com/fhTlf0nnlR— Ed Reddin (@ed_reddin) November 9, 2018
https://twitter.com/ed_reddin/status/1060836456237740033
It's not to say I won't be back, just I don't want to lose the non-sport content I get now, without knowing if I can get it anywhere else, or if Foxtel will launch a similar product to Kayo that hosts non-sport content and how much that would cost.
Friday, November 9, 2018
Participant Observations 9/11/18 - Kayo Sports & The Summer of Cricket
Foxtel have announced the launch of their skinny bundle based exclusively on sports content:
https://kayosports.com.au/
Wanting to be an early adopter, I've joined up to the Premium Package at $35 a month.It comes with a 2-week free trial period I think, so I've got some time to see if I like it, and if I miss the non-sport channel I use with Foxtel Now. The Basic package is only $25 a month, but this only includes 2x screen or device per login, while the Premium service offers 3x screens, and I'm keen to share access to this service with my friends if they phase out Foxtel Now, which I think I've seen reported.
First impressions are it's ok - it can Chromecast, it can be customised based on my sport and team preferences, and it has a good level of functionality. It says it's in HD, but not up to what level (720, 1080, 4K?). For the next two weeks I'll be stress-testing it as much as possible - stream quality, functionality, latency, fidelity. Another plus is that the platform allows multiple displays - I think up to four can be streamed at once, so it will be interesting to see how this performs as far as the quality of streaming goes when multiple screens are pulled up. Other features include 'No Spoilers' and 'Key Moments' which is as it sounds. The Key Moments is great - so for instance, if I join a cricket match late, I can click through the wickets on the timeline and see that, oh yes, Shaun Marsh has failed again with the bat. This is a convenient feature I saw with SBS I think during the World Cup, and Amazon have similar type annotations during their content, and I think this is a fantastic feature that we will only see more of in the future.
However, I'm not a fan of the guide layout - I would much prefer a traditional TV guide style EPG instead of the Netflix type layout I think they're going for. So it's not as easy to look for channels like Fox Sports 2, or Fox Footy, or ESPN and compare what's on simultaneously like you can with Foxtel Now. It's also not yet available on Android, which is unfortunate as that's what software my phone uses. I've had one or two issues with the software launching, but I think that's got more to do with the crappy laptop I'm trying to watch it on, so I'm looking forward to getting home and running it through my gaming PC or an app on my iPad.
Also, obviously the downside is that it doesn't have the non-sport content that I enjoy on Foxtel Now, such as the Comedy Channel, Showcase, and a few other things like that. If i do get rid of Foxtel Now, which is likely I think, I may end up getting all of my non-sport content through other platforms, such as Freeview TV, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.
And if I do go that way, it is effectively another saving I can make on my subscriptions. In just over 12 months, I've gone from $120+ per month for the Foxtel satellite subscription, to initially $65 for Foxtel Now, then $55 for Foxtel Now, and now, possibly $35 for Kayo. I remember being initially reluctant to switch from satellite to OTT because of the loss of channels and functionality, but I think in retrospect it actually refined my watching and any loss of functionality was compensated by the reduction in price. So I think I can expect something similar again here. In reality, I use Foxtel Now for about 95% sport.
However, I loved having Foxtel Now for Westworld, which is easily, EASILY, my favourite non-sport show. So that is something I will have to reconcile with, especially if Foxtel remain the exclusive holder of HBO content in Australia. It has also been rumoured that Foxtel will launch a skinny bundle drama platform like Kayo, but do I want to pay for two subscriptions? Will the two combined be more expensive than Foxtel Now on its own? Will I get a discount if I subscribe to both? There is a lot of uncertainty as a consumer in this regard when the tastes are so narrow and the choice of platforms so vast and varied.
---------------------------
So the cricket kicked off last weekend, with the first ODI shown exclusively on Foxtel. For the first time, the ODI team was not on Free-to-Air. It was ok for me, but the reaction of a lot of my friends was something like "I didn't even know it was on..."
This is the path that Cricket Australia has chosen - seemingly money over coverage. I don't think the ratings were great, and the coverage, while good, wasn't anything that was remarkably different to the traditional coverage, although here are some takeaways:
- Sometimes the commentators seemed to be expecting the commercial break to come between overs, but there aren't any with Foxtel. They call out the score, pause, and then there's an awkward silence where they seem to be going, "Oh that's right, I'm still on-air..."
- I really enjoy the former Channel 10 commentator Howie (?) Calls the game, leaving the other commentators, usually former players, to talk strategy.
- I kind of miss the breaks between overs. It gives you time to reset, get off the couch or whatever. I certainly DO NOT miss however watching the same fucking ads over and over and over again during the Channel 9 coverage.
- Not sure if the Flying Fox camera will take off, where the spider camera, equipped with a speaker and microphone, zooms in on players and has the commentary team talking with them during breaks in play.
So the second game is on tonight. Hopefully it will be better than the last game, but really, I think in the long run Cricket Australia will lose some semblance of relevancy in an ultra competitive market by putting the ODI behind a paywall.
https://kayosports.com.au/
Wanting to be an early adopter, I've joined up to the Premium Package at $35 a month.It comes with a 2-week free trial period I think, so I've got some time to see if I like it, and if I miss the non-sport channel I use with Foxtel Now. The Basic package is only $25 a month, but this only includes 2x screen or device per login, while the Premium service offers 3x screens, and I'm keen to share access to this service with my friends if they phase out Foxtel Now, which I think I've seen reported.
First impressions are it's ok - it can Chromecast, it can be customised based on my sport and team preferences, and it has a good level of functionality. It says it's in HD, but not up to what level (720, 1080, 4K?). For the next two weeks I'll be stress-testing it as much as possible - stream quality, functionality, latency, fidelity. Another plus is that the platform allows multiple displays - I think up to four can be streamed at once, so it will be interesting to see how this performs as far as the quality of streaming goes when multiple screens are pulled up. Other features include 'No Spoilers' and 'Key Moments' which is as it sounds. The Key Moments is great - so for instance, if I join a cricket match late, I can click through the wickets on the timeline and see that, oh yes, Shaun Marsh has failed again with the bat. This is a convenient feature I saw with SBS I think during the World Cup, and Amazon have similar type annotations during their content, and I think this is a fantastic feature that we will only see more of in the future.
However, I'm not a fan of the guide layout - I would much prefer a traditional TV guide style EPG instead of the Netflix type layout I think they're going for. So it's not as easy to look for channels like Fox Sports 2, or Fox Footy, or ESPN and compare what's on simultaneously like you can with Foxtel Now. It's also not yet available on Android, which is unfortunate as that's what software my phone uses. I've had one or two issues with the software launching, but I think that's got more to do with the crappy laptop I'm trying to watch it on, so I'm looking forward to getting home and running it through my gaming PC or an app on my iPad.
Also, obviously the downside is that it doesn't have the non-sport content that I enjoy on Foxtel Now, such as the Comedy Channel, Showcase, and a few other things like that. If i do get rid of Foxtel Now, which is likely I think, I may end up getting all of my non-sport content through other platforms, such as Freeview TV, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.
And if I do go that way, it is effectively another saving I can make on my subscriptions. In just over 12 months, I've gone from $120+ per month for the Foxtel satellite subscription, to initially $65 for Foxtel Now, then $55 for Foxtel Now, and now, possibly $35 for Kayo. I remember being initially reluctant to switch from satellite to OTT because of the loss of channels and functionality, but I think in retrospect it actually refined my watching and any loss of functionality was compensated by the reduction in price. So I think I can expect something similar again here. In reality, I use Foxtel Now for about 95% sport.
However, I loved having Foxtel Now for Westworld, which is easily, EASILY, my favourite non-sport show. So that is something I will have to reconcile with, especially if Foxtel remain the exclusive holder of HBO content in Australia. It has also been rumoured that Foxtel will launch a skinny bundle drama platform like Kayo, but do I want to pay for two subscriptions? Will the two combined be more expensive than Foxtel Now on its own? Will I get a discount if I subscribe to both? There is a lot of uncertainty as a consumer in this regard when the tastes are so narrow and the choice of platforms so vast and varied.
---------------------------
So the cricket kicked off last weekend, with the first ODI shown exclusively on Foxtel. For the first time, the ODI team was not on Free-to-Air. It was ok for me, but the reaction of a lot of my friends was something like "I didn't even know it was on..."
This is the path that Cricket Australia has chosen - seemingly money over coverage. I don't think the ratings were great, and the coverage, while good, wasn't anything that was remarkably different to the traditional coverage, although here are some takeaways:
- Sometimes the commentators seemed to be expecting the commercial break to come between overs, but there aren't any with Foxtel. They call out the score, pause, and then there's an awkward silence where they seem to be going, "Oh that's right, I'm still on-air..."
- I really enjoy the former Channel 10 commentator Howie (?) Calls the game, leaving the other commentators, usually former players, to talk strategy.
- I kind of miss the breaks between overs. It gives you time to reset, get off the couch or whatever. I certainly DO NOT miss however watching the same fucking ads over and over and over again during the Channel 9 coverage.
- Not sure if the Flying Fox camera will take off, where the spider camera, equipped with a speaker and microphone, zooms in on players and has the commentary team talking with them during breaks in play.
So the second game is on tonight. Hopefully it will be better than the last game, but really, I think in the long run Cricket Australia will lose some semblance of relevancy in an ultra competitive market by putting the ODI behind a paywall.
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Participant Observations 14/10/18 - Trade Period
While I'm still not a fan of free agency as it has the propensity to allow good players at shit clubs to join the best teams (which is not why the rule was introduced), I will admit that the AFL trade period adds significant drama and interest to the competition after the grand final.
Clearly it's not at the same level as the NBA trade period, but it's far more interesting than what is happening in the NRL, which doesn't seem to get any traction post-grand final, other than a representative game between Australia and New Zealand.
I've had LOADS of text message conversations with other Swans fans about the quality (or rather lack thereof) of the Swans moves during the trade period. We cut some deadwood out, which is good, but we missed out on a couple of players (Vandenberg from Melbourne and Logan from Collingwood) that would have shifted the needle for us next season.
Otherwise, unless something miraculous happens in the coming week with trade period/draft, then I don't see us finishing any higher than 6th, but probably no lower than 10th either. Obviously, you can't be at the top of the competition every season, but it feels like we're wasting the prime career of one of the best forwards in the history of the game.
But the point remains that the draft and trade period seems to be relatively unique to AFL in Australia in terms of interest and discussion. I don't think the NRL, cricket, A-League, or Union codes reach anything like the levels of interest with their same period, if they even have one at all. Which I think many people fail to recognize as a win for the game in terms of keeping interest and eyeballs on the game year-round.
Clearly it's not at the same level as the NBA trade period, but it's far more interesting than what is happening in the NRL, which doesn't seem to get any traction post-grand final, other than a representative game between Australia and New Zealand.
I've had LOADS of text message conversations with other Swans fans about the quality (or rather lack thereof) of the Swans moves during the trade period. We cut some deadwood out, which is good, but we missed out on a couple of players (Vandenberg from Melbourne and Logan from Collingwood) that would have shifted the needle for us next season.
Otherwise, unless something miraculous happens in the coming week with trade period/draft, then I don't see us finishing any higher than 6th, but probably no lower than 10th either. Obviously, you can't be at the top of the competition every season, but it feels like we're wasting the prime career of one of the best forwards in the history of the game.
But the point remains that the draft and trade period seems to be relatively unique to AFL in Australia in terms of interest and discussion. I don't think the NRL, cricket, A-League, or Union codes reach anything like the levels of interest with their same period, if they even have one at all. Which I think many people fail to recognize as a win for the game in terms of keeping interest and eyeballs on the game year-round.
Participant Observations 14/10/18 - AFL Rule Changes
As I've outlined in previous posts, I'm in favour of some changes to the rules of AFL in order to make the game more visually appealing. Yes the grand final was spectacular, but for me, the vast majority of the season was marred by slow, congested football and scorelines that reflected as much.
Similarly, I can't understand the reluctance to embrace rule changes as anything other than unjustified conservatism, given that the AFL has changed the rules of the game every few years since it was invented in an attempt to make the game better.
And the AFL this week released the changes to rules they will introduce for the 2019 season.
Some of these were predicted, but some were definitely not. Some, such as the ability to play on from behinds, are refreshing but also probably controversial. The AFL suggest this rule in particular leapfrogs the idea of 18m goal squares, which I didn't mind, but I think this rule is better as it reduces the benefit for the team kicking in, that may have reduced the incentive for teams shooting for goals late in close games.
What might be interesting to follow is to see if any of these rule changes advance or slow the careers of some players, or if it makes a certain type of player more attractive/effective, and alter the value of player contracts accordingly. The rebounding backman would certainly seem to be someone who would benefit from these rules, as does the ruckman.
Here's my take on each rule change:
Traditional Playing Positions at Centre Bounce: Implementation of a traditional set up at centre bounces – Clubs must have six Players inside both 50-Metre arcs, with one Player required to be inside the Goal Square. Four Midfield Players are positioned inside the Centre Square with the Wingmen required to be placed somewhere along the Wing.
- In favour. Won't have a huge impact until the end of very close games, in that it prevents teams from flooding their backline after goals.
Kick-Ins: For Kick-Ins from a Behind, a Player will no longer need to kick to himself to Play On out of the Goal Square.
- In favour. While some people say this will end the joy of watching a player step over the line on kick ins and the resulting ball-up (really...?), this will rapidly increase the speed of the game. Get prepared for 'rebound footy'.
Marks / Free Kicks: For all Defenders who take a Mark or gain a Free Kick within 9 metres of their own Goal, the man on The Mark for the attacking team will be brought in line with the top of the Goal Square.
- In favour. Gives the player bringing the ball in a bit more room to move, and might avoid the almost obligatory long kick down the line from such situations
Runners and Water Carriers: Team Runners may only enter the Playing Surface once a goal has been kicked and must exit the Playing Surface before play Recommences. Water Carriers are not permitted to enter the Playing Surface during live play.
- In favour. Less unnecessary people on the field the better.
Umpire Contact: Players will be prohibited from setting up behind the Umpire at each Centre Bounce.
- In favour. Why was this not a rule already???
50-Metre Penalty: Stricter on the infringing player, allowing the Player with the ball to advance The Mark by 50 metres without the infringing player delaying the game. In addition, the Player with the Football will be able to play on during the advancement of the 50-Metre Penalty.
- In favour. Again, should speed play up and lessens the opportunity for the infringing team to set up their defense while the ball is being advanced.
Kicking for Goal post-siren – Centre of Goal Line: A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick once play has ended will now be able to Kick across their body using a Snap or Check-side Kick. The Player shall dispose of the Football directly in line with the man on The Mark and the Goal.
- In favour. I felt this should be a rule before. As long as the player does not go over the line of the man on the mark to the centre of the goal line, then where is there any benefit in being behind that line?
Ruck Contests – Prior Opportunity: A Ruck Player who takes possession of the Football while contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in by a boundary Umpire, will not be regarded as having had Prior Opportunity. Where there is uncertainty over who is the designated Ruck, the Ruck for each Team will continue to nominate to the field Umpire.
- In favour, although the ruckman should still dispose of the ball before being tackled. Second part of this rule should speed up play.
Marking Contest: ‘Hands in the Back’ rule interpretation to be repealed, allowing a Player to place his hands on the back of his opponent to protect his position in a Marking contest but not to push the Player in the back.
- Not in favour. Don't see why this was introduced, other than to give some ground back to defenders, who already have it hard enough. Might make it a bit easier on umpires as well.
On balance though, I strongly believe these rules will speed up the game. Perhaps would have liked to have seen the boundary umpire come in for throw ins, but still a good start.
Similarly, I can't understand the reluctance to embrace rule changes as anything other than unjustified conservatism, given that the AFL has changed the rules of the game every few years since it was invented in an attempt to make the game better.
And the AFL this week released the changes to rules they will introduce for the 2019 season.
Some of these were predicted, but some were definitely not. Some, such as the ability to play on from behinds, are refreshing but also probably controversial. The AFL suggest this rule in particular leapfrogs the idea of 18m goal squares, which I didn't mind, but I think this rule is better as it reduces the benefit for the team kicking in, that may have reduced the incentive for teams shooting for goals late in close games.
What might be interesting to follow is to see if any of these rule changes advance or slow the careers of some players, or if it makes a certain type of player more attractive/effective, and alter the value of player contracts accordingly. The rebounding backman would certainly seem to be someone who would benefit from these rules, as does the ruckman.
Here's my take on each rule change:
Traditional Playing Positions at Centre Bounce: Implementation of a traditional set up at centre bounces – Clubs must have six Players inside both 50-Metre arcs, with one Player required to be inside the Goal Square. Four Midfield Players are positioned inside the Centre Square with the Wingmen required to be placed somewhere along the Wing.
- In favour. Won't have a huge impact until the end of very close games, in that it prevents teams from flooding their backline after goals.
Kick-Ins: For Kick-Ins from a Behind, a Player will no longer need to kick to himself to Play On out of the Goal Square.
- In favour. While some people say this will end the joy of watching a player step over the line on kick ins and the resulting ball-up (really...?), this will rapidly increase the speed of the game. Get prepared for 'rebound footy'.
Marks / Free Kicks: For all Defenders who take a Mark or gain a Free Kick within 9 metres of their own Goal, the man on The Mark for the attacking team will be brought in line with the top of the Goal Square.
- In favour. Gives the player bringing the ball in a bit more room to move, and might avoid the almost obligatory long kick down the line from such situations
Runners and Water Carriers: Team Runners may only enter the Playing Surface once a goal has been kicked and must exit the Playing Surface before play Recommences. Water Carriers are not permitted to enter the Playing Surface during live play.
- In favour. Less unnecessary people on the field the better.
Umpire Contact: Players will be prohibited from setting up behind the Umpire at each Centre Bounce.
- In favour. Why was this not a rule already???
50-Metre Penalty: Stricter on the infringing player, allowing the Player with the ball to advance The Mark by 50 metres without the infringing player delaying the game. In addition, the Player with the Football will be able to play on during the advancement of the 50-Metre Penalty.
- In favour. Again, should speed play up and lessens the opportunity for the infringing team to set up their defense while the ball is being advanced.
Kicking for Goal post-siren – Centre of Goal Line: A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick once play has ended will now be able to Kick across their body using a Snap or Check-side Kick. The Player shall dispose of the Football directly in line with the man on The Mark and the Goal.
- In favour. I felt this should be a rule before. As long as the player does not go over the line of the man on the mark to the centre of the goal line, then where is there any benefit in being behind that line?
Ruck Contests – Prior Opportunity: A Ruck Player who takes possession of the Football while contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in by a boundary Umpire, will not be regarded as having had Prior Opportunity. Where there is uncertainty over who is the designated Ruck, the Ruck for each Team will continue to nominate to the field Umpire.
- In favour, although the ruckman should still dispose of the ball before being tackled. Second part of this rule should speed up play.
Marking Contest: ‘Hands in the Back’ rule interpretation to be repealed, allowing a Player to place his hands on the back of his opponent to protect his position in a Marking contest but not to push the Player in the back.
- Not in favour. Don't see why this was introduced, other than to give some ground back to defenders, who already have it hard enough. Might make it a bit easier on umpires as well.
On balance though, I strongly believe these rules will speed up the game. Perhaps would have liked to have seen the boundary umpire come in for throw ins, but still a good start.
Monday, October 1, 2018
Participant Observations 1/10/18 - AFL Grand Final Review
Some reflections on Saturday's game:
- Obviously a really good game with lots of talking points that was decided in the last 2 minutes, and a final margin less than a goal. Thoroughly enjoyed the game as a spectacle. I watched the game with a Collingwood fan, so it wasn't great for him.
- However, the experience of watching the game was hampered by the fact that we had to watch via the terrestrial FTA coverage, and the FTA signal for Channel 7 at my place is not very good. This demonstrates how antiquated the viewing practices are in this country, and how embedded they are with existing broadcasters. Foxtel are not allowed to simulcast the game due to anti-siphoning legislation which says the Grand Final must be exclusively on FTA, and the digital rights are owned by Telstra, who are limited to 7-inch screens and are not allowed to Chromecast to larger TV's. I couldn't stream through the Freeview app, as that counts as a digital platform, and Channel 7 ran promos on repeat on their digital platforms during the game. I thought about buying a Watch AFL pass for the game and using the VPN to access it, but it was $30(!) for one game, and I wasn't going to pay that amount for it. I didn't think to see if the Freeview app that is built into the tuner in the TV would work. I'll have to try that tonight.
- I changed my bets slightly on the day, and went for West Coast to win by 1-19 (which paid about $6) and leading goal scorer Josh Kennedy (which paid about $3). I collected on both of those. I missed out on De Goey as first goal scorer, and Yeo as Norm Smith medalist, but still collected about $28 for a $20 outlay. The gambling experience was interesting - I don't do it any game except Grand Final day, and I don't know how much it adds to the experience. A little bit, especially as you have a few bets strung out over the fay, but could I go without it? I think so, but it's also part of my Grand Final day routine, so I don't know if I'm willing to say yet that AFL should eschew all forms of gambling...
- Even though I wasn't part of a huge AFL party this year, I still enjoyed watching it with Deedy. We had a BBQ before hand, and a kick of footy at half time. He also knows lots about the game and Collingwood in particular, and even though his team lost, he wasn't too shattered at the end (I don't know if I would have been the same!). We were able to go down to the pub at the end of the game, and I bought two rounds of drinks with the money I won on the bets!
- I know the game was close, but I'm not ready to jump in with those people who think we shouldn't change the rules. I'm still in favour of the rule changes I've posted about earlier, and I think to look at one game is a very small sample, and it was umpired differently to games during the regular season. Players are also trying everything possible to win on Grand final day, which might be slightly different to the home-and-away season. At this point, I'd say bring in the rules for the pre-season comp, saying they'll be in for the season proper, with a caveat that you might remove them if they don't work out during the pre-season (PS., I still think the pre-season comp should go altogether).
- What a perfect time to start the AFLW comp after the trade period. Instead, we've got to wait until December I think to see some elite competition. Having said that, I am looking forward to the trade period and draft, which has built up over the last few years somewhat. Still not a fan of free agency however.
- Big fan of the start time compared to the NRL start time of 7:20pm. I was asleep on the couch and distracted by other sports by the time the NRL grand final came on. AFL won the television ratings for this year compared to the NRL, although they are reportedly the lowest they've been in 10 years.
That's all I can think of for now.
- Obviously a really good game with lots of talking points that was decided in the last 2 minutes, and a final margin less than a goal. Thoroughly enjoyed the game as a spectacle. I watched the game with a Collingwood fan, so it wasn't great for him.
- However, the experience of watching the game was hampered by the fact that we had to watch via the terrestrial FTA coverage, and the FTA signal for Channel 7 at my place is not very good. This demonstrates how antiquated the viewing practices are in this country, and how embedded they are with existing broadcasters. Foxtel are not allowed to simulcast the game due to anti-siphoning legislation which says the Grand Final must be exclusively on FTA, and the digital rights are owned by Telstra, who are limited to 7-inch screens and are not allowed to Chromecast to larger TV's. I couldn't stream through the Freeview app, as that counts as a digital platform, and Channel 7 ran promos on repeat on their digital platforms during the game. I thought about buying a Watch AFL pass for the game and using the VPN to access it, but it was $30(!) for one game, and I wasn't going to pay that amount for it. I didn't think to see if the Freeview app that is built into the tuner in the TV would work. I'll have to try that tonight.
- I changed my bets slightly on the day, and went for West Coast to win by 1-19 (which paid about $6) and leading goal scorer Josh Kennedy (which paid about $3). I collected on both of those. I missed out on De Goey as first goal scorer, and Yeo as Norm Smith medalist, but still collected about $28 for a $20 outlay. The gambling experience was interesting - I don't do it any game except Grand Final day, and I don't know how much it adds to the experience. A little bit, especially as you have a few bets strung out over the fay, but could I go without it? I think so, but it's also part of my Grand Final day routine, so I don't know if I'm willing to say yet that AFL should eschew all forms of gambling...
- Even though I wasn't part of a huge AFL party this year, I still enjoyed watching it with Deedy. We had a BBQ before hand, and a kick of footy at half time. He also knows lots about the game and Collingwood in particular, and even though his team lost, he wasn't too shattered at the end (I don't know if I would have been the same!). We were able to go down to the pub at the end of the game, and I bought two rounds of drinks with the money I won on the bets!
- I know the game was close, but I'm not ready to jump in with those people who think we shouldn't change the rules. I'm still in favour of the rule changes I've posted about earlier, and I think to look at one game is a very small sample, and it was umpired differently to games during the regular season. Players are also trying everything possible to win on Grand final day, which might be slightly different to the home-and-away season. At this point, I'd say bring in the rules for the pre-season comp, saying they'll be in for the season proper, with a caveat that you might remove them if they don't work out during the pre-season (PS., I still think the pre-season comp should go altogether).
- What a perfect time to start the AFLW comp after the trade period. Instead, we've got to wait until December I think to see some elite competition. Having said that, I am looking forward to the trade period and draft, which has built up over the last few years somewhat. Still not a fan of free agency however.
- Big fan of the start time compared to the NRL start time of 7:20pm. I was asleep on the couch and distracted by other sports by the time the NRL grand final came on. AFL won the television ratings for this year compared to the NRL, although they are reportedly the lowest they've been in 10 years.
That's all I can think of for now.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Participant Observations 27/09/18 - AFL Grand Final Preview
Obviously very excited about the AFL Grand Final on Saturday, although I don't have any plans locked in yet, which is unusual for this time of year. Most friends are away or have other non-AFL commitments already. I have one or two possible plans that might come to fruition, but there's still every chance I end up watching it at home, which would be somewhat hypocritical, given how often I advocate for the AFL's social function of bringing people together!
A couple of other thoughts for this week: Firstly, the Brownlow medal. Not shocked that Tom Mitchell won, and I really thought he was the favourite from the mid-point of the season, and probably should have had some money on him. Also wasn't surprised that the ruckmen who were predicted to go well didn't end up polling that many votes. I have a theory that the umpires tend to follow what the media is saying, and the media didn't really start pushing the ruckmen until about halfway through the season, so it wasn't until then that the ruckmen started to poll votes. It's not like the umpires lock themselves away in a cryogenic freezer from Monday to Friday, avoiding what the media say, so how could they avoid the influence of the media?
Secondly, the Grand Final itself. Obviously a bit surprised that Richmond lost to Collingwood, but happy to see them lose. Equally happy if the Eagles get up this weekend. It also means we'll have another new premier since Hawthorn won three straight a few years ago. Collingwood last won in 2010, and the Eagles haven't won since 1994(?), although they did play in the Grand Final in 2015.
So my predictions: Eagles by 21 points.
First Goal scorer: Jordan De Goey
BOG: Josh Kennedy
A couple of other thoughts for this week: Firstly, the Brownlow medal. Not shocked that Tom Mitchell won, and I really thought he was the favourite from the mid-point of the season, and probably should have had some money on him. Also wasn't surprised that the ruckmen who were predicted to go well didn't end up polling that many votes. I have a theory that the umpires tend to follow what the media is saying, and the media didn't really start pushing the ruckmen until about halfway through the season, so it wasn't until then that the ruckmen started to poll votes. It's not like the umpires lock themselves away in a cryogenic freezer from Monday to Friday, avoiding what the media say, so how could they avoid the influence of the media?
Secondly, the Grand Final itself. Obviously a bit surprised that Richmond lost to Collingwood, but happy to see them lose. Equally happy if the Eagles get up this weekend. It also means we'll have another new premier since Hawthorn won three straight a few years ago. Collingwood last won in 2010, and the Eagles haven't won since 1994(?), although they did play in the Grand Final in 2015.
So my predictions: Eagles by 21 points.
First Goal scorer: Jordan De Goey
BOG: Josh Kennedy
Monday, September 17, 2018
Participant Observations 17/9/18 - Injury darkness and an AFL Finals update
It turns out that the ankle injury suffered in the last Masters intraclub game was more severe than first thought, and it will keep me out of the AFL National Masters carnival in Coffs Harbour next month.
I've done as much as I thought I could to get over the injury, but there is still a lot of soreness in the injury, and I have no confidence it will be ready in two weeks, and I also don't have the mental confidence that, even if it was better, I could trust it.
This is a real kick in the guts for a number of reasons. Firstly, I was looking forward to the carnival so I could play in quality football over the week. The week in Coffs itself would have been a good opportunity to get away for a mini holiday. It's also a kick in the guts because it's the second time injury has prevented me from playing in an event I'd been working all season towards. The last time I played competitive AFL was in the BDAFL reserve grade comp in 2015, and I played almost every game that year, only to have my shoulder dislocated in the semi-final, meaning I missed out on playing in a winning grand final team.
This has been similarly depressing. I've taken supplements, icing the ankle, been to the doctor, tried a local steroid, and now am undergoing physio treatment, but I can tell it won't be ready in time. I also don't see the point of risking re-injury for an amateur competition. The doctor said it will take 6 weeks to heal 90%, and the carnival would be 5 weeks from injury. And the next 10% takes a further 6 months to heal, so I don't want to re-injure the ankle and end up with weak ankles. This is shitty. The only upside is I will save the money that I was going to spend there.
-------------
A quick update on the AFL finals. So, the Swans game was a bit of a dud, but to be honest, I also didn't think we would win. And I've been saying for year I think our roster is not very good, and weaknesses have been masked by good performances by some individuals. Hopefully the team will go through a rebuild, because I can't see us advancing with the current squad. The team look set for a bit of a clean out anyway. Gary Rohan and Dan Hannebury look to be going, as does Lloyd, and Newman is also being targeted by other teams. Reece Shaw has also left.
Since then, I've been able to put the Swans loss behind me pretty quickly, and have jumped on the Dees for the rest of the way. It's been interesting to watch my mates who are Melbourne supporters go through the rollercoaster of emotions as their team has progressed. In some ways I envy them, in other ways I'm glad it's not me - as they've said many times, it is very nerve-racking, and draining. I'm hopeful they'll beat West Coast, but clearly they are underdogs. Either way, I don't see Melbourne or the Eagles beating Richmond.
Also interesting, I haven't made many plans for grand final day yet. I had anticipated driving to Coffs the fay after the grand final, so wasn't picturing a big day out, but obviously that is now no longer on the cards. However, I also feel I faux pased the other day when watching the footy with Nayls, Ruth, Benny D and Sophie, asking the women if the boys could watch the grand final together, instead of asking if they wanted to watch it with us. So I might not plan anything this year, and see what happens. It might just mean watching it alone, or down at the pub by myself with a few bets on. Bones will probably be heading to Coffs, Joe is still overseas, and Furey will probably want to watch it himself as Richmond will probably be in it and favourites to win.
I don't mind that. We'll wait and see.
I've done as much as I thought I could to get over the injury, but there is still a lot of soreness in the injury, and I have no confidence it will be ready in two weeks, and I also don't have the mental confidence that, even if it was better, I could trust it.
This is a real kick in the guts for a number of reasons. Firstly, I was looking forward to the carnival so I could play in quality football over the week. The week in Coffs itself would have been a good opportunity to get away for a mini holiday. It's also a kick in the guts because it's the second time injury has prevented me from playing in an event I'd been working all season towards. The last time I played competitive AFL was in the BDAFL reserve grade comp in 2015, and I played almost every game that year, only to have my shoulder dislocated in the semi-final, meaning I missed out on playing in a winning grand final team.
This has been similarly depressing. I've taken supplements, icing the ankle, been to the doctor, tried a local steroid, and now am undergoing physio treatment, but I can tell it won't be ready in time. I also don't see the point of risking re-injury for an amateur competition. The doctor said it will take 6 weeks to heal 90%, and the carnival would be 5 weeks from injury. And the next 10% takes a further 6 months to heal, so I don't want to re-injure the ankle and end up with weak ankles. This is shitty. The only upside is I will save the money that I was going to spend there.
-------------
A quick update on the AFL finals. So, the Swans game was a bit of a dud, but to be honest, I also didn't think we would win. And I've been saying for year I think our roster is not very good, and weaknesses have been masked by good performances by some individuals. Hopefully the team will go through a rebuild, because I can't see us advancing with the current squad. The team look set for a bit of a clean out anyway. Gary Rohan and Dan Hannebury look to be going, as does Lloyd, and Newman is also being targeted by other teams. Reece Shaw has also left.
Since then, I've been able to put the Swans loss behind me pretty quickly, and have jumped on the Dees for the rest of the way. It's been interesting to watch my mates who are Melbourne supporters go through the rollercoaster of emotions as their team has progressed. In some ways I envy them, in other ways I'm glad it's not me - as they've said many times, it is very nerve-racking, and draining. I'm hopeful they'll beat West Coast, but clearly they are underdogs. Either way, I don't see Melbourne or the Eagles beating Richmond.
Also interesting, I haven't made many plans for grand final day yet. I had anticipated driving to Coffs the fay after the grand final, so wasn't picturing a big day out, but obviously that is now no longer on the cards. However, I also feel I faux pased the other day when watching the footy with Nayls, Ruth, Benny D and Sophie, asking the women if the boys could watch the grand final together, instead of asking if they wanted to watch it with us. So I might not plan anything this year, and see what happens. It might just mean watching it alone, or down at the pub by myself with a few bets on. Bones will probably be heading to Coffs, Joe is still overseas, and Furey will probably want to watch it himself as Richmond will probably be in it and favourites to win.
I don't mind that. We'll wait and see.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Participant Observations 5/9/18 - A Fix for the Finals Fixture
There seems to be a lot of hullabaloo in the media recently about the finals fixture at the end of the season. Should there be a week off? No week off? What to do if there is a week off? Should we promote women's games? VFL? SANFL? Do we include the awards ceremonies in the week off? And so on...
I can see arguments from all sides, but mostly it seems to boil down to the argument that the season looses momentum with a week off versus the argument that a week off allows the players to refresh and perform at their best in the finals.
And I'm strongly in the latter camp here. A week off does allow the players to refresh and perform at their best for the most important games of the season.
So, in my opinion, if we keep the week off, the next question becomes how to we manage the time between the end of round 23 and week 1 of the finals. Some of these ideas I've mentioned before, but today I wanted to collate them into a more coherent sentiment.
Firstly, get rid of the floating fixture in round 23. This was introduced when there was no week off, and was introduced in order to give the finals teams the chance of a longer break before the finals the following week. But with the week off, all finals sides get well over a week to recover, so the original purpose of the floating fixture is obsolete. Now, the floating fixture just allows the league to massage the TV slots.
At the other end, I prefer the first round of finals to be played Friday night, Saturday arvo, Saturday night, Sunday. Get rid of the Thursday night final in week 1. It's purely a money grab for audiences. Stadium crowds on Sunday games are big. There's also an advantage to having the first final on a Friday night instead of Thursday, which I'll get to later.
In-between, I like the idea of a wildcard weekend. A wildcard weekend means the top 6 sides get a week off, while sides from 7-10 battle it out to progress. It extends the number of teams in finals to 10, and gives us 2 games of AFL on the weekend when there would otherwise be no AFL games.
The format would be something like 7v10 on Friday night and 8v9 on Saturday night. If you introduce a wildcard weekend, you could justify keeping the floating fixture in round 23 so those four teams get a decent break.
Alternatively, you could build it up as 'Wildcard Saturday' and have the games back-to-back on Saturday twilight and Saturday night. This would leave some clear air on Friday and Sunday for other games, which I'll also get to shortly.
The winners of the two wildcard games would then progress to fill the spots against teams 5 and 6, and the last four weeks of the finals would progress as normal. However, the winners of the wildcard weekend would be re-seeded, so the highest ranked winner from wildcard weekend plays the 6th ranked team, and the lowest ranked winner from wildcard weekend plays the 5th ranked team. This preserves the advantage the 5th placed team had over the 6th placed team by finishing higher on the ladder after the 23 regular rounds.
Then, to fill out the weekend, you have a range of options. Personally, I like the idea of a Friday night State of Origin double-header, with an origin game for both the men and women. Obviously, the men's game would be compromised, as only players from the bottom 8 teams would be able to participate. But I think it could be billed as a charity match, and take some of the heat out of the game, reducing the risk of injury. Alternatively, the Ted Whitten charity game could be played on Friday night, with the women's state of origin as a curtain raiser (or vice versa). But the women's state of origin must be fair dinkum. This would mean potentially working with all the state leagues to make sure the women's competitions were all finished before the wildcard weekend so that players were available for it.
Sunday would be made exclusively into a state league bonanza. Double and triple headers in the SANFL, WAFL, and VFL, with coverage on television. It was good on Sunday being able to flick between some of these games. While this does reduce the number of days a state league player would have between playing in say a VFL team and then lining up for their AFL team the following weekend, they may at least get a 5-day break if the first final starts on the Friday night instead of the Thursday night. Alternatively, you could schedule the state league games on the Sunday to involve those teams that had less or no representation in the AFL the following weekend.
As far as the awards season goes, I think you can have most of the ceremonies in the first week leading up to wildcard weekend (AFLPA, AFLCA, Media Awards, Rising Star) and only hold off the All-Australian awards for the week after wildcard weekend. Most of the week after the wildcard weekend can be focused on the four finals coming up, as well as having all the fallout from the wildcard weekend to talk about.
I probably think about this stuff too much to be honest, but can't wait to talk about this with Burnsy when I go to the Swans final THIS WEEKEND!! Oh, did I not mention that??
I can see arguments from all sides, but mostly it seems to boil down to the argument that the season looses momentum with a week off versus the argument that a week off allows the players to refresh and perform at their best in the finals.
And I'm strongly in the latter camp here. A week off does allow the players to refresh and perform at their best for the most important games of the season.
So, in my opinion, if we keep the week off, the next question becomes how to we manage the time between the end of round 23 and week 1 of the finals. Some of these ideas I've mentioned before, but today I wanted to collate them into a more coherent sentiment.
Firstly, get rid of the floating fixture in round 23. This was introduced when there was no week off, and was introduced in order to give the finals teams the chance of a longer break before the finals the following week. But with the week off, all finals sides get well over a week to recover, so the original purpose of the floating fixture is obsolete. Now, the floating fixture just allows the league to massage the TV slots.
At the other end, I prefer the first round of finals to be played Friday night, Saturday arvo, Saturday night, Sunday. Get rid of the Thursday night final in week 1. It's purely a money grab for audiences. Stadium crowds on Sunday games are big. There's also an advantage to having the first final on a Friday night instead of Thursday, which I'll get to later.
In-between, I like the idea of a wildcard weekend. A wildcard weekend means the top 6 sides get a week off, while sides from 7-10 battle it out to progress. It extends the number of teams in finals to 10, and gives us 2 games of AFL on the weekend when there would otherwise be no AFL games.
The format would be something like 7v10 on Friday night and 8v9 on Saturday night. If you introduce a wildcard weekend, you could justify keeping the floating fixture in round 23 so those four teams get a decent break.
Alternatively, you could build it up as 'Wildcard Saturday' and have the games back-to-back on Saturday twilight and Saturday night. This would leave some clear air on Friday and Sunday for other games, which I'll also get to shortly.
The winners of the two wildcard games would then progress to fill the spots against teams 5 and 6, and the last four weeks of the finals would progress as normal. However, the winners of the wildcard weekend would be re-seeded, so the highest ranked winner from wildcard weekend plays the 6th ranked team, and the lowest ranked winner from wildcard weekend plays the 5th ranked team. This preserves the advantage the 5th placed team had over the 6th placed team by finishing higher on the ladder after the 23 regular rounds.
Then, to fill out the weekend, you have a range of options. Personally, I like the idea of a Friday night State of Origin double-header, with an origin game for both the men and women. Obviously, the men's game would be compromised, as only players from the bottom 8 teams would be able to participate. But I think it could be billed as a charity match, and take some of the heat out of the game, reducing the risk of injury. Alternatively, the Ted Whitten charity game could be played on Friday night, with the women's state of origin as a curtain raiser (or vice versa). But the women's state of origin must be fair dinkum. This would mean potentially working with all the state leagues to make sure the women's competitions were all finished before the wildcard weekend so that players were available for it.
Sunday would be made exclusively into a state league bonanza. Double and triple headers in the SANFL, WAFL, and VFL, with coverage on television. It was good on Sunday being able to flick between some of these games. While this does reduce the number of days a state league player would have between playing in say a VFL team and then lining up for their AFL team the following weekend, they may at least get a 5-day break if the first final starts on the Friday night instead of the Thursday night. Alternatively, you could schedule the state league games on the Sunday to involve those teams that had less or no representation in the AFL the following weekend.
As far as the awards season goes, I think you can have most of the ceremonies in the first week leading up to wildcard weekend (AFLPA, AFLCA, Media Awards, Rising Star) and only hold off the All-Australian awards for the week after wildcard weekend. Most of the week after the wildcard weekend can be focused on the four finals coming up, as well as having all the fallout from the wildcard weekend to talk about.
I probably think about this stuff too much to be honest, but can't wait to talk about this with Burnsy when I go to the Swans final THIS WEEKEND!! Oh, did I not mention that??
Monday, August 27, 2018
Participant Observations 27/8/18 - Injury & Pirate Bay
A major setback to Coffs Masters Carnival on Saturday, when I injured my left ankle in a Hunter Masters intraclub game.
I've had scans on the ankle, and it looks like a ligament strain or partial tear, so 4 weeks out, which means hopefully should still be OK for the carnival.
I have to thanks the other Masters players who really made sure I was ok after the incident - carrying me off the ground, and getting ice on it straight away. Also BK and Bones for helping me get home, and to Bones for taking me off to hospital on Sunday for a scan.
I tried not to show it at the ground on Saturday, but I was fucking shattered immediately after it happened. Just knowing that all the work Bones and I had done might have been for nothing. It wasn't helped by some players saying I could still go along to the carnival and enjoy it, even though I'd be injured. And I initially thought the worst. I heard a loud pop when it happened, and thought it must have been a snapped ligament. Obviously you feel bad for the person who was responsible for the injury, because you know they didn't mean it, but it's still very shocking when it happened.
So all things considered, it's probably a best case scenario. However, I will have to work on my fitness when I can start training again, and I'll miss the Illawarra carnival, but I hope to be back for the father-and-son/daughter game in 4 weeks.
--------------
Think I may have posted on this before, but I was reading an article on the weekend, and it reminded me of the ability to use a VPN to access Pirate Bay and get content. Not sure why this is a big deal, but I think it demonstrates how badly outdated the law is, and how ineffective it is in combating users who will use any means necessary to get the content they want.
I've had scans on the ankle, and it looks like a ligament strain or partial tear, so 4 weeks out, which means hopefully should still be OK for the carnival.
I have to thanks the other Masters players who really made sure I was ok after the incident - carrying me off the ground, and getting ice on it straight away. Also BK and Bones for helping me get home, and to Bones for taking me off to hospital on Sunday for a scan.
I tried not to show it at the ground on Saturday, but I was fucking shattered immediately after it happened. Just knowing that all the work Bones and I had done might have been for nothing. It wasn't helped by some players saying I could still go along to the carnival and enjoy it, even though I'd be injured. And I initially thought the worst. I heard a loud pop when it happened, and thought it must have been a snapped ligament. Obviously you feel bad for the person who was responsible for the injury, because you know they didn't mean it, but it's still very shocking when it happened.
So all things considered, it's probably a best case scenario. However, I will have to work on my fitness when I can start training again, and I'll miss the Illawarra carnival, but I hope to be back for the father-and-son/daughter game in 4 weeks.
--------------
Think I may have posted on this before, but I was reading an article on the weekend, and it reminded me of the ability to use a VPN to access Pirate Bay and get content. Not sure why this is a big deal, but I think it demonstrates how badly outdated the law is, and how ineffective it is in combating users who will use any means necessary to get the content they want.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Participant Observations 22/8/18 - AFL Masters National Carnival & AFL Free Agency
National AFL Masters Carnival
After some consternation about whether I should play or not, I made the decision a few weeks ago to play in this year's National AFL Masters Carnival in Coffs Harbour in October.
I wasn't sure if I could afford the time and money to go to the tournament, but in keeping with the general theme this year of getting my life back, I decided I would register for it, which at the moment feels like the right thing to do.
This is because I've really put a lot of time and effort into getting the most out of this year from the point of view of playing AFL. I've only missed one game all season (the weekend me and Joey went to Adelaide), I've put in heaps of training with Alex Holness and with Newcastle/West Wallsend BDAFL team (usually 2 nights a week skills and agility training), and I also played in the pre-season and AFL 9's comp.
I'm at the point where I feel like my skills are as good as they've been in many years, as has my fitness (despite having TWO fucking colds during the winter). A downside however is that I'm now dealing with several niggling injuries - other than managing the shoulder, which will be with me forever, I also have some plantar fasciitis in my feet, and I have repeatedly sprained my right thumb, resulting in a little bit of 'goal-keepers' thumb. The thumb is a recurrence of an injury I had in about 2009 when I first moved to Melbourne.
But I feel that if I hadn't registered for the Masters Carnival, I would have regretted it. I'm really looking forward to it, and because I've put so much time and effort into training, I feel like I can have a positive impact on the team and feel good about my contributions to the side. I also feel that if I ever now let my skills slip, that I will have a lot of trouble trying to get them back to a decent level, and the Masters Carnival would let me test myself in that sense - are there any areas I need to work on, how is my fitness, what is my game awareness like, etc.
There is a chance you can play at least three games, and hopefully up to six games of AFL across three competition days. It will also give me the opportunity to see Coffs Harbour, and I'll be taking my golf clubs, mountain bike and surf board with me (although I honestly think I might be so fatigued after playing two games of footy on the competition days to actually do any of that!)
It's also a good way for me to bond with the existing Hunter Masters guys, and meet some new people in Masters generally. It's in the Uni semester break, so I can get away from teaching, marking, and Newcastle for a while, and I'll be living the dream of playing, talking, thinking AFL for a week! It also runs the week after the AFL Grand Final, so it's the perfect way to come-down after the few weeks that will lead into that. Still need to make plans for the AFL Grand Final by the way...
But yeah, super excited to get involved and play in a competitive environment for a week long festival of the boot.
------------------------
AFL Free Agency
Aside from the possible changes to playing rules, probably the most talked about issue in the AFL over the last few weeks has been around player free agency and compensation picks, and priority picks for poor-performing clubs.
I understand why the Players Association argued for free agency, but I believe it has created many unintended consequences. As I heard Bob Murphy say on a podcast this week, free agency was originally introduced to help those players who might be struggling to get a game in a very good side to move to clubs where they would have more opportunity, improving the overall talent distribution and competitive balance of the league.
In fact, what has happened is the reverse. Free agency has resulted in very good players moving from poorly performing clubs to the top clubs at the end of their contract in order to chase on-field success. The classic example this year is the rumoured move of Tom Lynch from the Gold Coast to Richmond.
This has naturally reduced competitive balance, as player talent concentrates in the better teams, and we end up in a situation where commentators and the league is now looking for solutions to improve competitive balance.
Before looking at methods to address the issue, I will say on the record that I think introducing player free agency was a mistake. The competitive balance of the league was trending very well before its introduction, and I believe it was only introduced because the players wanted to be more like the American model of free agency, which gives power to the players. While I don't want to deny the players the ability to have some control over their playing careers, there is significant benefit in not giving complete control to the players - it improves the likelihood of players moving clubs, hence reducing club loyalty, which has been fundamental to the competition for many years. It's also possibly indicative of a neo-liberal or individualistic tendency of the competition, where the benefits of the individual are prioritised, at the cost of collectivist sentiments where player movement policies are put in place to benefit the whole competition.
Again, I'm not arguing for the transfer model, where clubs retain rights over a player even when their contract ends, but this half-assed system that we currently have doesn't seem to benefit anyone. The league doesn't benefit because of the loss of competitive balance, the clubs don't benefit accordingly (especially those at the bottom of the ladder), and the players don't benefit either. Tom Lynch is still at the behest of his club - he's a restricted free agent, but Gold Coast may still choose to match the offer from Richmond. My understanding is that if Lynch still wants to leave after the Suns match any offer, then the player enters the pre-season draft, and could end up at any club (in this case it would be Carlton) rather than going to the club of their choice. Free agency also introduced the unsightly situation of off-contract players engaging with clubs during the current season, and clubs being forced into a position where, if they become aware that a player is talking to another club, they may not select that player because the player might not be with the team after the current season.
The current mechanism to address player movement in free agency is to give the clubs that lose the player a compensation pick somewhere in the draft. Where that pick ends up I think is chosen by the AFL and is somewhat arbitrary and subjective. The compensation pick to me seems like the AFL was afraid of going 100% into the NBA model, and so introduced this level to try and return some power to the clubs. So I don't like free agency at all.
Another unintended consequence of free agency is that, because of the loss of competitive balance that results from the best players at poor clubs moving to the top teams, the league now has to look at additional mechanisms to restore competitive balance. So arguments around priority picks have resurfaced. Priority picks are additional picks in the draft that are awarded to poorly performing clubs in the belief that it will give them more young talent. There has already been much debate around priority picks, because it would seem to incentivse tanking for clubs that are not doing well, especially if the priority picks are awarded at the top of the first round, which effectively gives a club the first two picks at the start of the draft. So other ideas are to give the priority picks mid-way through the first round, or at the end of the first round.
Carlton and the Gold Coast look like candidates for priority picks in the draft this year. Some commentators seem to think that the priority pick is not an effective way of helping under-performing clubs improve, or that under-performing clubs should be given access to mature age players instead of rookies. But I like the idea of priority picks, and I like them before the first round, so long as it can be ascertained that a club didn't tank in order to get them. Obviously this is incredibly hard to establish, but one idea to counter that is the suggestion that a priority pick would only be introduced if a club won, say 4 games a year for 5 years on average.
I also don't mind the idea of giving under-performing clubs access to established players in other leagues, even if that means that those clubs are allowed to have an extended playing list and salary cap.
All this seems like unnecessary mechanisms on top of mechanisms, and some people say we need to overhaul the entire system. I agree with them, but my idea of overhauling the entire system is to simply GET RID OF PLAYER FREE AGENCY. We never had it for a very long time, and the league was fine. It hasn't been used in the way that it was supposed to when it was introduced, and it has compromised competitive balance, which doesn't benefit anyone.
After some consternation about whether I should play or not, I made the decision a few weeks ago to play in this year's National AFL Masters Carnival in Coffs Harbour in October.
I wasn't sure if I could afford the time and money to go to the tournament, but in keeping with the general theme this year of getting my life back, I decided I would register for it, which at the moment feels like the right thing to do.
This is because I've really put a lot of time and effort into getting the most out of this year from the point of view of playing AFL. I've only missed one game all season (the weekend me and Joey went to Adelaide), I've put in heaps of training with Alex Holness and with Newcastle/West Wallsend BDAFL team (usually 2 nights a week skills and agility training), and I also played in the pre-season and AFL 9's comp.
I'm at the point where I feel like my skills are as good as they've been in many years, as has my fitness (despite having TWO fucking colds during the winter). A downside however is that I'm now dealing with several niggling injuries - other than managing the shoulder, which will be with me forever, I also have some plantar fasciitis in my feet, and I have repeatedly sprained my right thumb, resulting in a little bit of 'goal-keepers' thumb. The thumb is a recurrence of an injury I had in about 2009 when I first moved to Melbourne.
But I feel that if I hadn't registered for the Masters Carnival, I would have regretted it. I'm really looking forward to it, and because I've put so much time and effort into training, I feel like I can have a positive impact on the team and feel good about my contributions to the side. I also feel that if I ever now let my skills slip, that I will have a lot of trouble trying to get them back to a decent level, and the Masters Carnival would let me test myself in that sense - are there any areas I need to work on, how is my fitness, what is my game awareness like, etc.
There is a chance you can play at least three games, and hopefully up to six games of AFL across three competition days. It will also give me the opportunity to see Coffs Harbour, and I'll be taking my golf clubs, mountain bike and surf board with me (although I honestly think I might be so fatigued after playing two games of footy on the competition days to actually do any of that!)
It's also a good way for me to bond with the existing Hunter Masters guys, and meet some new people in Masters generally. It's in the Uni semester break, so I can get away from teaching, marking, and Newcastle for a while, and I'll be living the dream of playing, talking, thinking AFL for a week! It also runs the week after the AFL Grand Final, so it's the perfect way to come-down after the few weeks that will lead into that. Still need to make plans for the AFL Grand Final by the way...
But yeah, super excited to get involved and play in a competitive environment for a week long festival of the boot.
------------------------
AFL Free Agency
Aside from the possible changes to playing rules, probably the most talked about issue in the AFL over the last few weeks has been around player free agency and compensation picks, and priority picks for poor-performing clubs.
I understand why the Players Association argued for free agency, but I believe it has created many unintended consequences. As I heard Bob Murphy say on a podcast this week, free agency was originally introduced to help those players who might be struggling to get a game in a very good side to move to clubs where they would have more opportunity, improving the overall talent distribution and competitive balance of the league.
In fact, what has happened is the reverse. Free agency has resulted in very good players moving from poorly performing clubs to the top clubs at the end of their contract in order to chase on-field success. The classic example this year is the rumoured move of Tom Lynch from the Gold Coast to Richmond.
This has naturally reduced competitive balance, as player talent concentrates in the better teams, and we end up in a situation where commentators and the league is now looking for solutions to improve competitive balance.
Before looking at methods to address the issue, I will say on the record that I think introducing player free agency was a mistake. The competitive balance of the league was trending very well before its introduction, and I believe it was only introduced because the players wanted to be more like the American model of free agency, which gives power to the players. While I don't want to deny the players the ability to have some control over their playing careers, there is significant benefit in not giving complete control to the players - it improves the likelihood of players moving clubs, hence reducing club loyalty, which has been fundamental to the competition for many years. It's also possibly indicative of a neo-liberal or individualistic tendency of the competition, where the benefits of the individual are prioritised, at the cost of collectivist sentiments where player movement policies are put in place to benefit the whole competition.
Again, I'm not arguing for the transfer model, where clubs retain rights over a player even when their contract ends, but this half-assed system that we currently have doesn't seem to benefit anyone. The league doesn't benefit because of the loss of competitive balance, the clubs don't benefit accordingly (especially those at the bottom of the ladder), and the players don't benefit either. Tom Lynch is still at the behest of his club - he's a restricted free agent, but Gold Coast may still choose to match the offer from Richmond. My understanding is that if Lynch still wants to leave after the Suns match any offer, then the player enters the pre-season draft, and could end up at any club (in this case it would be Carlton) rather than going to the club of their choice. Free agency also introduced the unsightly situation of off-contract players engaging with clubs during the current season, and clubs being forced into a position where, if they become aware that a player is talking to another club, they may not select that player because the player might not be with the team after the current season.
The current mechanism to address player movement in free agency is to give the clubs that lose the player a compensation pick somewhere in the draft. Where that pick ends up I think is chosen by the AFL and is somewhat arbitrary and subjective. The compensation pick to me seems like the AFL was afraid of going 100% into the NBA model, and so introduced this level to try and return some power to the clubs. So I don't like free agency at all.
Another unintended consequence of free agency is that, because of the loss of competitive balance that results from the best players at poor clubs moving to the top teams, the league now has to look at additional mechanisms to restore competitive balance. So arguments around priority picks have resurfaced. Priority picks are additional picks in the draft that are awarded to poorly performing clubs in the belief that it will give them more young talent. There has already been much debate around priority picks, because it would seem to incentivse tanking for clubs that are not doing well, especially if the priority picks are awarded at the top of the first round, which effectively gives a club the first two picks at the start of the draft. So other ideas are to give the priority picks mid-way through the first round, or at the end of the first round.
Carlton and the Gold Coast look like candidates for priority picks in the draft this year. Some commentators seem to think that the priority pick is not an effective way of helping under-performing clubs improve, or that under-performing clubs should be given access to mature age players instead of rookies. But I like the idea of priority picks, and I like them before the first round, so long as it can be ascertained that a club didn't tank in order to get them. Obviously this is incredibly hard to establish, but one idea to counter that is the suggestion that a priority pick would only be introduced if a club won, say 4 games a year for 5 years on average.
I also don't mind the idea of giving under-performing clubs access to established players in other leagues, even if that means that those clubs are allowed to have an extended playing list and salary cap.
All this seems like unnecessary mechanisms on top of mechanisms, and some people say we need to overhaul the entire system. I agree with them, but my idea of overhauling the entire system is to simply GET RID OF PLAYER FREE AGENCY. We never had it for a very long time, and the league was fine. It hasn't been used in the way that it was supposed to when it was introduced, and it has compromised competitive balance, which doesn't benefit anyone.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Participant Observations 17/8/18 - NBL, AFL in 4K, and Amazon Prime
A lot to cover off today, but hopefully I can get it all done succinctly...
--------------------
The NBL heads to commercial Free-to-Air.
The NBL have announced they'll have 2x games on FTA each week during the comeing season over the coming summer:
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/nbl-heads-to-nine-in-new-broadcast-deal-20180816-p4zxw5.html
I think this is great news in terms of getting more of my second favourite sport on TV, but there are some caveats that need to be realised as well. For example, the games will be on 9Go, a secondary channel. The games will be in the 3-5pm time-slot, so not exactly prime time. It's not clear if other games will be on Foxtel, or available via the NBL app, as it was previously.
However, I think the games will get the attention of some of the market because Andrew Bogut is playing, the quality of the league is good, and there are many Australian's playing in the NBA in America, helping to raise the overall profile of the sport here at home. It's clear the NBL will also try and use the same funding model it had previously with Foxtel, where the NBL pays for production costs, and then splits the revenue with Channel 9, which encourages both parties to work hard at promoting the game and driving up sponsorship.
Obviously some details still need to be worked out, but good news for the sport...
------------------
The AFL in 4K Resolution
It was announced today that Foxtel has plans to show the AFL in 4K resolution next season:
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/foxtel-taking-the-fight-to-free-to-air-with-plans-for-4k-footy-20180816-p4zxre.html
As I posted about yesterday, it doesn't seem like 4K will be delivered via the internet, owing to the unreliable speeds the NBN provides in Australia (sigh).
However, the fact they are identifying this sport, ahead of any other winter codes, also makes me think that Foxtel believes the AFL audiences are especially passionate about their sport, and would be most likely to upgrade to 4K resolution because of it.
I also found out from this article that Foxtel will become an exclusively delivered satellite service in the future, as its cable network gets taken over for NBN delivery. Also, 4K on FTA is unliely anytime soon, due to the squeeze for spectrum. As a satellite service, as opposed to a terrestrial-based service like the FTA channels, clearly Foxtel doesn't have this problem.
-----------------
Goodbye Prime Video, Hello Amazon Prime.
I received an email from Prime Video the other day that I could upgrade to Amazon Prime, which would be cheaper and I still get to keep all the video content on Prime Video.
While I don't use this service a lot, I can't say no to a cheaper service with the other stuff that Amazon Prime offers, such as reading content, shopping benefits etc. Obviously I have misgivings about ultimately supporting a non-Australian service, but at the end of the day, the cheaper fees win out. I'm also hopeful that ultimately, Amazon will start showing sport content, so I will save a subscription fee later!
--------------------
The NBL heads to commercial Free-to-Air.
The NBL have announced they'll have 2x games on FTA each week during the comeing season over the coming summer:
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/nbl-heads-to-nine-in-new-broadcast-deal-20180816-p4zxw5.html
I think this is great news in terms of getting more of my second favourite sport on TV, but there are some caveats that need to be realised as well. For example, the games will be on 9Go, a secondary channel. The games will be in the 3-5pm time-slot, so not exactly prime time. It's not clear if other games will be on Foxtel, or available via the NBL app, as it was previously.
However, I think the games will get the attention of some of the market because Andrew Bogut is playing, the quality of the league is good, and there are many Australian's playing in the NBA in America, helping to raise the overall profile of the sport here at home. It's clear the NBL will also try and use the same funding model it had previously with Foxtel, where the NBL pays for production costs, and then splits the revenue with Channel 9, which encourages both parties to work hard at promoting the game and driving up sponsorship.
Obviously some details still need to be worked out, but good news for the sport...
------------------
The AFL in 4K Resolution
It was announced today that Foxtel has plans to show the AFL in 4K resolution next season:
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/foxtel-taking-the-fight-to-free-to-air-with-plans-for-4k-footy-20180816-p4zxre.html
As I posted about yesterday, it doesn't seem like 4K will be delivered via the internet, owing to the unreliable speeds the NBN provides in Australia (sigh).
However, the fact they are identifying this sport, ahead of any other winter codes, also makes me think that Foxtel believes the AFL audiences are especially passionate about their sport, and would be most likely to upgrade to 4K resolution because of it.
I also found out from this article that Foxtel will become an exclusively delivered satellite service in the future, as its cable network gets taken over for NBN delivery. Also, 4K on FTA is unliely anytime soon, due to the squeeze for spectrum. As a satellite service, as opposed to a terrestrial-based service like the FTA channels, clearly Foxtel doesn't have this problem.
-----------------
Goodbye Prime Video, Hello Amazon Prime.
I received an email from Prime Video the other day that I could upgrade to Amazon Prime, which would be cheaper and I still get to keep all the video content on Prime Video.
While I don't use this service a lot, I can't say no to a cheaper service with the other stuff that Amazon Prime offers, such as reading content, shopping benefits etc. Obviously I have misgivings about ultimately supporting a non-Australian service, but at the end of the day, the cheaper fees win out. I'm also hopeful that ultimately, Amazon will start showing sport content, so I will save a subscription fee later!
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Participant Observations 15/8/18 - 4K 4 Real? Not for me...
Foxtel have announced that they're launching 4K resolution ahead of the cricket season, for which they just secured the rights for:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/foxtel-launched-4k-channel-in-preparation-for-cricket-20180814-p4zxgg.html
Obviously, at first I was pretty excited about this, as it meant I might be able to watch the cricket this summer in glorious 4K resolution. That was until you see some of the finer print:
So, it doesn't look like I'll be getting 4K sport anytime soon. However, here are some other takeaway points:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/foxtel-launched-4k-channel-in-preparation-for-cricket-20180814-p4zxgg.html
Obviously, at first I was pretty excited about this, as it meant I might be able to watch the cricket this summer in glorious 4K resolution. That was until you see some of the finer print:
- 4K is only available to satellite subscribers, not internet subscribers (i.e., Foxtel Now).
- 4K resolution is only available on one channel, a specialized channel that will carry some cricket, movies, documentaries and concerts.
- Subscribers will have to upgrade to the iQ4 set-top-unit to get the 4K channel.
- The 4K channel is only available for free to existing subscribers with either the sports or HD package. If you are not a sports or HD subscriber, you have to pay extra.
- The 4K channel will be launched to internet platforms later, but it wasn't announced when, and "the pickings are very thin and... never in live sport and live material."
- Internet users will likely need at least 15Mbps to get 4K resolution when it is available, and more likely to need 25Mbps.
So, it doesn't look like I'll be getting 4K sport anytime soon. However, here are some other takeaway points:
- It suggests that Foxtel believe sport in a higher resolution matters for fans. This is something that the research in this area has also born out.
- It is further evidence of how central sport is to the business model of pay television.
- it's evidence how sport is used as a testing ground for new technologies, both at the game and at the point of consumption. The same thing happened with 3D television and College basketball in the US.
- It suggests that Foxtel still see their satellite service as their core business, by trying to attract and retain customers there. If not, why wouldn't they offer the 4K service over the internet? I have the requisite internet speeds television specifications, and have watched 4K content on Netflix before.
In part, this staggers me, because, as can be seen in some of my previous posts, clearly consumers are heading online to get their content.
Why Foxtel wouldn't use the 4K carrot as a way to attract consumers to their internet platforms seems in some ways to be counter-intuitive. Offering 4K would put them at least on par, if not above, Netflix and Stan, who also offer 4K. The point of difference for Foxtel would have been they would be the only platform to offer 4K sport via an OTT platform.
Accordingly, it might turn out that Channel 9/Fairfax are the first to do this, given that Channel 9 has the tennis rights and have just merged with Fairfax, who part own Stan, a 4K-ready platform who are eager to make inroads on Netflix's dominance of the OTT market.
Perhaps technical issues prevented them from doing this - understandably, OTT providers would by apprehensive after seeing the backlash from what happened with Optus during the world cup. And given the 4K signal requires such large download speeds, it potentially wouldn't take too much of an increase in demand from consumers for the service to be compromised, given the unknown ability of the NBN to deliver the content in 4K.
Accordingly, I think it will be a few years before Foxtel are game enough to deliver 4K content online, and I think another OTT platform will be the first to do it with live sport in Australia.
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Participant Obersvations 8/8/18 - The End of Foxtel Now?
A real blow to my television consumption patterns this week, with the announcement that Foxtel may phase out their Foxtel Now streaming service, in favour of skinny bundle, stand-alone sport and entertainment streaming services.
This sucks, because I get sport and entertainment in the one package now, and I have some concerns that I'll get the same level of content as I do now at the same price and the same convenience if I have to subscribe to numerous skinny bundles.
For example, the sports bundle has been reported to be around $20-25 a month. If the entertainment bundle is the same, plus any HD add-ons, it could easily go past my current subscription of $54 a month.
It was revealed in Mediaweek today that survey data is believed to be behind the decision to go this way, in particular these two graphs from Roy Morgan and Telsyte:
From Roy Morgan:
From Telsyte:
The Roy Morgan data shows Foxtel is the only subscription TV service with negative growth from 2017-2018.
The Telsyte data shows 54% annual growth in SVD subscriptions from 2017-2018, and the report also suggests 100% growth in the SVOD market by 2022.
Clearly, Foxtel want to tap into the SVOD growth market, as their existing subscription model is stagnant at best.
I understand this move, but I always thought the skinny bundles (Project Matian and Project Jupiter) would happen in addition to Foxtel Now, but I guess the writing is on the wall with Foxtel Now.
It's also been widely reported that new Foxtel-Fox Sports CEO Patrick Delany is not enamoured with the Foxtel Now brand or product, that was launced by his predecessor Peter Tonagh.
This is something of a sunk cost now for Foxtel, because they also launched a Foxtel Now STU to accompany the product - what will happen with those units if Foxtel Now is phased out? Will it support the new skinny bundles? I guess they could update the software to support it, but I'm not fully across if they could do that.
I was so looking forward to watching the cricket with Foxtel Now, but it's clear Foxtel want to use their new cricket rights to launch the new skinny products, so I'm not sure what will happen.
The cricket season is only over a month away, so whatever happens will happen soon I would think, especially if Foxtel want to leverage their existing customers over to the new service in time for the cricket.
This sucks, because I get sport and entertainment in the one package now, and I have some concerns that I'll get the same level of content as I do now at the same price and the same convenience if I have to subscribe to numerous skinny bundles.
For example, the sports bundle has been reported to be around $20-25 a month. If the entertainment bundle is the same, plus any HD add-ons, it could easily go past my current subscription of $54 a month.
It was revealed in Mediaweek today that survey data is believed to be behind the decision to go this way, in particular these two graphs from Roy Morgan and Telsyte:
From Roy Morgan:
From Telsyte:
The Roy Morgan data shows Foxtel is the only subscription TV service with negative growth from 2017-2018.
The Telsyte data shows 54% annual growth in SVD subscriptions from 2017-2018, and the report also suggests 100% growth in the SVOD market by 2022.
Clearly, Foxtel want to tap into the SVOD growth market, as their existing subscription model is stagnant at best.
I understand this move, but I always thought the skinny bundles (Project Matian and Project Jupiter) would happen in addition to Foxtel Now, but I guess the writing is on the wall with Foxtel Now.
It's also been widely reported that new Foxtel-Fox Sports CEO Patrick Delany is not enamoured with the Foxtel Now brand or product, that was launced by his predecessor Peter Tonagh.
This is something of a sunk cost now for Foxtel, because they also launched a Foxtel Now STU to accompany the product - what will happen with those units if Foxtel Now is phased out? Will it support the new skinny bundles? I guess they could update the software to support it, but I'm not fully across if they could do that.
I was so looking forward to watching the cricket with Foxtel Now, but it's clear Foxtel want to use their new cricket rights to launch the new skinny products, so I'm not sure what will happen.
The cricket season is only over a month away, so whatever happens will happen soon I would think, especially if Foxtel want to leverage their existing customers over to the new service in time for the cricket.
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
Participant Observations 7/8/18 - AFLW Broadcast Coverage
It was revealed late last week that the AFLW competition fixture could be changed to six home and away rounds plus two rounds of finals, despite two new teams being introduced this season, bringing the total number of teams to 10.
The players are upset, as they see this format as treating their competition with disrespect. Players often move interstate for the competition, spend longer training in the pre-season than playing in the competition, and teams would not play each other at least once under the proposed format.
Obviously, there are logistical reasons why the AFL may see see a compact fixture as necessary. Currently, the AFL has to consider scheduling AFLX, AFLW, and the AFL pre-season competition before the AFL season proper. There are only so many weeks in the year, and unless you are willing to start the AFLW earlier in the new year, or late in the current year, they you will have overlap between competitions, with games from different competitions being played on the same day across the country. This happens somewhat already, with AFLW and AFL pre-season games occasionally scheduled on the same day earlier this year.
Overlapping competitions would seemingly reduce the AFL's ability to have a year-round presence, but to schedule the competitions so they run sequentially and without overlap would also position the AFL in direct competition against other sports in the summer, with tennis, cricket, soccer, and basketball, among others, all in-season from about November through to March.
The AFLW is also a maturing competition, and until the quality of the average female player has been allowed to develop, it could be argued that the quality of the game, especially over a drawn-out season, could result in less of a spectacle.
This makes it hard to garner the attention of sponsors and television broadcasters, as was reported on Footy Classified this week:
The commentators debated if television coverage of every AFLW game was necessary, with some saying it was fundamental to the future of the game, and others suggesting to start the season with 'Match of the Round' coverage, and then work up towards complete television coverage by the end of the competition.
However, if the AFL can't get the television coverage they want for the AFLW, I believe this is the perfect opportunity for the AFL to produce their own coverage of the AFLW and show it on their own online and mobile platforms. Coverage could be free with embedded advertising, or be supported with a variety of subscriptions, such as a $20 season pass, or $5 micro-transaction on a round-by-round basis.
A longer season could be scheduled for the AFLW, with the early season games that are in competition with other sports being available via their own platforms. Then, as the competition from other sports dissipates, and as the AFLW season heads towards it's conclusion, the broadcast coverage ramps up with more games on traditional broadcast coverage. Traditional broadcasters don't have to carry as much risk, as they don't have to show many early season games where the quality of the games and interest in the competition is probably not as high.
This is exactly what Cricket Australia has done with women's matches previously, and for memory, the online numbers of people watching were better than expected.
Additionally, all research suggests that younger people are consuming more content online and on mobile devices, so by shifting the game to those platforms, you have a way to reach the younger demographic that sports would try to engage with.
It would also allow them to test their ability to produce their own games, which gives them data and logistical information about costs, production set-ups, travel, distribution, engagement, revenues, and so on.
More importantly, that information would possibly put them in a better position for when the next round of broadcasting rights come up for sale. By producing their own games, they would have some idea of what control they have over the coverage, what revenues they could possibly earn, what their potential reach is, and so on, and weigh up that information against the benefits of going with free-to-air, subscription television, or another new media player such as Facebook or Google/YouTube.
Tennis Australia has taken back their own rights, and while admittedly tennis is a global game with global markets to sell rights to, they are more in control of their product and have become less reliant on the performance of Australian players in the tournament to generate revenue from their broadcasting rights. The NRL has also reportedly taken back some control over their digital rights from Telstra as well, possibly in a move to produce their own games or at least have more control over their online coverage.
Perhaps a long term solution would be to have a fully-fledged AFLW competition running in the winter, the true seasonal home of Australian Rules Football. A winter competition could accommodate a longer season, with fully developed players and coaches competing in better quality games. Combined with the AFL men's competition, the additional games in the winter that the AFLW provides could lead to almost daily coverage of AFL games in some format on television from March through to October.
But until the AFLW matures and finds the corporate and broadcasting support that that scenario requires, I believe there is no better time for the league to at least contemplate producing their own games.
The players are upset, as they see this format as treating their competition with disrespect. Players often move interstate for the competition, spend longer training in the pre-season than playing in the competition, and teams would not play each other at least once under the proposed format.
Obviously, there are logistical reasons why the AFL may see see a compact fixture as necessary. Currently, the AFL has to consider scheduling AFLX, AFLW, and the AFL pre-season competition before the AFL season proper. There are only so many weeks in the year, and unless you are willing to start the AFLW earlier in the new year, or late in the current year, they you will have overlap between competitions, with games from different competitions being played on the same day across the country. This happens somewhat already, with AFLW and AFL pre-season games occasionally scheduled on the same day earlier this year.
Overlapping competitions would seemingly reduce the AFL's ability to have a year-round presence, but to schedule the competitions so they run sequentially and without overlap would also position the AFL in direct competition against other sports in the summer, with tennis, cricket, soccer, and basketball, among others, all in-season from about November through to March.
The AFLW is also a maturing competition, and until the quality of the average female player has been allowed to develop, it could be argued that the quality of the game, especially over a drawn-out season, could result in less of a spectacle.
This makes it hard to garner the attention of sponsors and television broadcasters, as was reported on Footy Classified this week:
The commentators debated if television coverage of every AFLW game was necessary, with some saying it was fundamental to the future of the game, and others suggesting to start the season with 'Match of the Round' coverage, and then work up towards complete television coverage by the end of the competition.
However, if the AFL can't get the television coverage they want for the AFLW, I believe this is the perfect opportunity for the AFL to produce their own coverage of the AFLW and show it on their own online and mobile platforms. Coverage could be free with embedded advertising, or be supported with a variety of subscriptions, such as a $20 season pass, or $5 micro-transaction on a round-by-round basis.
A longer season could be scheduled for the AFLW, with the early season games that are in competition with other sports being available via their own platforms. Then, as the competition from other sports dissipates, and as the AFLW season heads towards it's conclusion, the broadcast coverage ramps up with more games on traditional broadcast coverage. Traditional broadcasters don't have to carry as much risk, as they don't have to show many early season games where the quality of the games and interest in the competition is probably not as high.
This is exactly what Cricket Australia has done with women's matches previously, and for memory, the online numbers of people watching were better than expected.
Additionally, all research suggests that younger people are consuming more content online and on mobile devices, so by shifting the game to those platforms, you have a way to reach the younger demographic that sports would try to engage with.
It would also allow them to test their ability to produce their own games, which gives them data and logistical information about costs, production set-ups, travel, distribution, engagement, revenues, and so on.
More importantly, that information would possibly put them in a better position for when the next round of broadcasting rights come up for sale. By producing their own games, they would have some idea of what control they have over the coverage, what revenues they could possibly earn, what their potential reach is, and so on, and weigh up that information against the benefits of going with free-to-air, subscription television, or another new media player such as Facebook or Google/YouTube.
Tennis Australia has taken back their own rights, and while admittedly tennis is a global game with global markets to sell rights to, they are more in control of their product and have become less reliant on the performance of Australian players in the tournament to generate revenue from their broadcasting rights. The NRL has also reportedly taken back some control over their digital rights from Telstra as well, possibly in a move to produce their own games or at least have more control over their online coverage.
Perhaps a long term solution would be to have a fully-fledged AFLW competition running in the winter, the true seasonal home of Australian Rules Football. A winter competition could accommodate a longer season, with fully developed players and coaches competing in better quality games. Combined with the AFL men's competition, the additional games in the winter that the AFLW provides could lead to almost daily coverage of AFL games in some format on television from March through to October.
But until the AFLW matures and finds the corporate and broadcasting support that that scenario requires, I believe there is no better time for the league to at least contemplate producing their own games.
Participant Observations 7/8/18 - AFL Rule Changes
My take on the rule changes being talked about in the AFL this year:
Firstly, the rules need to change. At times, the current games looks like a rolling scrum, and it's not uncommon to see all 36 players on the field in one quarter of the ground. Yes, 5 games this round were decided by less than a goal, but that's one round out of 20. For the majority of the rest of the season, the game has been near unwatchable. The drop in TV audiences attest to this.
It's visually a mess. And this leads to the major reason why I think the rules need a change - if I'm a broadcaster, who's paid billions of dollars or the rights, I want the game to be aesthetically pleasing. I understand that a visually perfect game is an impossibility, but the current game-style is too unattractive for casual viewers in my opinion.
Having said that, paradigm-shifting rules are not necessary. If you look at the history of the game, the rules of the game have been tweaked every few years, and that's all that I think is necessary - a few tweaks that on their own don't do a lot, but combined, enhance the game play. For example, there was a time in the history of the game where the kick off line was 20-yards out. It's been 10 yards for some time, but we shouldn't be blind to the idea that rules can and have changed over time.
I also don't think rule changes should be left up to the coaches alone. Coaches are there to win games, and they don't necessarily care how the game looks - winning is their priority, and no one blames them for that. Coaches, and players for that matter, should definitely be consulted, but not held solely responsible for advising on rule changes.
In addition to rule changes, I think games and seasons should be shortened. Players and coaches themselves are saying the games and season is too long, and I'd argue that a shorter season means less player injuries, and more games of consequence. In the NFL for example, teams only play 16 regular season games, so every game has a lot of consequence. While a shorter season may mean that a team that looses it's opening 4 games of the year has little to play for, I believe this could be alleviated with some inventive or dynamic fixturing. Perhaps after 66% of the season, the bottom 4 sides play off against each other for draft positions, or something like that. Ideally, I think an 18-round season is ideal - each team plays each other once, plus an extra round for 'rival' matches or some other 'cause' round. Games should also be shortened to around the 20-25 minute mark, so maybe make it 15 minute quarters with time on? And get rid of the countdown clock at games. Players know the time via runners. Crowds know the time via radio/mobile phones. Get rid of the unnecessary appearance of suspense.
I'd also advocate for either a floating fixture in the final round OR a week between the end of the season and finals. We don't need both. Either or. I understand the purpose of it - to give players an equal rest before finals, but both is too much, and as Ian Robinson on AFL 360, suggested, if you keep the bye after the final round, and keep the final round as a floating round, it floating round basically just becomes a tool for the TV networks to secure the largest audience. Again, while I don't have an issue with that per se, it does leave fans feeling cynical and jaded about the relationship between the game and the media. I also like the idea of a wildcard weekend, between the end of the season and the finals proper, where, say team 7 plays team 10, and 8 plays 9, in a play-off for the final two spots.
So, here are the rule changes I would like to see:
That's all I can think of at the moment. If I think of any others, will update the post.
Another rule that came up over the weekend was the possible introduction of a red card for an 'unsportsmanlike' act, such as striking a player in a game. A West Coast player broke the jaw of a Fremantle player off the ball last weekend, and the West Coast player went on to kick a goal. Other Fremantle players then also targeted the West Coast player in question.
Before jumping on-board with the red card rule, I'd have some questions, such as: Do you also introduce a yellow card for lesser infractions? How long does someone get sent off for under a yellow card? What constitutes 'unsportsmanlike' behaviour? How far off the ball does it have to be? What if a player stages being hit/knocked out in an attempt to get another player red-carded. What if the player being struck has a glass jaw and is more susceptible to being knocked out? What if the action that knocked a player out was accidental, or can't clearly be determined as being deliberate?
I think some data and feedback is needed from the leagues where this rule is already in place, to gauge the impact of the rule, before deciding if this should be instituted as a rule.
Firstly, the rules need to change. At times, the current games looks like a rolling scrum, and it's not uncommon to see all 36 players on the field in one quarter of the ground. Yes, 5 games this round were decided by less than a goal, but that's one round out of 20. For the majority of the rest of the season, the game has been near unwatchable. The drop in TV audiences attest to this.
It's visually a mess. And this leads to the major reason why I think the rules need a change - if I'm a broadcaster, who's paid billions of dollars or the rights, I want the game to be aesthetically pleasing. I understand that a visually perfect game is an impossibility, but the current game-style is too unattractive for casual viewers in my opinion.
Having said that, paradigm-shifting rules are not necessary. If you look at the history of the game, the rules of the game have been tweaked every few years, and that's all that I think is necessary - a few tweaks that on their own don't do a lot, but combined, enhance the game play. For example, there was a time in the history of the game where the kick off line was 20-yards out. It's been 10 yards for some time, but we shouldn't be blind to the idea that rules can and have changed over time.
I also don't think rule changes should be left up to the coaches alone. Coaches are there to win games, and they don't necessarily care how the game looks - winning is their priority, and no one blames them for that. Coaches, and players for that matter, should definitely be consulted, but not held solely responsible for advising on rule changes.
In addition to rule changes, I think games and seasons should be shortened. Players and coaches themselves are saying the games and season is too long, and I'd argue that a shorter season means less player injuries, and more games of consequence. In the NFL for example, teams only play 16 regular season games, so every game has a lot of consequence. While a shorter season may mean that a team that looses it's opening 4 games of the year has little to play for, I believe this could be alleviated with some inventive or dynamic fixturing. Perhaps after 66% of the season, the bottom 4 sides play off against each other for draft positions, or something like that. Ideally, I think an 18-round season is ideal - each team plays each other once, plus an extra round for 'rival' matches or some other 'cause' round. Games should also be shortened to around the 20-25 minute mark, so maybe make it 15 minute quarters with time on? And get rid of the countdown clock at games. Players know the time via runners. Crowds know the time via radio/mobile phones. Get rid of the unnecessary appearance of suspense.
I'd also advocate for either a floating fixture in the final round OR a week between the end of the season and finals. We don't need both. Either or. I understand the purpose of it - to give players an equal rest before finals, but both is too much, and as Ian Robinson on AFL 360, suggested, if you keep the bye after the final round, and keep the final round as a floating round, it floating round basically just becomes a tool for the TV networks to secure the largest audience. Again, while I don't have an issue with that per se, it does leave fans feeling cynical and jaded about the relationship between the game and the media. I also like the idea of a wildcard weekend, between the end of the season and the finals proper, where, say team 7 plays team 10, and 8 plays 9, in a play-off for the final two spots.
So, here are the rule changes I would like to see:
- A ball kicked or handballed over the boundary line results in a free-kick to the opposition. A ball rushed over the boundary line is thrown in as normal. This motivates players to keep the ball in play, reducing boundary line throw-ins and associated congestion, and also leading to more direct play and higher scoring. I saw this rule in Adelaide, and I have no doubt it results in a more aesthetically pleasing, high scoring game.
- A reduction in the number of interchange rotations. Initially, I wasn't a fan of this idea, as I though fatigued players were more likely to get injured, but I think I've seen data that suggests that fatigued players are no more or less likely to get injured than non-fatigued payers. Also, fatigued players will be less likely to make contests and stoppages, so the game would open up a bit more, although another potential side-effect of this rule could be a drop-off in skill levels due to fatiguing.
- The 6-6-6 formation rule for all center square bounces. Obviously this rule would have the most impact late in close games by preventing coaches from flooding backlines. I also like the idea that one player from each team in the 50-metre arcs must be inside the goal square at the bounce downs.
- The 20-yard extended goal square. Obviously allows players kicking-in after a behind to send the ball deeper into play. It also gives the player who plays on from the goal square more room to run and carry before kicking off. And as was also identified in the VFL trial, kicking a behind is discouraged, as it gives the team kicking in more of an advantage. While this may discourage some teams from having a shot of goal, it could also potentially result in better goalkicking, as teams spend more time and effort in making sure they don't score a behind.
- Boundary umpires come in 10 metres from the boundary line for throw-ins. This would reduce the likelihood of repeat throw-ins and would move the ball back into the corridor. We already assess 15 meters for a kick, and I don't think it would have to be too precise, so no need for more markings on the field. Conversely, the grass could be cut on grounds to indicate where the 10m line would be.
- Automatic play-on for backward kicks that are marked inside the defensive 50m.Kicks have to start and finish inside the defensive 50m. A friend told me the coaches don't like this rule (probably because they all use it) but I remember seeing it in a pre-season comp a few years ago, and I think it would encourage teams without the ball to put forward pressure on the team with the ball to try and force a turnover.
- Eliminate the nominated ruckman rule, but keep the 'no third man up' rule. Teams should be able to figure out for themselves who is rucking and who is not. If a team sends up a third ruck, pay a free kick against. Teams will soon work it out.
- Throw the ball up at stoppages and at boundary throw-ins immediately. There is an unnecessary amount of gesticulating from umpires at stoppages, which slows the play down and allows more players to arrive at the contest.
That's all I can think of at the moment. If I think of any others, will update the post.
Another rule that came up over the weekend was the possible introduction of a red card for an 'unsportsmanlike' act, such as striking a player in a game. A West Coast player broke the jaw of a Fremantle player off the ball last weekend, and the West Coast player went on to kick a goal. Other Fremantle players then also targeted the West Coast player in question.
Before jumping on-board with the red card rule, I'd have some questions, such as: Do you also introduce a yellow card for lesser infractions? How long does someone get sent off for under a yellow card? What constitutes 'unsportsmanlike' behaviour? How far off the ball does it have to be? What if a player stages being hit/knocked out in an attempt to get another player red-carded. What if the player being struck has a glass jaw and is more susceptible to being knocked out? What if the action that knocked a player out was accidental, or can't clearly be determined as being deliberate?
I think some data and feedback is needed from the leagues where this rule is already in place, to gauge the impact of the rule, before deciding if this should be instituted as a rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)