1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The subversive influence of Channel 9.

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Canteen Worker, May 31, 2006.

  1. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member

    +215 /5
    Is there becoming an increasing conflict of interest????

    First 9 has the rights to choose what game they show (only a month or so ahead) unlike the AFL that allocates the TV games and mixes up the telecasts.

    Secondly the director then gets to choose what footage is shown to the Video Review panel on a Monday. It was only because a camera passed on a video (without permission) of Barrett's high elbow that he even got caught. The camera is now to be censured.

    With 9 dipping in to pay contracts for players like Jason Stevens (last year), Gasnier and others does this represent a conflict of interest. Does it mean that tape of these players might be with-held instead of freely available?

    In my opinion 9 has too much power in the game and need to be reigned in, similar to that great moment yesterday when that Soldier in East Timor told Jessica Rowe that the armed guards they had placed in the newscast to make it look unsafe were a joke. See SMH for the video!!!
  2. PEPSI

    PEPSI Active Member

    +2 /0
    I have some huge questions over this process that has led to Trent Barrets suspension.

    Firstly i must say that he deserved the suspension, but thats not my issue.

    So now some bloke at Ch9 ( not in an official or impartial NRL Capacity ) can see something and send to the NRL ?

    This obvioulsy opens up issues of Bias and does he watch every game ? was he just a Knights supporter so he watched that game only ? If one team comes under that scrutiny then every team should.

    If he was a saints fan would he have still sent it in ? and so on.

    Only NRL officials should be viewing games in a position to site players and they should watch all games, or investigate situations where clubs have a complaint about foul play. This illiminates all issues of bias or favouratism.
  3. PJ

    PJ Well-Known Member

    +49 /1
    Agreed...I also agreed with Clint Newton when he said that had it been a Crocker or a Morley it would've been replayed time and time again....seems a bit funny and imo Barrett has been going into tackles leading with the elbow for quite a while.
    I was speaking to mate who is a saints supporter today and he seems to think he'd rather have Head on the field than Barrett and I tend to agree- Barrett has done SFA this year and the club and himself seem to do a mighty good job at deflecting any criticism that gets levelled at him.
  4. Corso_Pete

    Corso_Pete Well-Known Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +46 /0
    The NRL have left themselves very open to any person who may have even home video of an incident that escapes the the eyes of the either the 9 or Foxtel camera's. Would they accept a fans home footage of an incident?, if they are consistent they would be bound to.

    To expand the conspiracy theory even further what is there to stop any club filming a game with a particular empahsis on 1 key player, say an Andrew Johns or Ben Kennedy with the sole aim to catch an indiscretion?. Very far fetched I know but if a club wanted every chance of removing an elite player from an oponents team, particulary during the finals series it may not be so ridiculous.

    I posted elsewhere yesterday that I thought the NRL have put themselves in very dangerous territory with this decision.

    This incident has highlighted the fact that the video ref can only review an onfield incident at the discretion of the TV director, wether it be the Foxtel director or the Channel 9 director. This needs to be changed, the video ref should review any incident where a player doesn't get immeditaley to his feet as a result of a head injury. I don't care if the play has moved on down the field, if the incident is as parlous as the one involving Barrett on Friday night immediate on field action needs to be taken. If that incident had been reviewed on Friday night by the video ref Barrett would have more than likley have been sent off and who knows then what the result of the game may have been.
  5. PEPSI

    PEPSI Active Member

    +2 /0
    only a shame it didnt happen to a parra player hehe, might go study there game video! ;)
  6. Utility Player

    Utility Player Well-Known Member

    +514 /6
    There is a story on the back page of todays Telegraph about the video tape opperator involved in the Barrett incident and how he just wishes it would all go away and that he wasn't in the spotlight. So what does the Telegraph do, put his photo in the paper. It is mentioned that he may need security gaurds when he works at games in the future (may not have been needed without the photo). It may be the Telegraphs way of stopping anyone else from coming foreward, speak up and we will put your picture in the paper
  7. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member

    +215 /5
    Is it Shane Warnes Cameraman mate -the old Joe Muller "Can't bowl, can't bat, can't throw".

    He has a lot to answer for. :lol:
  8. Ryan

    Ryan Well-Known Member

    +9,394 /402
    I agree with your sentiments Corso, but I kind of think it is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    If the NRL allows non-official footage to prove / consider a case, it DOES open up a pandoras box, that would be abused.
    If we DON'T use non-official footage, we are open to the whims of Channel Nine, which like this thread states, could create conflict of interest.
    It's a very, very tough one.
  9. Fro

    Fro Well-Known Member

    +302 /0
    That'd be Scott Muller CW, the cameraman was Joe Privatera, and he was right, Muller was ****e

Share This Page