Should ITV hold on to the RWC rights...

First topic message reminder :

ITV showed how completly inept they where today.

The biggest event in Rugby, they have continued to maintain the rights over broadcasting the RWC.

So why didn't they show the Opening Ceremony, like their advertised show implied.

Absolutley DREADFUL.

NO coveregae of the opening ceremony, they just showed the speaches with a few seconds of the ceremony.... and then straight after "over to Dunedin" to hear from the English camp..... FFS, this was the opening ceremony. England arent playing, give some credit to those who are, and credit to all those who worked hard to put on a ceremony, BY SHOWING IT....

I'm glad that S4C had the grace to realise that the opening ceremnony of a World Cup is important and showed it.... Well done S4C...

Can you imagine the outrage next year if the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics is not shown, just some muppets in the studio performing some pointless player analysis and news....

Bet they wont do that come 2015 when England hold the cup.

So on this basis, who do you think should hold broadcasting rights for future Rugby World Cups. And any rational to debate would be good.

I expected ITV to be poor. Their record of showing sporting events is pretty dire as it is. At least they're broadcasting it! As usual tho, England get the blame for ott coverage, as if its the fault of the RFU.

Like it or not, the opening ceremony had to be shown!
If England get a mention for playing tomorrow so should Scotland.
Commentary very poor!
ITV don't usually do rugby so why every 4 years - bizarre!! BBC may not be perfect but at least they do rugby every season!!!
Just one thought - the football world cup is broadcast on both terrestrial channels, why not the rugby world cup???

Caught another replay later from the Maori channel this time. The commentary was great. Not sure who it was but clearly one Scotsman and a Maori guy (or someone who could pronounce Kahui correctly for a change)

Trying to figure out a way to get Maori channel coverage in London when I get back.

ToP skills to them for that.

On another note, I'm disappointed by some of the comments coming from the British media. The atmosphere after the game today in Auckland was very condescending from the Brits "a bit niggly with the kiwis and Tongans tired and irritable, like the end of a child's tea party" was how the BBC put it.

I imagine theyre a bit miffed that everyone wasnt talking about england

So the BBC make a comment describing the scrappy end to the game and its the 'brits' fault?

Well I've just tuned in to watch the second half of Fiji v Namibia and what do I find? They're talking about Scotland! Outrageous. Didn't mention either of the teams playing other than the score.

Like it or not, the opening ceremony had to be shown!
If England get a mention for playing tomorrow so should Scotland.

Why? Since we outnumber the Scots by about 10 to 1(?) we should get 10 times as much coverage. Perhaps we should do it by interest and of course England have the largest player pool in the universe (the reason we have such an awesome team) so we should get about 100 times the coverage of everyone else.

Commentary very poor!
ITV don't usually do rugby so why every 4 years - bizarre!! BBC may not be perfect but at least they do rugby every season!!!
Just one thought - the football world cup is broadcast on both terrestrial channels, why not the rugby world cup???

They do rugby every week with the premiership highlights.

Hammer to counter your slightly sarcastic points, I got up to watch the Scotland v Romania match and for the 15 minutes before kick off, I'm going to give you a chance to guess who they were talking about. Go on, go for it

FFS the only analysis they did on japan before the France game was show a clip of John Kirwin scoring against Italy!!!

The coverage has been a joke so far. Francois Pienaar just repeats everything Dayglo says like a flipping parrot.

Well they're talking about Scotland now just after Fiji played and before France played.

I think Scotland are still up in terms of relative coverage based on population/interest.

And there was nothing "slight" about my sarcasm

I would love it if they talked about each game equally. I would love it if they actually had decent people hosting. But they don't and nor does anyone else. They play towards their perceived audience. And in Britain that is overwhelmingly the English.

No different to S4C, BBCW showing almost exclusively Welsh biased coverage even though there are a lot of English people living in Wales. The population of Wales is (unsurprisingly) mostly Welsh so they're heavily biased to Wales. Makes sense. It's BBC Wales not BBC Welsh.

yes but S4C doesn't advertise itself as a national (i.e UK wide) channel, ITV does. If they want a programme to do predomenantly English coverage, why not have their own on say ITV3 or 4 and then have ITV1 for the impartial and fully rounded coverage, that could have great build up for each match? (a dream I know, it'll never happen)

And you say perceived audiance right, but at 2am, how many English people do they think were going to get up to watch Scotland play??

It's ridiculous. I don't want to get into the whole booo England bias blah blah, but sometimes it really is just there repeatedly smacking you in the face.

and I agree with you, I want them to talk about each game equally too. After they get slated after each RWC coverage you'd think they'd do something to improve it.

ha, and I know there was nothing slight about it!

ITV is shown around the UK. Doesn't mean they have to equally cover the UK. There have to show certain types of programmes as part of their broadcasting licence but other than that they're no different to Sky.

Here's a loaded question. Do you think that because Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland are classed as separate countries they should have equal coverage?

EDIT: put an 'r' where it belongs

I hope that's just a misfortunate typo - counties!!

I honestly do think we should have if not equal then definitely a more balanced coverage (I have conceded in other posts that there would inevitably be more focus on England). As you said, it's being broadcast around the UK, channels like S4C don't have coverage of all of it so people outside of England don't always have another option then to watch ITV. I don't think it's too much to ask that Ireland, Scotland and Wales get more of a mention. I know another poster has suggested that ITV should go back having it's regional channels, I think that would be much better all round.

Personally I don't care what they show as build-up, I got up 10 minutes before kick-off and rushed through a couple of changes to my fantasy team (my snap decision to replace Conrad Smith with Joe Ansbro earning me a few points this morning!) but if they advertised the opening ceremony they really should have shown it, because there are people who would have got up specially for it. Or at least had a red button option that was just the opening ceremony, while doing their analysis for those who would prefer.

ITV is generally rubbish, although they're better than Channel 5 (don't know if anyone's ever watched football on five, the coverage is beyond awful).

I have Robbo, agree, tis truly dreadful.

Sorry to put this here but Japan are doing awesome. Just comeback from the shop and there's only 7 points in it!

EDIT: Dreamer, shall we leave it there. Middle ground is where it should be and ALL the coverage I watch is rubbish

brilliant isn't it!!

and yep yep, agree with you on the middle ground

Again Robbos point am happy with, although I find it frankly bizzare that anyone would want to see an opening ceremony let alone get up early for one. Its utter tripe.

Want I cant understand is why people would be so offended by not hearing a commentator say somthing utterly banal about Scotland just for the sake of mentioning them.

I find the guff about ngland irratating because its meaningless surface drivel. I dont get up in the morning and suddenly feel a strirring national pride and gratr self worth just because LOL was asked " so just how hard is it to win a worldcup?"for the 90th time. I really dont get why you are so bothred that Jiffy isnt on there saying " Wales can beat anyone on their day they just need to get numbers out wide" other than petty jealousy over something thats not worth anything.
As I have said previously (despite being a racist apparently...I menton Wales and get attacekd for it you really cant win) I would rather sit and watch 15 minutes of a welshman talk about rugby that I would watch an opening ceremony, but yes it is daft they didnt show it if it was advertised.
Stil better than C5 who cant ever get the England (and Wales) cricket highlights to work on their website.

sirBiggles wrote:

Messymesina wrote:

Great White wrote:You'll get used to sirBiggles and his pointless articles. Best thing is to simply ignore them.

Sir Biggles has made more interesting points about rugby than you ever have.

Thank you Messymesina Hope you are well...

I was determined after the demise of BBC 606, to say goodbye to the boards, but have been reading them to keep abreast of events. I just had to sign up for the RWC.

Hey Biggsy,

Hope you are well too. I too was determined to escape the boards too but my love of rugby and rugby banter has drawn me back. It's all got a bit lonely hearts and I'm too happy at work to post regularly! The old Scrum-5 had the right balance.
There was a period in that Japan France game where a Japan victory was a distinct possibility. It was fantastic to watch. The Japanese half backs were superb. I remember Arlidge at NGD.

Take care Biggsy

MMx

So far the coverage has been awful IMO.

- In game commentry lies somewhere between barely acceptable and error filled drivel.
- Interviews have those involved not knowing whether to look at other person or down the lens.
- Pre match build up has no excitement and the touch screen TV is utterly pointless.
- Commentator selection is based on retired English players of the last few years. With no experience in commentry they dont add much and there are some seriously monotone voices out there.
- Very noticible bias towards England and now Johnny is starting he is once again the savior
- Good idea to fill the studio with world cup winners but British coverage with no Celtic representation?

BBC have there problems, Sky have more but ITV really need to make some swift changes before the letters of complaint start arriving.

You need to get those letters printed as until then they won't know what to change.

And for the record the coverage is rubbish. Really really bad. But it always is.

I've really learnt a lot from the ITV coverage so far. Apparantly Brian Ashton plays on the wing for England and SBW used to play RL for the Sydney Bulldogs.

England are only team in this WC, every programme has had reports on England no one else.

That was a game that just proved you need world class kickers in your side but that even they can have off days. One crumb of comfort for England is in 07 they lost 36-0 and still made final.

BUT if the get to quarters which think they still will can't see ABs or even France worrying to much at mo.

brian ashton, that did make me laugh.

i also strangely learnt that apparently england won the 2003 world cup, i would never would have known that from, and its very kind of ITV to remind me every minute.

also the commentry is superb with all round fairly balanced opinions with no biased at all.

i guess most people can detect the sarcasm in this post, one thing i do like is the touch screen t.v, i want one =)

Accoring to ITV England are only team in this WC, every programme has had reports on England no one else.

That was a game that just proved you need world class kickers in your side but that even they can have off days. One crumb of comfort for England is in 07 they lost 36-0 and still made final.

BUT if the get to quarters which think they still will can't see ABs or even France worrying to much at mo

No analysis of Scotland at all there, it's just England, England, England.

I think Care, Dayglo and Pienaar all share the same brain too. There's no debate at all just the 3 of them bobbing their heads in agreement of how great England and Jonny Wilkinson are.

As I said on another post only advantahe with ITV having it is that we don't have to listen to InverDull blowing spoke up Englands hairy backsides all day.

Bedford, you should know by now to expect ITV's coverage to focus more on England than on the other home nations. It's not going to change any time soon. My gripe is with the quality of the coverage.

Wow, look! We have a big touchscreen monitor! It would be much better and easier to have someone off screen, with a mouse, controlling what's shown on the screen, but no, look! We've got a big touchscreen monitor!

Andy Gomarsall is a terrible, terrible co-commentator. If he can watch a slow-motion replay of someone dropping a ball backwards that then bounces forward, and say that it was 'clearly a knock-on,' then what hope is there that he'll get anything else right?

The one consolation is that there's no sign of Miles Harrison.

I though Jim Rosentahl was poor but Steve Ryders insistance and angry 'England need to sort his out now' at half time like some angry fan was embarrassing. Phil Vickerys co commentary wasn't exactly enthralling either.

ITV are a national broadcaster delivering to the whole of the UK. Their coverage should be unbiased regardless of the fact that there are more English fans or not. It's the same with the national newspapers - 'Bring home the cup boys' etc. with a mere snippet of the Celtic countries mentioned.

If they want to deliver their content to Enlish fans then they should provide an alternative for others.

It is this attitude that makes the non-Enlish UK residents so against the English team and want them to lose.

When England play, talk about England and have former English players talking and commentating, when Wales play - talk about Wales and have Welsh guests, for Scotland etc. etc.

I already know that when I tune in to watch Wales in the morning, they will be analysing England's poor performance in the run up to the game so roll on Kick Off!!!!

Thespacedragon wrote:ITV are a national broadcaster delivering to the whole of the UK. Their coverage should be unbiased regardless of the fact that there are more English fans or not. It's the same with the national newspapers - 'Bring home the cup boys' etc. with a mere snippet of the Celtic countries mentioned.

Surely ITV is a commercial organisation and can act as they like. They have the broadcasters licence and have to show certain programming but don't have to be impartial. Same with the national newspapers. If you don't like them don't buy them. If you don't like the coverage on ITV complain. Run a vocal boycott of the adverts and they'll soon change (if enough people do it).

And if you dislike a team because of an unconnected media then I feel sorry for you. It's generally the excuse given for not liking the English teams but don't you think it's a bit childish?

The Argentina v England replay on ITV Player only has the 1st half, unless I being a twonk.

From past experience of ITV player I am not surprised. Just very miffed. What's the point of those 3 min highlights programmes too?

HammerofThunor
Are you happy with the coverage ?Personally I want the focus to be on the game in hand the others can wait their turn.
Rugby fans and that includes English fans want to learn as much as possible about other sides not just our own.
I'm glad I speak Welsh because S4C does give a far more balanced view on other nations,
Dr Gwyn Jones gave a good analysis yesterday on all the teams and he was very complimentary towards England but I doubt he feels the same today
Yes we all know Scrum V can be blinked during the Pro12 and 6N and thats understandable because it's geared toward Wales but during this world cup the coverage on S4C has been exemplary.

No, it's rubbish. But it's rubbish on sky and rubbish on the BBC. The only one I'm happy with at the moment is ESPN.

I don't care what they have to say. I'll the interviews on the off chance they actually say something interesting but it rarely happens. I watch it for the game not the punditry and I don't see the point in commentary other than for radio. The only reason I don't mute it is because I want the ref mic.

We are both in agreement with that then. I just wish that the people who plan these shows would first ask rugby fans what they want.

Good game on ESPN now Bath 10 Sar 13.

It's on Sky but should be good. ESPN are showing Tigers v Wasps tommorow at about 2. I like Kay and Healey as commentators/pundits. Except for the Tigers v Australia game. They were appallingly biased then.

I really dislike Mark Robson as a commentator. One of the worst I've heard. He just talks gibberish

Nice try for Fearns. Good work by Skirving

i think bbc has the least flaws as it does have different commentators and always trys to give a welsh commentator welsh matches, scottish commentator scottish matches etc, also as there is pretty much everyone there from the countries during the 6n they all give opinions on their own team then all discuss the points together.

But they're all as biased as Phil Vickery was

they are not, seriously guscott and brian moore are good commentators for the english and i dont mind listening them commentate other matches.

edide butler is good aswell and jd is funny just because he gets so worked up

welshy, I guess you don't mind Davies being so biased because you're Welsh, eh?

Have you not heard Davies cheering for Wales when commenting? I have. The Scotland game (2010) is one example.

Being a ex Welsh international working for BBC Wales during a Welsh game did anybody expect anything less ?

What people fail to understand is that nobody is begrudging the pundits talking about England but do it during the England games.
If Fiji and Samoa are playing I would like the focus to be on them and nobody else.
I though we rugby fans would be above all this feed me nonsense stuff it only saves ITV doing research on other teams.

Cymroglan, I think some people get annoyed whenever England are mentioned in any context whatsoever.

I honestly don't know how they get out of bed in the morning.

People are complaining about Vickery being biased. Of course he was. Probably par with Nichols (the most biased person I've heard commentating). But JD is nearly as bad.

Breadvan wrote:I though Jim Rosentahl was poor but Steve Ryders insistance and angry 'England need to sort his out now' at half time like some angry fan was embarrassing. Phil Vickerys co commentary wasn't exactly enthralling either.

Today's biggest understatement!

Phil Vickery sounded just like a front-row farmer and gave next to no analysis! ITV have Dallaglio sitting in a London studio and Martin Bayfield at the stadium - either of which would have done a much better job alongside Nick Mullins.

Focus on the actual game coverage not the peripherals!

I wish rugby commentators - all rugby commentators - would talk less. The viewers can see what's happening; that's why they're called viewers. There seems to be a fear of silence, as though they think they have to be talking all the time. They don't. They should let the pictures speak for themselves. Less is more. Add to what's happening on the pitch rather than prattling all over it.

Yeah i complained about Gomersall yesterday but Phil Vickery made him sound like Oscar Wilde. Again i have no problem with English commentators and i am one of the few who seem to like Moore (even if i dont always agree with him).

All in all i think the Beeb tend to have a better feel for pundits than ITV. A lot of what Dallaglio, Pienaar, Fitzpatrick et al have come off with is just cliche after cliche.

HammerofThunor wrote:Have you not heard Davies cheering for Wales when commenting? I have. The Scotland game (2010) is one example.

yes i did (wasnt cheering more of a high pitched whistle, you could see the dogs running to the ground) and i understand how other fans may find jd annoying and i understand that commentators are naturally biased but like its mentioned when its a game not involving england it somehow comes back to how good england are, thats what annoying.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:I wish rugby commentators - all rugby commentators - would talk less. The viewers can see what's happening; that's why they're called viewers. There seems to be a fear of silence, as though they think they have to be talking all the time. They don't. They should let the pictures speak for themselves. Less is more. Add to what's happening on the pitch rather than prattling all over it.

+1

I think they think they're on radio.

Welshy824, sorry but I think we're getting our wires crossed, people are complaining about so many things. My comment was in relation to the accusations of bias by Vickery. Yes he was biased but so are the BBC guys. Regarding the quality of his commentary, yes it was shocking.But they should have known, it was just like his book. Regarding the general English bias, I've already said my piece

It does smack of cheapness that ITV dont have expert commentaters from Wales and Scotland for their matches.