When watching the majority of rugby games, it would be difficult to see any bias from the television commentary. Most matches shown on pay TV and free-to-air broadcasters Internationally are usually indiscernible. Or that is how it should be….. but when viewing comments raised on social media, the question raised is “can teams visiting New Zealand expect unbiased commentary?” The colloquial answer is Yeah Right!
Not that it is hugely apparent to this reporter. The game is usually called right down the middle [the term used to described a balanced narrative]. You find only on occasion that the rugby public become alarmed at comments made by the local broadcaster. And when I say ‘local’ I am referring to the regional programming providers; Sky Sport in New Zealand, Fox Sports in Australia and SuperSport in South Africa.
Now, if one person complains, is that a trend? No, it is usually their opinion. And in sports commentary, the presenter is there to describe…not opin. Their role is directly related to the action on the field, but over time the roles, and presenters who fill them, have become more ‘colourful’ you might say.
Unbiased Commentary…Yeah Right
This article is not a condemnation. Far from it, but integrity and telling the whole picture is what the fans expect. Generally in all Super Rugby regions, it is good. Not perfect, but a decent presentation of the facts.
On radio, it is different, as the listeners mind imagines the action being called. And while the way fans listen or view their sporting contest is inconsistent, the delivery of the product is primary.
So for the purposes of this examination, our subject is rugby union but as mentioned, in any sporting contest the commentary can determine the appeal. The variance between commentary of a Formula 1 race and your typical domestic rugby game are wide. The same might be said of swimming, netball or horse racing. Impartiality is the important factor.
While today, technology, graphics and guest interviews dominate rugby match build-up and commentary, in the early days of television commentary it was the delivery that was well practiced. Some believe it was more ‘stiff’ than what we hear today. And that is true of Bill McLaren, Jim Neilly, Eddie Butler, Keith Quinn and Gordon Bray. Most had a sincerity for the play of the game that might be lost today.
Now the emphasis is on enthusiasm and creating an enjoyable ‘package’.
Commentary Teams Create Interest, but When is it Self-Interest?
Viewers understand that the professional era is different. Times have changed, technology, how and where we watch, and so have the commentary teams. The commentary teams of each provider today need to be market leading, innovative and able to hold the audience attention.
The difference in quality is hard to judge, but it is the fair delivery where some complaints appear. While no one is as guilty anymore than any other, none are guilty of anything other than wanting to bring the product to it’s fanbase–it is just when the men or women presenting seem to speak higher of one side than another.
The pre-match show has an appearance of a gaggle of ex-players all complimentary of the home side. If there are no neutral guests to provide balance, it can appear that the former players are having a ‘get together’ before a home win [in general].
Each region in fact have their own personalities, which build in loyal followings. But it is a theme which can be found when you listen. Some are entirely impartial, yet others will (quite honestly) say they back the team they are commentating on.
Commentary Duo Need Healthy Balance
Today you might expect a match caller; who is speaking specifically about the course of the match. Think Tony Johnson, Hugh Bladen and Greg Clark primarily.
Beside them in the box, ex-players today tend to dominate the match production. Often [many] can show their true colours if they are examined closely. Just take Justin Marshall and Andrew Merhtens (see main picture). Former rugby Internationals, and both former Crusaders.
(Example A) During Super Rugby Round Nine, Andrew Merhtens was the ‘colour commentator’ to the charming Scotty Stevenson. As one used his banter and highly emotional mannerisms, Merhtens interjected with relevant statements; sometimes irreverent. Yet at other times, his wordplay was entirely favourable to the home side. It will have appeared to any outside viewer, that it was a Crusaders endorsement club….with less parity given to the visiting Sunwolves.
More examples maybe found if you look closely, and Australia have some of the more partisan identities. Phil Kearns (see above image) and Rod Kafer who each have a knack of offering their opinions freely. From the outsiders view, they appear biased. While they may defend themselves, it can be found across the board–in one shape or another.
Little can be found but on occasion, but the tone and self-interest can be inferred. So, is it intentional?
If Justin Marshall could just put his personal opinions aside and be a professional commentator that would be just fantastic #HIGvSTO
— Jenna Lloyd (@JennaMareeLloyd) March 28, 2015
While Justin Marshall has curtailed much of his fanboy approach due to the higher frequency of matches viewers now hear from him (up to three matches per round). Of course he has his dejectors, but like Kearns, he has his fans too.
Former Players Bring Both Credibility and Complications
In no way can this article single out specific persons. Nor can it write verbatim what was said at any one time, as it lacks context. What you hear is influenced by what you see. If it is complimentary, and the players are smiling after a try, the viewer can accept it. The tone will normally match the action on field. It is just when a glowing review of a try by one side is overwhelming–whereas, a try by the visiting team is only alluded to. Only given a faint congratulations.
It is the cross-conference matches where the evidence is clearly audible. This can be for a home commentary, or for a visiting commentary team. (B) On Saturday last, the South African commentary of the Jaguares v Sharks match had a tone that ‘everything the Sharks did was brilliant’. Yet, the home side competed just as hard, but had less vocal endorsement. And the ‘valiant effort by the Sharks’ was overly praised.
Similarly (C) when the Waratahs were hosting the Southern Kings. For much of the match, the commentators were openly willing on all the attacking play of the ‘Tahs, yet a Kings performance that should have been commended, was seen as ‘only because the Waratahs played so badly’.
If a heated Rugby World Cup match between England and Wales is not going the way of the home side, not many will enjoy it if (D) Stuart Barnes is say how ‘he thinks the English side have had the attack coached out of them’. He is one of the more verbose characters (and has plenty of fans and foes alike).
@SkySportsRugby Terrible commentary today, one sided. Stuart Barnes is should be ashamed, a mediocre player and even worse commentator.
— Bryan Crossan (@BryanCrossan) April 2, 2017
Commentary Needs to be Subjective, Yet Impartial
No one person or example should be ‘hung out’ to be subjected to humiliation or exonerated. The aim of this piece is to show that in today’s environment; compared to the standards of old, are being pushed aside. That is from an unbiased and/or biased call. From an informative presentation, to a cliché ridden formula. There are also examples of poor language creeping in, which should be better managed.
Yes, there will be examples of biased references in games. It may occur in Super Rugby, Top 14 or even in an International Test match. Last Word on Rugby just hope that standard bearers of commentary teams display the need to be impartial.
Being a regular viewer of up to ten or a dozen games per week, one can see the lowering in the usually balanced views. Fans want unbiased commentary to be the norm. Beside every former player commentating there needs to be a match caller who can lead/direct the verbal delivery and balance the commentary.
And while the presentation might continue to have expressive ex-players hosting, and even if it is found to be more popular to have overtly opinionated callers, most will believe the people behind the microphone need to still call it ‘straight down the middle’.
________________________________________________________________________
Editors note: In no way are any assumptions or examples made on the individuals named. The match callers are all professionals, and all are respected for their tough jobs. The public only wishes that for all the insight that can be made from an ex-player is suitable and that an wholly impartial commentator lead the broadcast, to provide balance and sincerity.
New LWOR Poll Question:
“Main photo credit”
