As it's coming up to bonfire night

Should we burn Sky, ESPN, Auntie, SC4, RTE and put BTVision on the top?

Personally a Sky bonfire with an effigy of Stuart Barnes appeals.
The fireworks provided by the cheesy fireball flames at cheesy over-hyped games of cheesy teams (well you have to cheesily promote a cheesy event somehow!).

Burn BTVision of course...it's wotz got most flammable paper money in its pockitses.

Sky is the devil..and the devil don't burn.
Auntie is burning already (Savile enquiry)
ESPN (Entertainment and Sports Programming Network) A name that long would burn slowly but people would have already lost interest.
The other two are too small to burn long at all

Why dont people like Stuart Barnes?

Stuart Barnes doesn't like them

Staggy, It's because he talks sensationalist rubbish. His favourites can do nought wrong and ate vastly overhyped, those he dislikes are forever villified.

I hate to be a pedant but why do people call it SC4?! It's never been called that. It's S4C - short for Sianel 4 Cymru.

Cari wrote:I hate to be a pedant but why do people call it SC4?! It's never been called that. It's S4C - short for Sianel 4 Cymru.

Fo the same reason people refer to Lee Bryne. It is an in-joke that only the cool kids understand. As an old fart however, I am clueless.

Dunno as much as i hate SKY i also love that i get to see ITM , Currie cup and Super Rugby.
Watching ITM cup a couple of weeks ago it was scary how the lower level rugby in NewZealand was better than the HC rugby that weekend.

The speed at the brake down was amazing.

I just want match producers to stop frantically cutting between different angled shots as a try-scoring move develops.

It's a PITA to get a reverse shot of a winger taking a pass then suddenly switch to a side angle where he's beating a player in a different part of the screen, only to swoop in head-on to see if he's grounding it properly.

You have to wait for the damn replay to work out what actually happened.

It also would be handy if one of the commentary team could kindly keep an eye on what is happening on the pitch while we are being treated to replays. It would avoid embarrassments like no-one noticing Rolland showing Sam Warburton a red card during the World cup. He could also pipe up if a play suddenly started again while we are being treated to a forensic analysis of a high tackle.

It is amazing how un-aware the rugby programming producers and editors are of fans reflections on their choices of pundit and commentators.

Maybe the producers and editors should be awarded Gui Fawlkes spot. Post hanging drawing and quartering...!

To be honest I just wish the commentators would either listen to the ref or at least stop talking over them when they're explaining a decision so I can hear for myself. Best commentary ever was 'no commentary' during the 6 nations. Still get the ref and the crowd (and the odd player) but no droning on that generally doesn't add anything to the experience.

Gareth Charles is good

formerly known as Sam wrote:Staggy, It's because he talks sensationalist rubbish. His favourites can do nought wrong and ate vastly overhyped, those he dislikes are forever villified.

But why does that make him so unlikeable? He is a rugby fan, he has his opinions and he creates talking points. I think he is a great character and he has played a big part in the promotion of the game, no matter whether if I agree with what he says.

red_stag wrote:Why dont people like Stuart Barnes?

Its not that they don't like him, just with all that alcohol in his blood stream he will be the easiest presenter to get burning.

HammerofThunor wrote:To be honest I just wish the commentators would either listen to the ref or at least stop talking over them when they're explaining a decision so I can hear for myself. Best commentary ever was 'no commentary' during the 6 nations. Still get the ref and the crowd (and the odd player) but no droning on that generally doesn't add anything to the experience.

The ones that bug me are when they do that and say 'oh he has done [insert name] for holding on" and the ref is telling another player off for diving in or sealing off or something.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

red_stag wrote:Why dont people like Stuart Barnes?

Its not that they don't like him, just with all that alcohol in his blood stream he will be the easiest presenter to get burning.

As a commentator, Sky's Miles Harrison should be preserved in aspic*. He's brilliant at description.
As a match analyst Barnes sways with the breeze once the bleedin' obvious of his pre-match prejudice has been eroded into dust.
As a pundit he falls some way short of Stephen Jones.

May I suggest a Dewi Morris effigy in a ventriloquist's dummy form on Barnes' knee in a blazing pyre?

A great, flaming bonfire.
* Aspic is volatile. Harrison to be kept watered, cool and safe at all times

Fireworks display to be sponsored by ESPN.

Commentary teams are still in a bit of a limbo over referees.

Back in the amateur era, with fewer angles and no miked-up officials, commentators spent less time speculating on what a decision was for. They rarely, if ever, offered a criticism.

Now, audiences have better views available, and we do want more clarity about why play has stopped. That obliges commentators to have an opinion, but there aren't that many who really know the laws well enough to be consistently informative. Quite a few have made an effort to get up to speed but they tend to wear their new learning very heavily, like a child with a new word who uses it all the time.

One consequence is for commentators to spend too much time talking about laws and the general state of the game rather than the state of the match in front of them.

Brian Moore's crooked scrum feed hobby horse is a prime example. I'm happy to have this brought up at half time, in a post-match analysis or some discussion forum like Scrum V, but I don't want a regular diatribe while a game is on. It doesn't change anything happening on the pitch and just serves as a distraction.

The fundamental difference is that then there was one commentator like the sainted McClaren.

Now we have match commentators, match analysts and in a car park far away TV analysts.
Meanwhile you have Studio pundits and titty blondes doing touchline interviews.

Some hosts like ITV have prats to anchor the show. (no knowledge required)

formerly known as Sam wrote:Staggy, It's because he talks sensationalist rubbish. His favourites can do nought wrong and ate vastly overhyped, those he dislikes are forever villified.

Exactly!

He's such a lazy pundit as well. He picks out high profile, one off things that people do and that's it, they are instantly World Class!

Like Guscott, I get the impression that the only real rugby they watch is the montages at the opening and closing credits of games

I like Stuart Barnes and he likes me

Hersh wants to go onto the bonfire with Barnes.

All the Ayes???????

Lucky you!

All the Nos????

Aye

Noe

Titty blondes you can never ever have enough titty blondes.

Be careful what you wish for view.
The next one might be Mouritz Botha.

I remember a game at Adams Park (v Glaws I think) and the Sky commentary box was in a corner of the stand I sit in.

Francois Pienaar and Michael Lynagh popped their heads out and were given a warm roujd of applause, and waved to the fans.

Barnes did similar and was met with a chorus of boos. I think it was more just a fun thing, but he scuttled back inside the commentary box in double quick time.

I guess you had to be there, but it was funny.

LondonTiger wrote:

Cari wrote:I hate to be a pedant but why do people call it SC4?! It's never been called that. It's S4C - short for Sianel 4 Cymru.

Fo the same reason people refer to Lee Bryne.

I guess there are some people who would prefer their pundits to be mindless automatons. If you think you could do better, apply for the job.

Jimpy wrote:I guess there are some people who would prefer their pundits to be mindless automatons. If you think you could do better, apply for the job.

I don't hear too many people wanting to bring along effigies of FitzPatrick, Lynagh, Kay and Healey along to the bonfire party.

So there'd be a number of capable people able to fill the vacuum created by Barnes and Morris' loss.
Actually their methane release might create a pressure increase.

A couple of months ago an RTÉpundit was being vilified on this board. His name escapes me. But then there's Jiffy and Guscock who might help the flames leap. Plus any living Scotsman employed as a rugby TV pundit/summariser.

Bring 'em all in and watch them burn.

I like Ben Kay as a commentator, no homo

viewtothegym wrote:I like Ben Kay as a commentator, no homo

Bedtime

greytiger wrote:

Jimpy wrote:I guess there are some people who would prefer their pundits to be mindless automatons. If you think you could do better, apply for the job.

I don't hear too many people wanting to bring along effigies of FitzPatrick, Lynagh, Kay and Healey along to the bonfire party.

So there'd be a number of capable people able to fill the vacuum created by Barnes and Morris' loss.
Actually their methane release might create a pressure increase.

A couple of months ago an RTÉpundit was being vilified on this board. His name escapes me. But then there's Jiffy and Guscock who might help the flames leap. Plus any living Scotsman employed as a rugby TV pundit/summariser.

Bring 'em all in and watch them burn.

That's racialist, old man, be careful - anyhew, I quite like Cotter and every Scots commentator will pale beside the McLaren!