Football and cricket fans in the UK would have noticed a certain synchronicity in action over the last couple of days on the subject of technology in sport.
In the final instalment of The Times’ 2010 Football Survey by Football Fan Census published this morning, 74% of the 5,000 plus fans polled supported the immediate introduction of goal-line technology, to put an end to the series of high-profile wrong calls by referees in recent seasons. Despite the fans’ views though, goal-line technology is highly unlikely to be featuring in top football anytime soon as it is strongly opposed by the game’s lawmakers.
What a contrast with cricket, where Hawk-Eye technology has now been an authorised, integral part of the game at top level for many years, enabling the umpires to make the right decisions and entertaining spectators and viewers into the bargain. Except in the current Test Series between England and Bangladesh that is.
Unlike cricket broadcasters elsewhere in the world, Sky is barred from selling on-air sponsorship of Hawk-Eye, and thus cannot recoup the £300,000 it costs to equip the umpires, because Ofcom considers Hawk-Eye to be ‘editorial content’. The ICC – cricket’s world governing body – is refusing to pay for the technology on the grounds that it is inequitable to pay for the costs of Sky but not broadcasters in other countries. This has already led to at least one wrong dismissal in the match. More inevitably will follow.
This isn’t about Sky, and it isn’t about ICC. It’s about Ofcom. Instead of enabling a virtuous circle of added-value technology loved by fans and funded by sponsors, they create a no-win situation where no one – players, umpires, fans, media – is happy. All in the name of ‘editorial content’.
I am conscious that many of you - for I suspect you know where I’m going - may already perhaps be thinking ‘thin end of the wedge’. Let me assure you, then, that the last thing I want to see is British television becoming the ad-saturated nightmare that we see in so many other countries. But this is surely an exception and it would be good to see sanity prevail. Come on Ofcom, stop being the problem and start being the solution. Have the courage to create a virtuous circle and let brands sponsor Hawk-Eye on-air in cricket.
And whilst I’m on the subject, can someone – yes DCMS, I’m looking at you – explain to me why Hawk-Eye in cricket on Sky cannot be branded whereas it’s acceptable for Hawk-Eye in the BBC’s coverage of Wimbledon to be branded by Rolex?
By Tim Crow on May 28th, 2010
Tags: Broadcast sponsorship, Cricket, DCMS, Sponsorship, Television, Tennis
Find us on Google maps
Thank goodness for Tim Crow’s becoming yet another voice of reason joining a chorus which many of us hope will become so strident that even the deaf ears of the DCMS and Ofcom may hear it.
To counter TC’s point, some pen–pusher from Ofcom will probably be trotted out to try, lamely, to explain that the difference is that, at Wimbledon, Hawk-eye appears only when a player appeals, whereas, in cricket coverage it is a regular feature used by the production team. [Sadly, cricket's long-standing, but unofficial and unwritten, Law 43 ('Common sense shall prevail') never applies to quangos and government departments.]
However, if that is their claim, the solution to the problem would appear to be simple: the sponsor’s name should appear only when reference to Hawk-eye occurs as part of the game. When referred to ‘editorially’, the sponsor’s name is not shown.
(Tempting though it is, here is probably not the place to argue whether players or umpires should be the means of reference.)
I like your style John, and what an ingenious solution! Ofcom’s response to the ECB’s request for clarification will be interesting. Let us hope that common sense prevails for once.