Why don't they show the time elapsed on screen on Match of the Day?
September 13, 2010 2:54 AM Subscribe
When football is broadcast live, there is an on screen graphic showing the score and the number of minutes played. When highlights are shown on Match of the Day or elsewhere, the time elapsed is removed. Why is this?
It seems like the time elapsed is especially useful information to someone watching highlights, since they can't just look at their watch to figure out how long there is to go. Surely there can't be a technical reason in this day and age? So what am I missing?
This question brought to you by Everton 3 - 3 Manchester United.
It seems like the time elapsed is especially useful information to someone watching highlights, since they can't just look at their watch to figure out how long there is to go. Surely there can't be a technical reason in this day and age? So what am I missing?
This question brought to you by Everton 3 - 3 Manchester United.
Because the highlights are edited.
posted by fire&wings at 4:04 AM on September 13, 2010
posted by fire&wings at 4:04 AM on September 13, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks Huw. I don't find that very convincing. I don't see why people would find it distracting in the slightest, given the highlights are, by definition, already full of jump cuts. I'm pretty sure they include the clock in rugby highlights, and certainly add a clock in cricket highlights. Have you heard that explanation elsewhere, or is it yours?
To be clear about the obvious advantage, which is perhaps lost on fire&wings: when watching highlights, you don't know how long they've been playing (as you insightfully note, they are edited). At most, you know what half it is. How long they've been playing (and how long there is to go), is pretty useful information when trying to follow the game. In close games its absolutely crucial in the last few minutes.
posted by caek at 4:59 AM on September 13, 2010
To be clear about the obvious advantage, which is perhaps lost on fire&wings: when watching highlights, you don't know how long they've been playing (as you insightfully note, they are edited). At most, you know what half it is. How long they've been playing (and how long there is to go), is pretty useful information when trying to follow the game. In close games its absolutely crucial in the last few minutes.
posted by caek at 4:59 AM on September 13, 2010
Best answer: google it...
from : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/6183981.stm
"CLOCK
WHY DON'T YOU PUT A CLOCK ON ALL MATCH EDITS?
A clock on each Match of the Day edit would require a separate graphics operation to superimpose the time live on each game. At present one graphics source puts the graphics on all matches once they're edited. Any changes would therefore be very costly. It would also lead to the clock jumping dozens of times during an edit as we pull up close-ups, replays and set pieces.
The issue is debated here.
"
posted by fozzie33 at 5:20 AM on September 13, 2010
from : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/6183981.stm
"CLOCK
WHY DON'T YOU PUT A CLOCK ON ALL MATCH EDITS?
A clock on each Match of the Day edit would require a separate graphics operation to superimpose the time live on each game. At present one graphics source puts the graphics on all matches once they're edited. Any changes would therefore be very costly. It would also lead to the clock jumping dozens of times during an edit as we pull up close-ups, replays and set pieces.
The issue is debated here.
"
posted by fozzie33 at 5:20 AM on September 13, 2010
The BBC experimented with showing the clock on rugby highlights but decided it didn't work.
When commentary is provided solely for MOTD highlights there's an emphasis on noting the stage of the game to provide this context. And the whole point of a well-edited package is that you don't notice the multiple jump cuts!
Curiously, the 'debated here' link from the BBC website doesn't really cover it.
posted by Huw at 6:01 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
When commentary is provided solely for MOTD highlights there's an emphasis on noting the stage of the game to provide this context. And the whole point of a well-edited package is that you don't notice the multiple jump cuts!
Curiously, the 'debated here' link from the BBC website doesn't really cover it.
posted by Huw at 6:01 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks, I did try searching, but without any joy. That link suggests the problem is in fact mostly technical. This surprises me, since I can think of fairly obvious workarounds that more or less solve the problem (e.g. a clock that is good to the nearest minute or so) and if they could trial it for rugby then it can't be that costly. But I guess it's the BBC's explanation, so I've marked it as best answer (although yes, the "debated here" link the BBC provide seems pretty much irrelevant).
I'm still not buying the distraction argument, Huw. The jump cuts aren't distracting (and that's in part due to the skill of the editing), but a tiny little clock in the corner would be even less noticeable than players moving around the pitch instantly and non-stop action.
posted by caek at 6:18 AM on September 13, 2010
I'm still not buying the distraction argument, Huw. The jump cuts aren't distracting (and that's in part due to the skill of the editing), but a tiny little clock in the corner would be even less noticeable than players moving around the pitch instantly and non-stop action.
posted by caek at 6:18 AM on September 13, 2010
For what it's worth, in American football (at least in my area) you always see the number of minutes remaining in the quarter (along with everything else that was on the screen in the original broadcast) during highlights. This smells like an arbitrary decision to me.
posted by SMPA at 6:36 AM on September 13, 2010
posted by SMPA at 6:36 AM on September 13, 2010
FWIW, I'm sue I've seen football highlights programmes that introduce each clip/play with the minute that it happened. This seems like a simple workaround.
posted by turkeyphant at 6:52 AM on September 13, 2010
posted by turkeyphant at 6:52 AM on September 13, 2010
For what it's worth, in American football (at least in my area) you always see the number of minutes remaining in the quarter (along with everything else that was on the screen in the original broadcast) during highlights. This smells like an arbitrary decision to me.
That'll be because the football clock only stops at half time & full time. The American Football clock stops at the end of each play.
posted by i_cola at 7:23 AM on September 13, 2010
That'll be because the football clock only stops at half time & full time. The American Football clock stops at the end of each play.
posted by i_cola at 7:23 AM on September 13, 2010
Why should that matter? During the plays shown in highlights the clock is always running, right? The times in American football where the clock is stopped are when people do administrative stuff like moving chains and discussing what to do; this should have no bearing on what's retained on the video playback of the exciting stuff.
posted by SMPA at 7:32 AM on September 13, 2010
posted by SMPA at 7:32 AM on September 13, 2010
Response by poster: Absolutely. There are legal and, uh, philosophical differences between the clocks in football and American football, but my question isn't about those. I just want something that approximates the clock they show during the live broadcast to be shown during the highlights.
posted by caek at 8:03 AM on September 13, 2010
posted by caek at 8:03 AM on September 13, 2010
IAABTE, there is no technical reason.
It's a decision by the segment producer to use the 'clean feed' of the match (only the camera feeds, no graphics) rather than a broadcast recording (includes all on-air graphics).
When I watched the recaps of the World Cup on the ESPN in the US, the time/score graphics were included.
The BBC has a different stance on this it seems, as they do in many aspects of television production.
*IAABTE = I Am A Broadcast Television Engineer
posted by Argyle at 11:51 AM on September 13, 2010
It's a decision by the segment producer to use the 'clean feed' of the match (only the camera feeds, no graphics) rather than a broadcast recording (includes all on-air graphics).
When I watched the recaps of the World Cup on the ESPN in the US, the time/score graphics were included.
The BBC has a different stance on this it seems, as they do in many aspects of television production.
*IAABTE = I Am A Broadcast Television Engineer
posted by Argyle at 11:51 AM on September 13, 2010
When the BBC showed late night repeats of the World Cup Matches on BBC3 and HD, the presence of the clock depended on which feed was available earlier: if the match was shown earlier on BBC1 there would be a clean version; if it was an ITV match then the clock would have to be included. The clean feed was always preferred as the match could be tidied up without a 'skipping' clock. No actual football was excised: it was only delays when no play was happening.
MOTD is slightly difference as clean feeds (from the various OBs) are always available.
posted by Huw at 12:12 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
MOTD is slightly difference as clean feeds (from the various OBs) are always available.
posted by Huw at 12:12 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
When I watched the recaps of the World Cup on the ESPN in the US, the time/score graphics were included.
This is true, but from what I could tell, ESPN were basically taking the international feed and doing straightforward in/out cuts for their highlights, with the camera/replay choices baked in by the broadcast production crew. MotD's highlights will often draw upon alternative camera angles and replays in an "as live" fashion, though they weren't featured in the live broadcast feed.
So while I'm agreed that there's no specific technical reason, the explanation about "pull[ing] up close-ups, replays and set pieces" has a certain amount of credence. It's an inexact analogy, but MotD is somewhere between the ESPN approach and the NFL Films model of recapping.
Personally, I think a "fuzzy" clock graphic would work when there are obvious time transitions, but that's an editorial decision.
posted by holgate at 12:18 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is true, but from what I could tell, ESPN were basically taking the international feed and doing straightforward in/out cuts for their highlights, with the camera/replay choices baked in by the broadcast production crew. MotD's highlights will often draw upon alternative camera angles and replays in an "as live" fashion, though they weren't featured in the live broadcast feed.
So while I'm agreed that there's no specific technical reason, the explanation about "pull[ing] up close-ups, replays and set pieces" has a certain amount of credence. It's an inexact analogy, but MotD is somewhere between the ESPN approach and the NFL Films model of recapping.
Personally, I think a "fuzzy" clock graphic would work when there are obvious time transitions, but that's an editorial decision.
posted by holgate at 12:18 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
It's so the highlights can be edited to provide a coherent summary of how the match went, without the clock skipping fowards and distracting. It would be useful in some instances, but not enough to outweigh the drawbacks.
posted by Huw at 3:22 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]