RTE Coverage of Rugby

OldRio

I know RTE have come in for criticism in the past, but in general I enjoy the banter between the pundits.
Unfortunately, last night, following the Munster v Ospreys match the 'in depth analize' was bizarre.
It seems the planners at RTE like to give a total of 3/4 minutes of time for their well paid pundits to chat about the games highlights/lowlights.
Last night this precious time was given to Mr Hook to complain about the use of the TMO by the ref.
Mr. Hook was either not watching or listening to the game. The ref asked about the grounding NOT the knock on.
No one contradicted him.
No one mentioned the blowing of the whistle before the try.
No one metioned the 6 minute scrum on the Ospreys line.
Everyman and his dog knew the ref had a mare YET nothing/zip.
Their coverage has now become a joke.

chupacabra

I dont get why people care so much about rugby punditry (yeah yeah "this is what we pay our licence fees on" blah blah bitch moan same old crap). When I watch a rugby game I watch the RUGBY. I dont listen to the commentators and I dont care about the analysis. I can make my own analysis of a rugby game without a bunch of ex-players or over-paid media types to tell me exactly what I already know. Im aware that less informed members of the public benefit from informed analysis of a game but most of the time pundits are giving their own personal opinions on what is going on and that is no way to educate the un-informed neutrals. Let people make their own judgements about the game they're watching.

OldRio

The point I am making is that these people are paid a lot of money. Some of it mine and some of it yours. And still they get it wrong.

WeeBushy

chupacabra wrote: »

I dont get why people care so much about rugby punditry (yeah yeah "this is what we pay our licence fees on" blah blah bitch moan same old crap). When I watch a rugby game I watch the RUGBY. I dont listen to the commentators and I dont care about the analysis. I can make my own analysis of a rugby game without a bunch of ex-players or over-paid media types to tell me exactly what I already know. Im aware that less informed members of the public benefit from informed analysis of a game but most of the time pundits are giving their own personal opinions on what is going on and that is no way to educate the un-informed neutrals. Let people make their own judgements about the game they're watching.

It doesn't have much to do with being told what happened. It's just interesting to hear intelligent and hopefully knowledgeable individuals talk about the game. Unfortunately RTE doesn't offer much of that and as a result the commentary and analysis is quite frustrating when it could be entertaining. Who doesn't enjoy listening to people talk about rugby? Its why the podcasts on here are so popular. Everyone loves to hear about rugby.

decisions

Out of the lot of them I now only listen to Conor OShea and he was commentating so I just turned it off.

I do love the podcast and I enjoy the Breakdown so it's not that I don't like listing about rugby it's that Hook annoys me.

D500B

without someone explaining the scrum to me I'm lost - A bit of post match analysis is very useful to recap the game.
Mostly they are good - it sounds like a one off probably - probably hitting the Christmas cheer in Montrose

CatFromHue

WeeBushy wrote: »

It's just interesting to hear intelligent and hopefully knowledgeable individuals talk about the game. Unfortunately RTE doesn't offer much of that and as a result the commentary and analysis is quite frustrating when it could be entertaining.

I like hearing Pope's, O Shea's and Lenihan's opinions as I think they have a good idea what's going. Lenihan tends to know alot of the behind the scenes stuff at Munster (he'd some interesting opinions on why Munster didn't sign Toeava). O Shea has been working in a professional manner in rugby since he quit playing and is a very knowledgeable guy. Pope, while I don't always agree with him, is fairly knowledgeable about the game and is pretty balanced too.

So in my opinion there are some quality pundits in RTE. There are also some other guys who shout the loudest and so get heard more.

D500B wrote: »

A bit of post match analysis is very useful to recap the game.

BBC NI do a 20-30 second recap of the main points of the half/game which is very useful and doesn't take up a huge amount of time.

danthefan

Also Frankie isn't half bad as long as he's not talking about Munster. He does know the game quite well it seems.

MungBean

I think not having someone like Conor on the panel really detracts from the serious aspect of the discussion. He is good in the commentary box too though. Unless we can clone him or make him co commentate from the studio we need someone else with his calibre.

The Hook and Pope show is getting really really old.

digzy

I've no issue with rte.i find their analysis and commentary very informative.as regards the rules, a mate of mine played ail div 1 and told me that even he didn't know the rules. he was baffled why the ref blew even when it was in his favour on occasion!

However,I'd love to know what genius put HEC on tg4! Given that most of us dont speak it i find it pointless for highlights.

Digifriendly

digzy wrote: »

However,I'd love to know what genius put HEC on tg4! Given that most of us dont speak it i find it pointless for highlights.

Its also far too long. No other channel has rugby highlights lasting almost 3 hours. With digital coverage there should be an option for English commentary same as S4C.

ray jay

Digifriendly wrote: »

Its also far too long. No other channel has rugby highlights lasting almost 3 hours. With digital coverage there should be an option for English commentary same as S4C.

It would be nice if there was a shorter highlights package available. The longer program is good if you have the time to sit through it though.

profitius

Its incredible that RTE have pundits like Hook and Pope who have little or no interest in the RD12.