| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Saints player hurt on field after game
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
 |
Murfreesboro | TN | U.S. | Posted: 9:12 AM on 12.30.10 |
->> http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2010/12/new_orleans_saints_receiver_ro...
I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on Robert Meachem's collision with a videographer after the game. The coach does bring up a good point about some recent player injuries from nonplayers on the field. Could be something that is brought up in the union talks after this season?
Slightly ironic that if a player diving out of bounds is injured by a photographer, the photographer was in the way. If the photographer is injured, it's just part of the risk associated with the job. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:07 AM on 12.30.10 |
->> It's entertainment. We're standing adjacent to the stage as guests. The show must go on.
--Mark |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 11:15 AM on 12.30.10 |
->> "Slightly ironic that if a player diving out of bounds is injured by a photographer, the photographer was in the way. If the photographer is injured, it's just part of the risk associated with the job."
Sure - no one said life was fair. The player is more valuable. Just like teams care about protecting the quarterback but care a bit less about the right offensive guard. Realize not everyone is the same size cog in the NFL money machine. "fault" usually has a way of being affected by value of the cog to the machine. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 12.30.10 |
| ->> John - off topic, I know, but I have to disagree that teams care about protecting the quarterback more than an offensive guard. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 12.30.10 |
->> This is very different from being on the sidelines. Everyone knows the division line there, the players know exactly where the out of bounds line is and they either try to avoid going out to gain extra yards or want to get out to stop the clock. They know "civilians" are outside those boundaries.
But this is a separate situation as after the game press, team officials, grounds crew etc. are in the same realm as the players.
IF this is a case where a videographer was running backwards trying to film one player and does not pay attention to where they are going and run over another player, then the journalist is at fault, same as if they were in the mall shooting shoppers and backed over grandma buying gifts.
I don't know the particulars of this one but no matter where you are you have certain responsibilities to act appropriately and if a player (or anyone else) gets injured out of negligence the person who caused it is at fault, no matter what.
In the post-game scrum at a Super Bowl years ago one of the players had his kids on the field with him. One of the boys, maybe 6 or 7 years old, looked pretty scared. A network cameraman was backing up without looking where he was going nearly trampled the kid. We're talking inches away from disaster. The player, holding his son's hand, was looking the other way. I'll admit to stepping in front of the kid and body-checking the videographer to stop him. I don't think he even realized what happened, but stopped and kept shooting whatever he thought was important. First of all, the player should not have had young kids in such a hectic situation, but the adult with a large camera on his shoulder should know he can cause damage and should be paying attention to what he is doing.
In this story, the things referenced such as the mascot riding around on a 4-wheeler etc, it is the responsibility of the non-player to look out for others when performing their duties, whether it be firing up the crowd, pulling a cable or taking a photo. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 11:32 AM on 12.30.10 |
->> Bradly,
I'll disagree with you on that one. I've seen lots of quarterbacks and coaches escorted off the field after the game with security surrounding them to keep them safe, noting the infamous case of security shoving a television cameraman to the ground a couple years ago. I've never seen any lineman -- offense or defense -- given the same care.
Sure a team doesn't want anyone to get hurt, but they place a higher priority on the protection of some players over others. |
|
Juerg Schreiter, Photographer
|
Fort Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 12:47 PM on 12.30.10 |
->> Nakia Hogan needs to learn the difference between a video camera and a photo camera !
too many people writing about stuff and not getting the facts straight.
It's the same when the local paper reports the victim was shot with an fully automatic revolver |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 12:54 PM on 12.30.10 |
| ->> George - I was speaking more about rules during game action, not really what happens after the game, and in retrospect, this thread is more about events after a game. |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 2:32 PM on 12.30.10 |
->> "Could be something that is brought up in the union talks after this season?"
I'm in full support of anything that means video guys can't drag wires around the field after games, as long as we can still come on the field to photograph the post-game events. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:59 PM on 12.30.10 |
| ->> Tim, if you think that the NFL will give still photographers access to places that the tv rights holders are not allowed, you are crazy. TV shooters get to run out onto the field with players before the first snap, and then get to run out with them when they're celebrating touchdowns. There is no way they will start putting post-game field restrictions on videographers that don't apply to still photographers as well. |
|
John Tucker, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cordova | TN | USA | Posted: 4:30 PM on 12.30.10 |
| ->> These players are starting to be little panzy arses lately! |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 6:12 PM on 12.30.10 |
| ->> I guess these people forgot that they have zoooooooom lenses! |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 11:30 PM on 12.30.10 |
->> Michael,
I know. Sadly, you are completely correct.
At the Florida-Georgia football game in Jacksonville this year, the CBS sideline guys were running into the end zone for touchdown celebrations. It has already started. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 1:46 AM on 12.31.10 |
->> There's not a lot of meat in the story, but this looks like a typical negligence liability issue of superceding vs. intervening causes. The classic scenario being...you want to shoot person A, they duck and the bullet strikes and kills person B. Although you had no intention of injuring person B, are you responsible for the injury?
As John alluded, regardless of fault, practice team players are far more valuable to the NFL than photographers sent by God himself. So, obviously their interests are also more important, and will be given greater attention if it is ever decided the issue needs to be addressed.
...Fortunately, if the NFL creates a policy that's unfair to photographers, they can join together and boycott taking any future pictures at NFL games. Obviously, the league will reconsider their policies when they recognize the severe economic impact they face.... |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 8:45 PM on 01.01.11 |
->> NFL Rule #1:
It's OUR game - we OWN it. You don't like the rules? Fine - just return the sideline credential.
NFL Rule #2:
You have a problem with the rules? Refer to Rule #1.
I can't blame Coach Payton for being pissed. You would be to if Meachem had suffered a more serious injury. The photographer in this case wasn't paying attention. As Coach Payton pointed out, not the first time something like this has happened.
Michael is right, there is no way still shooters will gain an advantage. I can guarantee you one thing for sure: At the end of the day; the broadcasts networks camera folks and the NFL Films folks will still get the advantage. If you think that's unfair, go re-read rule #1. It's their game, and they can make any rules they want. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:47 AM on 01.02.11 |
->> Some of the discussions above seem to be assuming this was a shooter from the network. Do we know this for a fact? With the carry strap, no wireless and no cables it looks like it's a non-live videographer, maybe for one of the local TV stations or someone shooting documentary.
As far as the rest of the stories above regarding network shooters getting in the way...nobody gets up in the morning wanting to bang a camera into a player or a fan, and no player wakes up wanting to take out a line of photographers on the sidelines. As professionals, everyone tries to be perfect and do it right, but sometimes it happens. As any still shooter knows, it's easy to get lost in a viewfinder, and accidents can happen.
With the little kid almost getting trampled story, my only question about the incident would be - where was the grip? Video shooters have no peripheral vision on their right side because the camera is in the way, and when they're live on the air they have to concentrate on the image and not where they're walking. Because of this, handheld shooters working live are usually paired up with a grip to watch their back (and if wired, to keep cables clear). If this camera operator was assigned a grip, the grip is the one to blame and not the shooter. It's their job to keep the photographer out of trouble, and they obviously didn't do it in this instance.
TV networks pay the NFL buckets and buckets of cash to cover the games. They don't pay that kind of money so they can cover it in a journalistic no-touch, never-interfere-with-the-story kind of way. They are paying for access nobody else has to give viewers images and angles that nobody else can get. They are paying so the millionaire players will show up two days early in full gear to record their player profile vignettes in front of a green screen. They're paying to have microphones in every location possible, cameras in every locker room, announcers at every bench, timeouts when they want them. They pay for this access because it makes for better ratings, and better ratings means more money. People at home watching on a 65" HD television after paying several hundred dollars for the NFL Sunday Ticket don't want to see all of the shots shots from a zoom a hundred feet away. They want to be a part of the experience, and being in close gives them that experience.
Players, coaches and officials put up with the intrusiveness because it makes them money. It's a deal, a bargain, a money-making cooperative. The NFL cashes a big check to let TV do their thing, TV delivers a massive audience every week which gives advertisers a reason to buy. TV makes money, the NFL makes money, everyone makes money.
It's also why any member of the media NOT affiliated with the TV network is going to get less access and take whatever the NFL gives them. Other media outlets - by choice - are not a direct participant in the moneymaking cooperative. They're not paying for access. They get their credentials for free. They are guests. Other media outlets don't give the NFL a dime, yet the media outlets DO make money by covering the games. Since any revenue the NFL gets from their presence is indirect, they will always get less access and attention from the NFL. You don't get a hot towel if you're flying in coach for free. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 4:16 PM on 01.02.11 |
| ->> You'll seldom see an offensive lineman wearing a red jersey during practice... |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 5:57 PM on 01.06.11 |
->> If you've ever wondered why TV gets to do what they want at an NFL game, here's some insight:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/144773
"ESPN and the NFL have agreed to broad terms on a new media rights deal that will be worth nearly $2 billion per year. Specific numbers still are difficult to confirm, but multiple sources say ESPN has told the NFL that it will increase its annual rights fee by 65% to 70%%, which means it will pay the league a record fee, between $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion a year."
...
"Even before this negotiation, ESPN was paying the league much more than any of the NFL’s other TV partners. ESPN’s annual payout of $1.1 billion dwarfs the annual rights fees paid by Fox ($720 million), CBS ($620 million) and NBC ($603 million). DirecTV pays about $1 billion a year for exclusive access to Sunday Ticket."
Keep in mind those are ANNUAL amounts. That's around $4 billion (with a B) dollars the NFL makes annually from just the TV related contracts mentioned above.
With those numbers I'm surprised they don't have cameras in every helmet...
Meanwhile print media pays ZERO with a Z... |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|