TELESIDE, U.S.A.: ILLUSION OF CHOICE HITS FIELD HOCKEY

By Al Mattei
Founder, TopOfTheCircle.com

When cable television began spreading its tendrils across America, part of its appeal was the power of choice. Many years later, the cable airwaves are pretty much owned by the same forces as the broadcast networks: NBC Universal, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, Time Warner.

The same goes for satellite radio, which made its initial appeal the choice of music and voices, only to cut many of the jazz stations in early 2006.

Now, when College Sports Television hit the airwaves, with a success that enabled ESPN and Fox to form its own college sports networks, part of the original appeal was choice as well as the increased exposure of other sporting events, including field hockey.

But in the third year of CSTV, the first field hockey game broadcast on the network wasn't until mid-October -- almost the end of the NCAA season.

And the problem is that the broadcasts of televised field hockey still rank somewhere above local-access cable when it comes to expertise and production values.

Long cutaways into replays often mask important parts of gameplay, including the building of attacks and the awarding of cards.

And sometimes, facts are often disregarded. In one broadcast, the sixth-place finish for the United States in the 2006 World Cup was called "their best ever," despite the fact that the Americans won bronze in 1994.

In another, the identity of an overtime-winning goal was misidentified completely, even through a replay of the goal when the scorer's number was visible.

But what clearly is lacking in the field hockey broadcasts is any kind of informed criticism, mainly because of the verbiage from the play-by-play announcers.

In one sequence, a team won a 16-yard free hit, which was upgraded 10 yards because the team on which the previous foul was called kept the opposition from taking the next free hit. The upgraded free hit was a raised ball. It was a wasted chance, but it was not called so by the announcers.

In another televised game, a 16-yard free hit was played into the middle of the field whereupon an opposing attacker took it into the circle, 1-on-1 against the goalie, and shot wide. The announcer was a play behind while the breakaway occurred, and was then befuddled when a long hit or corner was not awarded.

And in another instance, a deep backpass went between two teammates out of bounds while the commentators were seemingly reading background information off the pages of the media guides.

Clearly, there is work to be done when it comes to bringing field hockey to the masses, from producers, to on-air talent, to directors, to camera operators.

Because even in an era of choice in sport, the production of field hockey in 2006 is laugable.