The NCAA abuses its authority ... again ...

[MTNSportsGuy]

Nope, my job gets me into games for free as well. And usually I'm there well before the game starts and well after it's over. There is no jealosy at all. I just want to know why reporters think they are above the rules.

Maybe the rulesmakers think they are above the 1st amendment???

 

We may find out with this "ruling". I do believe that alot of media(not just the C-J) will want to pursue this for clarification sake.

[All Tell]

Then do all media outlets have a "right" to transmit real time information about games?

[MTNSportsGuy]

Then do all media outlets have a "right" to transmit real time information about games?

I don't believe anyone can say that every half inning entries qualifies as "real time".

 

What is the difference in ESPN or another outlet showing early inning highlights and score updates while the game is still ongoing?

 

I don't have all the answers, just raising some questions.

[Jim Schue]

Then do all media outlets have a "right" to transmit real time information about games?

 

While I obviously have a clear bias on this issue, I look at it from two standpoints that a reasonable person would also agree with (and I believe that is generally the standard w/re to First Amendment issues, although our legal eagles could probably shed more light on this than I):

 

A) Once the event happens, it's part of the public domain. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

B) The trend today is that most arenas, stadiums and exhibition halls where sporting events occur are publicly-funded, which also by its nature makes it part of the public domain.

[All Tell]

I don't believe anyone can say that every half inning entries qualifies as "real time".

 

What is the difference in ESPN or another outlet showing early inning highlights and score updates while the game is still ongoing?

 

I don't have all the answers, just raising some questions.

 

In some cases they can't.

 

Highlights of NFL games can't be shown until the game is over (except on networks with the "rights" to those games). I know on ESPN Primetime they have to wait for late games to be completed before they can show highlights of those games.

 

If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) no highlights of NCAA basketball tournament games can be shown (except on CBS the "official" network) while the game is in progress.

[All Tell]

While I obviously have a clear bias on this issue, I look at it from two standpoints that a reasonable person would also agree with (and I believe that is generally the standard w/re to First Amendment issues, although our legal eagles could probably shed more light on this than I):

 

A) Once the event happens, it's part of the public domain. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

B) The trend today is that most arenas, stadiums and exhibition halls where sporting events occur are publicly-funded, which also by its nature makes it part of the public domain.

So then why can't TV stations carry their cameras (or radio stations their mics) into the stadiums and broadcast any game with a 15 or 20 minute delay. As long as they don't do it live this should apply as well shouldn't it?

 

I tend to agree that this rule is a bit overzealous but I am still drawn back to the fact that the reporter was made aware that he was in violation of policy and did it anyway. I also have to wonder just where the 1st amendment stops and the rights of an entity to protect their "product" takes over.

[TonyDanza]

He got caught.

 

 

I think the rule is ridiculous, and I hope they do take it to court.

 

 

I guess I find this a little hard to believe that on Sunday they finally realized he was doing it. If it is a rule then they would have someone monitoring to see that it wasn't happening.

[BigColonel]

If he is just blogging, then this is stupid.

 

If he was giving a play by play description in his blog, then the NCAA has a beef. Some network has paid a lot of $$$$ for the exclusive rights to the live play by play coverage of the super regionals (be it ESPN, CSTV, or whoever.) If the CJ reporter is blogging what is in fact a play by play account, then he should be asked to leave, since he has violated the agreement that the NCAA had with the exclusive network.

[Birdsfan]

If it is a rule then they would have someone monitoring to see that it wasn't happening.

With a thousand other details to worry about, I doubt if unauthorized blogging was even on their radar screen.

[TonyDanza]

With a thousand other details to worry about, I doubt if unauthorized blogging was even on their radar screen.

 

Attention to detail!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

[RockPride]

You know that would also mean that you can't call someone and update them via cell phone either....

[MTNSportsGuy]

I guess another question is: Is it illegal for someone to sit at home or a bar or wherever and blod away while watching the game on TV???

[All Tell]

I guess another question is: Is it illegal for someone to sit at home or a bar or wherever and blod away while watching the game on TV???

No, because it's not at the site of the competition.

 

Again I ask, if it's OK for a blogger to do this does that also mean it would be OK for a local TV station to broadcast games if they delay the broadcast by say 10 minutes. The action has already happend so by the logic used it is now a fact and in public domain.

 

The Louisville baseball game on Saturday was on ESPNU which most people in Louisville don't have. What would have prevented, say WHAS, from paying the person with the house that overlooks Jim Patterson Stadium to let them set up a camera there and broadcasting the game 10 minutes behind real time? It wouldn't have been great coverage but better then nothing.

 

In the CJ today an editorial talked about the "special function" a newspaper has in informing people. I would put to you that in this day and age of 24 hour cable news networks and internet information posted almost as it happens, newspapers are looking for anything they can do to prevent themselves from becoming more and more irrelevent and that's what this is all about.

[westsider]

The Louisville baseball game on Saturday was on ESPNU which most people in Louisville don't have. What would have prevented, say WHAS, from paying the person with the house that overlooks Jim Patterson Stadium to let them set up a camera there and broadcasting the game 10 minutes behind real time? It wouldn't have been great coverage but better then nothing.

 

In the CJ today an editorial talked about the "special function" a newspaper has in informing people. I would put to you that in this day and age of 24 hour cable news networks and internet information posted almost as it happens, newspapers are looking for anything they can do to prevent themselves from becoming more and more irrelevent and that's what this is all about.

The WHAS scenario isn't a valid comparison ... the Courier-Journal wasn't broadcasting pictures from the game. Bennett was simply providing updates, nothing that would in any way compromise ESPN's rights to the broadcast.

[MTNSportsGuy]

 

Again I ask, if it's OK for a blogger to do this does that also mean it would be OK for a local TV station to broadcast games if they delay the broadcast by say 10 minutes.

IMO, Blogging is a near opposite to broadcast.

I think there is a huge difference.