BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The fullback for the Canterbury Crusaders was tackled by an Auckland Blues lock in

an off-the-ball incident in the rugby game screened on TV One at 4.00pm on 5 April

1997. As a result of the injuries incurred, the fullback retired from the game.

Dr Small complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as there

was minimal criticism from any of the commentary team of the violent and

unprovoked incident, broadcasting standards were breached.

Pointing out that a replay of the incident was shown only to identify the player

involved, and that the seriousness of the incident was clearly apparent from the

pictures shown, TVNZ explained that there were no comments which condoned the

behaviour. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Dr Small referred his complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). Given the matters raised on this

occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A replay of the game between the Auckland Blues and the Canterbury Crusaders

rugby teams on Friday 4 April was broadcast at 4.00pm on TV One on Saturday 5

April. During the game, in an off-the-ball incident, the Crusaders' fullback was

shoulder charged by a Blues' lock and, after being treated on the sideline for the

injuries incurred, retired from the game.

Dr Small complained to the commentators initially, and to TVNZ later, at the way the

incident had been dealt with during the commentary. Expressing his belief that the

charge was both dangerous and illegal, he considered that there should have been some

condemnatory comments. However, there were none. Thus, he continued, the

commentators had in effect condoned the player's action. A later shot of the fullback

wearing a neckbrace, he observed, only evoked "sympathetic tut-tutting".

In the correspondence, Dr Small emphasised that his complaint focused on the absence

of any disapproval from the commentators.

The Appendix records the process which took place before TVNZ assessed the

complaint under standards V14, V15 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice. The first two read:

V14  Care must be taken to ensure that violent incidents, be it from a battle

field, sports venue or elsewhere, should be used only when its repetition is

necessary to illustrate the issue being discussed.

V15  Sports announcers and commentators must avoid making comments which

appear to approve or glamorise any violent behaviour on or off the field

which is not in accordance with the rules of the particular sport.

The other one requires broadcasters:

G6   To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

TVNZ explained that identity of the Blues' player was not apparent to the

commentators when the incident occurred and it had been necessary to screen replays

to identify the offender as Blues' lock Robin Brooke. When the fullback left the field,

TVNZ added, the commentators had described the lock's actions as "totally

unnecessary".

Pointing out that the game was broadcast "live" and, therefore, there was no time for

lengthy examination of the incident, TVNZ explained that the referee had ordered a

penalty at time. After the match, TVNZ said, Brooke was cited by the Disciplinary

Committee and summoned before rugby's judiciary. Further, as the incident was not

shown gratuitously, and as the commentators did not approve of or glamorise the

incident, and as it was dealt with adequately for a "live" broadcast, TVNZ declined to

uphold the complaint.

When referring his complaint to the Authority, Dr Small again emphasised that he was

concerned at the absence of condemnatory comments from the commentators. He

considered the reference to later judicial proceedings to be of little relevance. The

commentary at the time of the incident, he argued, should have included some criticism

of the actions of the Blues' lock.

In its assessment of the complaint, the Authority considers that some weight has to be

given to the fact that the broadcast was "live". It is also apparent that there was some

doubt initially as to who had carried out the action which had injured the fullback. In

those circumstances, it was appropriate to replay the incident until the identity of the

offending player was established beyond doubt.

The Authority acknowledges Dr Small's concern that the commentators did not make

any stringently critical statement of the offending player's behaviour. However, there

were also no comments which could be interpreted as expressing approval of the

action or glamorising it. The comments at half-time were, in the Authority's opinion,

more than "tut-tutting". The commentators' disapproval was apparent in describing

the lock's action as "unnecessary", and his behaviour during the first half as including

the "good and the bad".

The Authority takes the above matters into account in determining the alleged

breaches of the standards. Because the incident was not repeated gratuitously, the

Authority considers that standard V14 was not transgressed. As the comments did

not approve or glamorise, the Authority does not accept that standard V15 was

breached.

Standard G6 requires balance and fairness. TVNZ argued that the incident was dealt

with appropriately given the fact that the broadcast was "live". Further, disciplinary

action was taken later. Dr Small focused on the incident and did not consider the later

action to be relevant to the complaint.

As standard G6 is an amplification of the statutory requirement for balance contained

in s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which requires that balance be achieved

during the period of current interest, the Authority is of the opinion that its appraisal

of the incident should take into account the later judicial action. Thus, while the

requirements under standard G6 were barely met during the broadcast, the later official

actions, to which appropriate publicity was given, ensured the necessary balance.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
17 July 1997

Appendix

Dr J J Small's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 16 April 1997

Dr J J Small of Christchurch complained by fax to the commentators used by

Television New Zealand Ltd about an incident shown in the rugby match between the

Auckland Blues and the Canterbury Crusaders, broadcast on TV One during the

weekend of 4 - 6 April 1997.

Dr Small complained about the manner in which the commentators had dealt with the

incident when an Auckland lock (Robin Brooke) tackled the Canterbury fullback (Leon

McDonald) in a way which Dr Small said was both dangerous and illegal. He stated

that as there were no condemnatory comments by the broadcasters, even after the

replay was shown, they had effectively condoned the player's action. A later shot of

the fullback wearing a neck brace only evoked "sympathetic tut-tutting".

Pointing out that the complaint focused on the absence of disapproval - on what was

not said - Dr Small said the effect was to condone the violent behaviour in breach of

the broadcasting standards.

He also sent a copy of his fax to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Further Correspondence

As he received a reply from neither TVNZ nor the BSA, on 12 May 1997 Dr Small

telephoned TVNZ in Wellington and, following the advice he received, faxed to TVNZ

a copy of his 16 April letter.

In the continuing absence of any response, on 19 May 1997, Dr Small again spoke to

TVNZ and was advised that he should have made his complaint initially to the BSA.

After speaking to the Authority, on 20 May 1997, he forwarded a copy of his letter

of complaint of 16 April and made some further submissions.

In these submissions, Dr Small approved the general approach taken by the

commentators who were used on this occasion as they emphasised positive play, and

he acknowledged that the camera told most of the story on televised sport. He also

noted that he was a former representative rugby player and commended moves in both

rugby and rugby league to penalise head-high tackles severely. However:

Brooke's assault on McDonald was completely different from a head-high tackle

or stomping or fighting: it was unprovoked, well away from the ball and

extremely dangerous. It is hard to understand how none of the three officials

saw it, but I feel sure that if they had Brooke would have been ordered off

immediately. Neither commentator made any remark even slightly critical of

Brooke during the game, nor about what would or should have happened if the

referee had seen it or had it reported to him.

...

I would like New Zealand rugby commentators to become more like their

Australian counterparts and speak their minds as intelligent, fair-minded viewers

would do.

On 20 May 1997, the Authority sent all the correspondence to TVNZ's Programme

Standards Manager. The Authority reported that it had no record of receiving Dr

Small's fax sent on 16 April. Had it been received, it noted, it would have been

forwarded to TVNZ at the time for reply in accordance with its standard practice.

On receipt of the correspondence, TVNZ advised Dr Small (on 22 May 1997) that it

would deal with his fax of 16 April as a formal complaint.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 June 1997

Summarising the complaint as one which alleged that the commentators did not

condemn sufficiently Robin Brooke's tackle of Leon McDonald, TVNZ assessed it

under standards G6, V14 and V15 of the Television Code of Practice.

Pointing out that the formal complaints process dealt only with matters which were

broadcast, TVNZ apologised for the incorrect advice Dr Small had received about the

process and said the matter would be taken up internally.

With regard to the complaint, TVNZ maintained that the tackle had been properly

described by the commentary team. It noted that there had been some difficulty in

establishing the identity of the player involved, and it continued:

Once the identity of the players was established however, the seriousness of the

incident was clearly shown. There was a close up shot of Leon McDonald

sitting on the ground near the sideline obviously distressed and a slow motion

replay made it abundantly clear that Robin Brooke was the offender. There was

also a later shot of Leon McDonald leaving the field over which the

commentators remarked that the tackle had been "totally unnecessary".

As the game had been broadcast "live", TVNZ stated that there was no time for a long

examination of the incident. Further, to have shown the incident on a number of

occasions could well have appeared gratuitous. TVNZ added:

We believe it also fair to note that at the time the seriousness of the incident

seemed to be overlooked even by the match officials. The referee simply

ordered a penalty and it was not until after the match that Brooke was cited by

the Disciplinary Committee and summoned before rugby's judiciary.

TVNZ did not accept that the commentary team's response could be described as

"tantamount to condoning" the tackle.

Dealing with the specific standards, TVNZ maintained that the incident was dealt with

in an appropriate manner during the "live" broadcast, that a replay was necessary to

identify the guilty party, and that no remark from the commentators approved the

behaviour. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint.

Dr Small's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 10 June 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Dr Small referred to his complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Dr Small repeated that his concern focused not on the pictures which were broadcast

but on what the commentators said at the time and, in particular, what they did not

say. References therefore to later judicial proceedings were irrelevant. Moreover, he

did not expect a long examination of the incident. Nonetheless, there was time for

some comment. Further, the incident could be said to have affected the outcome of the

game because, while Leon McDonald was being attended to and not replaced, the

Auckland team scored two tries and eventually won the game by one point.

Pointing out that the off-the-ball tackle was violent and unprovoked, Dr Small said

that some criticism from the commentators would have been expected. That did not

happen and, he concluded:

My original complaint was not what the commentators said, but what they did

not say. TVNZ's answer to me seeks to make a virtue out of their silence. I

reiterate my contention that in this instance some explicit disapproval of the

violence should have been voiced during the game.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 18 June 1997

TVNZ advised that it did not wish to comment further.