Thought I'd open the discussion for what's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I feel that hockey's been called the exact same way since games were called for radio audiences. Using comparisons with other pro sports, I'm wondering if anyone feels the same or has any idea how calling the game can be modernized.
First, the quick background on calling the game. It started for the radio audience. the PBP announcer would quickly describe the play, paint a visual for the audience at home, and explain what was unfolding in front of those who were not at the game and couldn't see the game.
With the advent of television...nothing really changed. Back in the day, that wasn't a big deal. a 15" black and white TV meant that you needed someone to explain that the Leafs were wearing blue jerseys, which player had the puck (they also didn't have nameplates on their jerseys), etc.
Fast forward to the 21st century. We're passing HD and now have 4D. my 42" plasma TV is obsolete, even those it's almost 3x the size of TVs from 30 years ago. 50-60" TVs are the new norm. you can read the players' nameplates on the screen if you have no idea what their jersey number is.
yet...you have some guy - usually in his 40s, and if it's Bob Cole, in their 80s - in a perch way in the nosebleeds, usually using binoculars to look at the ice and tell us what's going on. We can see what's unfolding better than they can (how many times do you hear the PBP team saying that a D-man scored when everyone at home, via the initial play and the replays, can see that a forward tipped it in?).
So do we really need someone telling us that so-and-so is skating down the wing with the puck and that he then shoots and then scored?
Baseball: different tempo than hockey. it's more about storytelling than describing anything that's unfolding. but you learn about the nuances of the game and the history of the player, team and game. the Climax = home run (PBP guy builds it up as the ball heads for the fence)
the Exclamation Point = emphasizing how good a play was, that there was a strike out.
Do we need a PBP guy? Yes. Otherwise there's lots of dead air. And we get good explanations of the plays and not just someone telling us about the play itself.
Summary = very much needed. Turns a dull sport into a more watchable sport.
Basketball: similar tempo to hockey. Similar play calling to hockey. Telling us what we're seeing.
The Climax = shot clock expiring and emphasizing urgency. But we have shot clocks on our screen that explain that.
Exclamation Point = telling us every time a player hits a (big) shot. Is it needed? Does it add to the viewer's excitement?
Summary = more for entertainment value, or edutainment. Not 100% vital to watching the game.
Football: halfway between baseball and basketball tempo-wise. PBP guy needs to fill in gaps. but what are they calling as the play unfolds? It's much more of an educational role than hockey's PBP guy is. you understand what's unfolding, you hear about formations, etc.
The Climax = time winding down. Builds excitement, not overly necessary but doesn't hurt.
Exclamation Point = when a touchdown's scored, they emphasize how big it is. can be useful at times if you're unsure that the player crossed the goalline.
Summary = football has it right. We learn the nuances of the game while the game's being announced.
So where can hockey go? Would you rather have an educational side to the game or a focus of what's going on behind the play, on the bench, etc? Or do you need someone telling you that "he shoots, he scores!"?
First, the quick background on calling the game. It started for the radio audience. the PBP announcer would quickly describe the play, paint a visual for the audience at home, and explain what was unfolding in front of those who were not at the game and couldn't see the game.
With the advent of television...nothing really changed. Back in the day, that wasn't a big deal. a 15" black and white TV meant that you needed someone to explain that the Leafs were wearing blue jerseys, which player had the puck (they also didn't have nameplates on their jerseys), etc.
Fast forward to the 21st century. We're passing HD and now have 4D. my 42" plasma TV is obsolete, even those it's almost 3x the size of TVs from 30 years ago. 50-60" TVs are the new norm. you can read the players' nameplates on the screen if you have no idea what their jersey number is.
yet...you have some guy - usually in his 40s, and if it's Bob Cole, in their 80s - in a perch way in the nosebleeds, usually using binoculars to look at the ice and tell us what's going on. We can see what's unfolding better than they can (how many times do you hear the PBP team saying that a D-man scored when everyone at home, via the initial play and the replays, can see that a forward tipped it in?).
So do we really need someone telling us that so-and-so is skating down the wing with the puck and that he then shoots and then scored?
Baseball: different tempo than hockey. it's more about storytelling than describing anything that's unfolding. but you learn about the nuances of the game and the history of the player, team and game. the Climax = home run (PBP guy builds it up as the ball heads for the fence)
the Exclamation Point = emphasizing how good a play was, that there was a strike out.
Do we need a PBP guy? Yes. Otherwise there's lots of dead air. And we get good explanations of the plays and not just someone telling us about the play itself.
Summary = very much needed. Turns a dull sport into a more watchable sport.
Basketball: similar tempo to hockey. Similar play calling to hockey. Telling us what we're seeing.
The Climax = shot clock expiring and emphasizing urgency. But we have shot clocks on our screen that explain that.
Exclamation Point = telling us every time a player hits a (big) shot. Is it needed? Does it add to the viewer's excitement?
Summary = more for entertainment value, or edutainment. Not 100% vital to watching the game.
Football: halfway between baseball and basketball tempo-wise. PBP guy needs to fill in gaps. but what are they calling as the play unfolds? It's much more of an educational role than hockey's PBP guy is. you understand what's unfolding, you hear about formations, etc.
The Climax = time winding down. Builds excitement, not overly necessary but doesn't hurt.
Exclamation Point = when a touchdown's scored, they emphasize how big it is. can be useful at times if you're unsure that the player crossed the goalline.
Summary = football has it right. We learn the nuances of the game while the game's being announced.
So where can hockey go? Would you rather have an educational side to the game or a focus of what's going on behind the play, on the bench, etc? Or do you need someone telling you that "he shoots, he scores!"?
