Agree. Both great additions.

That SpiderCam is a fantastic piece if innovation.

We also need corner post cam now, that Watkins try could have looked spectacular(although it did anyhow).

Should be a video ref cam.

They tried it .............................. but after spending 5 minutes looking at all the different angle, they still got it wrong.

What next though?

Sprinkler cam, they pop up randomly out the ground, like a Peacock offload.

Post cam, to get the close up of Mickey Higham's full range of head down ass up scoot tries.

HullFC fan cam, just to see how he landed the blow to the KR fans nose.

I thought both were good additions. Obviously spidercam is only going to be used at big events, but I liked the different views, especially when just behind the attacking line as it showed the gaps in the defensive line. Best used as a replay though.

As for Refcam well I quite liked that too. It showed the refs view of incidents and despite their being a lot of pleading for decisions from players it showed that most players are actually quite respectful when talking to the ref.
if they could find some way of having ref cam without making the refs look like they've just come from an S&M parlour, that would be brilliant.

The Borg you mean, obviously though without the collective intelligence.

Spider cam, excellent

Ref cam, nah, silly

I'd suggest

Stevo cam, only films the hookers

Knob head cam, focus's on Ryan Bailey

Too much use of Spider cam while the game was going on - would work best for replays.

Ref cam is a bit of pointless gimmickry

Ref cam should stay, but only for ref assessing benefits.
We don't need it but saying that the camera crew were like kids with new toys, they'll get bored eventually and use them sparingly.

didn't like the spider cam while the game was going on, too far behind play to see what was going on sometimes and not the best angles, for replays though it is excellent but not for the live action.
2 of our tries were captured on spidercam and I couldn't work out what had happened, good job I saw them live!


ref cam.... not so sure, but what it did show that there seems to be more dissent creeping into the game which I don't like.

Didnt think they added anything to the coverage myself and at times, especially that spider cam thing, actually spoilt it.

Spider cam - great at times when it was getting in the right place, to put you close to the action. But they really got caught out when there was a line break and then you couldn't see. At that point I think the director should have cut to the main camera.

Ref cam - When you're used to quality camera work you don't really want to see shots like this. Possibly useful for the RFL to use, but not as much in a TV production.

Post cam is something BBC actually trialled during CC matches a few years ago.

spidercam reminds me of the view to get playing a computer game

but fair play to the rfl and sky for innovations

I like the ref cam purely for comedy value of the players faces up close.
Couldn't stop laughing when it showed Danny Houghton as a scrum was being formed. Looked like he was going in for a kiss.

I like spider cam but it was used to much imo and got in the way of the normal side view to much.

It wasn't the RFL's or Sky's innovation. The spider cam already exists and has been used very well in the NRL, by both Channel 9 and Fox Sports (who call theirs "Kopter Cam"icon_wink.gif.

Sky cameramen are obviously not used to the techniques of Spider Cam. If you watch games at ANZ Stadium it is used more sparingly than by Sky, but very effectively, and is not at all confusing or distorting.

Spider cam requires a high roofed stadium and can only be used at very modern stadia like Etihad and ANZ. It can never be operated at run down sheds like The Jungle, where instead of Spider Cam they just have an abundance of spiders.

(N. B. Thanks to the disastrous "reforms" proposed by Nigel Wood and his reactionary M62 [iuber alles [/icohorts, new stadia are no longer criteria of Super League and The Jungle likely will remain as the disgraceful home ground of Castleford).

Sky cameramen do not operate Spider Cam.

They're different - the FoxKopter is a remote controlled aerial camera with 8 motors; spider-cam is on wires and so has a more limited range of movement. From what I've seen however, the quality of images from spider-cam is significantly better than the flying one.

Refcam was, I believe, first used in Australian RU a number of years ago.

You're right that none are RL innovations, but good on the RFL and the broadcaster for trying them out; I'm not sure that refcam did much other than capture a number of incidents of dissent, but the spider-cam produced some fantastic images - it was a bit jarring at times, but I enjoyed it; the perspective of Danny McGuire's disallowed try at the end of the Leeds v Wigan game was excellent.

For me, spider cam alright for wendy ball ,but rugby is much to fast and has more going on all over the field of play, to make any use of it live.

I'll go with the general opinion that the spider cam worked well when replying breaks, but wasn't great for real time footage.

I feel the spider cam is good for replays by like others say not great during actual play, particularly if you are following the defending team. I just feel you don't get a good enough perspective of a teams whole defensive line as you do from the side angle.

I enjoyed the spider cam but i do agree that it was used too much during live play.
The ref cam was used better on Premier Sports a few weeks ago, especially the shot of the full back tackling someone on a break.
But Sky were getting used to using that equipment so it was all new to them, they'll review the footage and see what worked and what didn't and implement that the next time they use that type of technology.... probably at the Grand Final.

Spidercam is ideal for checking if anyone is offside when a kick is put through.

Spidercam - good for replays, less so otherwise as it's a bit disorientating and you don't get a holistic picture of the action.

Refcam - shouldn't be overused as it looks like a poorly edited version of Peep Show with tattoos and muscles. Used in replays sparingly and it could be ok.