A crestfallen Dylan Moore after his final kick fell short. Not that TV viewers could tell it had. Photo: AFL MEDIA

Shortly after last Saturday night’s thrilling Hawthorn-Collingwood draw, AFL social media accounts ran some entertaining footage of the MCG crowd trying to work out what on earth had happened to Dylan Moore’s post-siren kick to win the game for the Hawks.

It’s a pity there wasn’t an equivalent shot of viewers around the country watching the Fox Footy TV coverage in their loungerooms. Because the reactions would have been exactly the same. Bewildered.

Quite aside from the perennial good and bad commentator debates, there’s been an increasing amount of complaints in the last few years about both the camerawork and direction of AFL games on television. But seldom have they reached such a crescendo as Saturday night, because this was a shocker.

As Moore ran in, a longer shot offered all you needed, player with ball running in to kick, the goals and players clustered in front of them. But for some inexplicable reason, the same camera then zoomed in too close on the ball.

As the kick dropped, all the viewer could see was the upper half of the posts and the crowd behind them. Collingwood player Sam Swadling’s desperate spoil which saved the Pies the draw was completely out of picture.

It was at least five seconds before commentator Anthony Hudson’s: “We still wait … it’s short!” established the result. Few if any big moments in football history have been captured less satisfyingly than this one.

But these days, any week you will see and hear dozens of complaints along similar lines. Unlike this occasion, though, usually they’re about the direction of the broadcast and the incessant cutting between different cameras from people who seem to think they’re making the latest piece of European arthouse cinema instead of covering a game of football.

Everyone has their “favourite” examples. Like the Michael Frederick dash towards goal in Perth earlier this season where we had the side-on wide shot, the behind goal front-on shot and the ground level close-up all within literally two or three seconds.

Dramatic, certainly. But forget knowing whether Frederick kicked the goal or not, by the end of that sequence the trick was knowing whether this was a football game or a Hitchcock thriller.

Or how about Jamie Elliott’s Mark of the Year on Anzac Day in 2024, when the standard wide shot tracked him beautifully as he leapt until just before he took the ball in his hands, when we were switched to a ground level shot from behind, completely destroying our appreciation of just how high he’d jumped. Why?

Or how about Beau McCreery’s gallop towards goal in the 2023 Grand Final? Was it a goal or a point? Who knew because of another stupid camera switch. Unwatchable.

Constantly, viewers tear their hair out about the constant jump cuts causing a loss of perspective, a particular favourite seemingly going from a wider shot to a tight close-up when a player is near goal, so there’s suddenly no idea where the goals are and how far from them the player is.

Yes, those 4K close-ups look dramatic, the blood, the sweat, the tears all in microscopic detail. Unfortunately, most of us would rather know where the ball is and how likely a score is from the next bit of action, a point which regularly seems lost on those in charge.

PLEASE HELP US CONTINUE TO THRIVE BY BECOMING AN OFFICIAL FOOTYOLOGY PATRON. JUST CLICK THIS LINK.

Ground level cameras look great, but they can rarely give us much if any idea of which teammates of the player with the ball are free, which opponents are chasing them and how close they are.

Then there’s the incessant, almost schizophrenic cutaways to the coach’s box, the interchange bench and the crowd during the shortest breaks in play, or sometimes even during play.

Missed centre ball-ups have become a regular occurrence because we’re instead being treated to a third or fourth replay of what we’ve already seen from yet another angle, or we’re instead still dwelling on the player who has just kicked a goal.

Why is this happening, and at a time when the game is dissected more forensically than ever, TV coverage is getting worse?

Veterans of the industry say there’s several reasons. But the most commonly cited are less experience behind the cameras and in the broadcast vans, less preparedness to sufficiently train those running the show, outsized egos trying to put a new, personal stamp on coverage, and too many “toys” to play with.

There’s a lot more bells and whistles attached to TV coverage now than 20 years ago. It’s the lack of common sense in using them which infuriates those who were part of that earlier time.

Why, for example, not stick to a fairly simple rule of thumb? A basic wider shot for the bulk of the action, throw to a close-up when there’s a long enough pause in play for the viewer to adjust their perception, and leave the alternative angles, ground shots, grandstand shots, drone shots etc. for the replays, when we all know what has actually happened?

Week after week, social media feeds are full of frustrated football fans offering increasingly agitated versions of that same advice. Do the broadcasters refuse to listen because they think they know better?

Like many sections of the media, this is another in which the levels of experience and expertise aren’t what they used to be.

Think back to televised football of the 20th century and the fact that most fans knew the names even of Channel 7 football directors like Alf Potter and Don Fitzsimmons. Their successors didn’t get a spot in the chair until they had spent enough hours with their “Ls” on.

Most importantly, though, there was an overriding principle that the job at hand was simple. Show people at home what is going on in the game as clearly, simply and comprehensively as possible. Doesn’t sound that hard, does it? But it’s a principle which appears to have been forgotten.

So guys, here’s a message from us footy fans who watch a lot of it on the TV. How about you just do your job and remember you’re covering a game of football, not putting together an entry for the Cannes Film Festival?

This article first appeared at ESPN.