BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The New Zealand team's defeat by South Africa in the semi-final of the Hong Kong

Rugby Sevens competition was reported in an item of sports news included on

Midday broadcast at noon on 24 March 1997. The item, in addition to showing the

scoring action, included a shot of an incident in the game when a New Zealand player

punched a South African.

Mrs Hawker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

shot of the punch breached the standards, first, as it was not necessary, and secondly,

because it was approved of and glamorised in the commentary.

Maintaining that the shot showed what actually happened on the field and that the

commentary used the shot to report the apparent frustration of the New Zealand team

at being comprehensively outplayed, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mrs Hawker referred her 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). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The New Zealand team at the Rugby Sevens competition in Hong Kong in March

1997 was comprehensively outplayed by the South African side in the semi-final. At

one stage during the game a member of the New Zealand team was shown punching a

much bigger South African player. The commentator related the punch to the pressure

apparent on the New Zealand team, and said:

... about the only pressure New Zealand did exert was on the chin of Andre

Venter. Peter Wood's short jab on the Springbok giant epitomised the sort of

David and Goliath effort that would be needed for a Kiwi comeback.

Mrs Hawker complained to TVNZ that the commentary suggested that the punch was

one of the few signs of action by New Zealand in the game, but did not state that a

punch in the face was unacceptable behaviour in rugby. Rather, she wrote, it

glamorised the behaviour and was in breach of standards V1 and V5 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the nominated standards. They read:

V1   Broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that any violence shown is

justifiable, ie is essential in the context of the programme.

V15   Sports announcers and commentators must avoid making comments which

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

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

TVNZ argued that as the comment followed pictures of another try being scored by

the South Africans, it did not suggest that the punch was the only action during the

game. Rather, it pointed to the pressure felt by the New Zealand team, TVNZ

commented, which New Zealand was not used to.

As the punch was shown to ensure that viewers were aware of the action on the field,

TVNZ said that standard V1 was not contravened. Furthermore, it added, the item

did not breach standard V15 as the punch was neither approved of nor glamorised.

While she referred her complaint to the Authority, Mrs Hawker maintained that the

item gave the impression that the behaviour was glamorised. That was evident, she

continued, by the reference to the classic David and Goliath struggle.

The Authority considers first the aspect of the complaint which alleged a breach of

standard V1. As the item showed what actually happened on the field and was part of

the action during the game, the Authority does not accept that it could be considered

gratuitous or otherwise in breach of the standard.

Turning to standard V15, the Authority observes that commentators must avoid

comments which appear to approve or glamorise violent behaviour outside the rules of

the sport. Punching, it notes, is not in accordance with the rules of rugby. Having

watched the item and listened to the commentary, the Authority does not accept that

the remarks either approved or glamorised the behaviour. It understood why it was

used to illustrate the sense of frustration felt by the players.

Whereas the Authority understands Mrs Hawker's point that the commentary should

have included an observation which clearly indicated disapproval of the punch, it does

not accept that the comment indicated clear approval. Accordingly, it does not accept

that standard V15 was breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Lyndsay Loates
Member
19 June 1997

Appendix

E A Hawker's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 27 March 1997

Mrs E A Hawker of Piha complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item of

sports news included on Midday broadcast at noon on 24 March 1997.

The item reported the results of the Hong Kong Rugby Sevens tournament. It

included a shot of the game between New Zealand and South Africa in which a New

Zealand player was shown punching a South African. Mrs Hawker claimed that the

accompanying commentary said it was one of the few signs of New Zealand action in

the game.

Pointing out that the item did not state that a punch in the face was unacceptable in

rugby, Mrs Hawker said that it also glamorised violent behaviour and breached

standards V1 and V15 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 10 April 1997

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ denied the implication

in the complaint that the commentator referred to the punch as "the only sign of

action". Rather, it wrote:

The item had been introduced by explaining that the former holders of the Hong

Kong Sevens title, New Zealand, had been swept aside by a stronger, faster

South African side. The shot of the punch being thrown was there for a

purpose; it reflected the frustration of the New Zealanders at their inability to

keep up with the fast running and taller South African players. The

contretemps between New Zealand winger Peter Woods and the huge Andre

Venter of South Africa showed how uneven the physical contest was. The

script, we suggest, was careful to place the scene in context. Here's what the

transcript says:

Commentator: "... oh, they haven't faced pressure like this New Zealand -

that's difficult. That's another try."

Reporter: "... about the only pressure New Zealand did exert was on the

chin of Andre Venter. Peter Wood's short jab on the Springbok giant

epitomised the sort of David and Goliath effort that would be needed for a

kiwi comeback.

As you can see, the script does not suggest that this was the only action in the

game; indeed the punching incident is immediately preceded by the scoring of

two South African tries.

It does correctly suggest that the New Zealanders were under a type of pressure

they are not used to, and that the frustration boiled over.

TVNZ said the punch was shown to ensure that viewers were aware of the action on

the field and that standard V1 was not breached. As the commentary neither

approved or glamorised the punch, TVNZ also denied that standard V15 was

breached.

Mrs Hawker's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 23 April

1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mrs Hawker referred her complaint to the

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

Maintaining that the item gave the impression that it glamorised the conduct shown,

she recorded:

I would like to comment that the item concerned didn't convey that a punch to

the jaw is frowned upon and not condoned. Instead it was used in the article to

convey the idea of the epic struggle (David and Goliath) the Kiwis were involved

in, in their attempts to match the performance of the other team.

TVNZ's Report to the Authority - 5 May 1997

TVNZ advised that it had nothing further to add.