The Independent Television Commission have been mentioned by Channel 4 as one of the parties involved in Backlash being aired next Sunday in the UK on a fifty-minute delay. Whilst previous experience has got UK fans (including me) concerned that the event is to be heavily edited, perhaps this look at the various rules regarding the placement of commercials means that ads ARE to blame, and that nothing more sinister should be read into the situation...

I have been reading the ITC codes on Advertising and the scheduling of advertising and they make for a compelling argument that the ITC's interest in Backlash is purely from an advertising point of view, and that sensitive to what has gone on in the past, we are all fearing the worst...

5.1 Placing of Breaks
Breaks within programmes may be taken only at a point where some 
interruption in continuity would, in any case, occur (even if there were no 
advertising) and such natural breaks must not damage the integrity or value 
of the programme in which they occur.

What if the complaints that Channel 4 received about the Royal Rumble AREN'T related to content, but the fact that adverts "damaged the integrity and value" of the pay-per-view? I find this to be an extremely plausible reason for why the ITC might have become involved in this mess.

6.1 Definition

For the purposes of these rules a 'natural break' is defined as a point at 
which some interruption in programme continuity would in any case occur were 
the programme not to be interrupted by advertising. Rule 5.1 requires that 
such natural breaks must not damage the integrity or value of the programme 
in which they occur. The following guidance applies to the interpretation of 
these requirements. The rules in this Section apply to the placing of all 
breaks, whether or not they contain advertising.

6.7 Sport

(a) Breaks may be taken during intermissions of the particular sport being 
televised ­ eg, half time, between races, between innings, etc.

Or, as Channel 4 attempted to do, between matches. Funny how, from these rules it would appear that it is not permitted to have ads air during the Royal Rumble match itself (which, to the credit of Channel 4, it did not) whilst in 1997, the delayed coverage of the Rumble on Sky *DID* have ads in that match...

(b) In live coverage of long continuous events breaks may be taken at points 
where the focus of coverage shifts from one point to another of the event ­ 
eg, after a resume of the current placings in a race and before refocusing 
on a particular section of the race. Breaks may also be taken adjacent to 
cut-away discussion or background film insert sequences.

Under the terms of this section, it would appear that Channel 4 complied with the code, given that backstage interviews and video-recaps could easily be regarded under the umbrella of "cut-away discussion and background film inserts".

(c) Where edited recorded sport programmes are shown, break points should be 
selected to avoid creating the impression that some part of the event ­ eg, 
a round in a boxing match ­ has been omitted to accommodate advertising.

As Backlash is going to be on a fifty-minute delay (although my OWN opinion is that they could have accomplished the same with maybe only 15 mins' delay) Channel 4 will be able to comply with this section, since they can break for advertising, and then role the tape where it left off prior to the break. (For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Channel 4 left in things like the Special Offer for those North American viewers sending in their cable/satellite bills, or the promo for Judgement Day on May 21st...)

Perhaps this will persuade some that we have maybe jumped to the WRONG conclusions, given that the ITC must regulate the placement of adverts in, as well as the content of, commercial television programmes. Bear in mind, that I have correctly pointed out that the ITC cannot 'vet' or pre-judge programmes before broadcast (although if a licensee, e.g. Channel 4, were experiencing trouble with the ITC over a previously-transmitted, similar programme, I would tend to think that it would attempt to inflict changes to any broadcast of a programme in the same vein, so as to avoid further conflict with the ITC.)

6.11 Relays of Overseas Broadcasts
Where an ITC licensee relays a live programme feed from an overseas 
broadcaster, the break pattern of the originating broadcaster may be taken. 
Where advertising inserted by the originating broadcaster is also taken, the 
ITC licensee is responsible for ensuring that he has the ability to block or 
otherwise replace the transmission of any material that does not comply with 
ITC Codes and rules.

Wouldn't this section mean that as the break pattern taken by the orginating broadcaster is ZERO, then Channel 4 could do so as well? I believe that this is where the difference between Sky and C4 is all too apparent. BSkyB are prepared to forego advertising revenue and follow this rule, but Channel 4 cannot afford to and must ad commercials, thereby falling foul of the other rules of the ITC...

If Backlash ends up being uncut, at the end of the day, I won't be so disappointed that it didn't air live: after all, we only have to endure two more PPVs on Channel 4, who surely have ZILCH chance of being invited to bid for these events in 2001 by WWFE...

OK, so that was probably COMPLETELY BORING (although I hope not) for my North American cousins, but haven't things gotten ridiculous when instead of looking forward to a PPV, getting in the crisps (Brit-speak for chips) and beer, etc, you have to become a freakin' expert on television regulation to make sense of what's happening???

I will update [slash] readers of any changes that may unfold over the week, and if Backlash airs with obvious edits, I (along with Kirk and Martin: where *IS* the Marvellous one, anyway?) will no doubt regale everyone with what we missed...