Media discussion - 2025/26

Blueknows said:
And whoever it was framed the question as "by the letter of the law it was the right decision" ....was it fuck we all know it was a foul
Click to expand...
Not criticising Pep here, but would have loved him to ask the 'journalist' to read out the law he was quoting so we could all see where it's stated. Because it isn't. It's an interpretation of the law, hence why you get slightly different things in the PL compared to CL.

I have no problem if the interpretation is that if player A goes to kick the ball and player B gets their leg/body in the way such that they are kicked before the ball is, then it's not a foul. If that's the interpretation, then yes, it was a goal and we should see a similar interpretation everywhere on the pitch whereby you can go through the back of someone providing you ultimately kick the ball. There will probably be a lot less penalties and we may see some serious injuries, but that's the interpretation so we all go with it.

Or it's not and the referee got it wrong at the time, which is fine at full pace and seeing it once. Thankfully we now have video assistance which will be able to tell the ref if he's missed something...
 
Luddite_Blue said:
Talkshite are currently broadcasting from St James' Park

They are literally going to be waving Newcastle fans off at the start of their journey.

If it was for Blyth Spartans playing at Chelsea in the 3rd round of the FA cup then maybe, but fucking unheard of for a cup tie between 2 PL teams.
Click to expand...
It's fucking relentless in the media, no wonder along with PiGMOL it's putting some fans off.
 
Marvin. said:
And the angle that Jamie Jackson took in the Guardian. Such a cynical twisted view. Pep talked about the horrors of war, and Jackson and the Guardian chose to focus on the UAE and Sudan. That's really not theright angle and it says a lo about JamieJackson and the Guardian that they take that press conference and use it to make a narrow club specific point when the bigger issue is war and its effect on people and how we tolerate this.
Click to expand...
To be fair Jamie knows as much about international politics as he does about football
 
SheeshKebab said:
Standing up for the right cause as always. At least when all is said and done, Pep will be on the right side of history.
Click to expand...
He has stayed so long because he knows we have been unjustly treated over the 115 case. Perhaps he will go into Catalonian politics when he is done with football. Pep is a remarkable person in so many ways.
 
Blue Since 76 said:
Not criticising Pep here, but would have loved him to ask the 'journalist' to read out the law he was quoting so we could all see where it's stated. Because it isn't. It's an interpretation of the law, hence why you get slightly different things in the PL compared to CL.

I have no problem if the interpretation is that if player A goes to kick the ball and player B gets their leg/body in the way such that they are kicked before the ball is, then it's not a foul. If that's the interpretation, then yes, it was a goal and we should see a similar interpretation everywhere on the pitch whereby you can go through the back of someone providing you ultimately kick the ball. There will probably be a lot less penalties and we may see some serious injuries, but that's the interpretation so we all go with it.

Or it's not and the referee got it wrong at the time, which is fine at full pace and seeing it once. Thankfully we now have video assistance which will be able to tell the ref if he's missed something...
Click to expand...
And the biggest problem is we all expect VAR to get it right but they dont and were all left not knowing what the fuck the rules are anymore ? different interpretation of the handball rule , natural arm positions and semi auto offsides that were supposed to speed things up ? only when it involved us now apparently there were too many bodies in the way for it to work ? I mean wtf ? who heard of the 5cm rule before ? only that didnt apply last week when it involved us
 
Luddite_Blue said:
Talkshite are currently broadcasting from St James' Park

They are literally going to be waving Newcastle fans off at the start of their journey.

If it was for Blyth Spartans playing at Chelsea in the 3rd round of the FA cup then maybe, but fucking unheard of for a cup tie between 2 PL teams.
Click to expand...
Looks like the Saudi's are cuter than City with getting the media "on side".
Seems odd for a football club to invite a radio station to broadcast from their ground, for an away match ?
No doubt Talksport will now support the cup- holders and how much the trophy means to them...
 
The Guardian sports department is the mouthpiece for a sports agency promoting it's own agenda and causes.

We've beaten them off the pitch a few times with some of their clients removed from their roles. They've sensed blood and gone in for the kill. As the old quote goes; "If you're gonna hit the king you'd better not miss"
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
He is & she does. This Rachel woman on the Monday Night Club clearly hasn't a clue and should stick to doing the ironing. ;-)
Click to expand...
I have always enjoyed your posts PB. They have been very informative over the last 3 years in regard to the 115 charges we face. As a female I take offense at your "should stick to ironing" comment, it's extremely sexist and doesnt reflect well on you.
 
Last edited:
bluemanchester said:
I saw a different camera angle of this yesterday where the ball didn't move forward till after it touched the shin of Gueli and the boot of Solanke had stopped moving after kicking Gueli. It was quite obvious as the ball was stopped till it was caught by Guelis shin. It must have been on tv but not sure where. Is this a case again of sky deliberately using an angle that is inconclusive like the one against Tottenham in the champions league. But they wouldn't do anything like that would they.
Oh yes they would.
On no they wouldn't
Oh yes they would;-)
Join the make believe pantomime that is pygmol, sky and var.
Click to expand...

bluemanchester said:
I saw a different camera angle of this yesterday where the ball didn't move forward till after it touched the shin of Gueli and the boot of Solanke had stopped moving after kicking Gueli. It was quite obvious as the ball was stopped till it was caught by Guelis shin. It must have been on tv but not sure where. Is this a case again of sky deliberately using an angle that is inconclusive like the one against Tottenham in the champions league. But they wouldn't do anything like that would they.
Oh yes they would.
On no they wouldn't
Oh yes they would;-)
Join the make believe pantomime that is pygmol, sky and var.
Click to expand...
Edit to my earlier post above. I have just seen this on a reel on facebook, sorry dont know how to upload it to here, maybe someone could. Anyway he is saying Solanke kicked Gueli before he connected with the ball, which in all honesty Solanke does seem to get a touch. But the commentator does say if you are going to be precise, he catches Gueli before his contact with the ball so it is a foul. So why didn't skys refwatch show this angle. Instead they showed Dermot and Ohara saying they discussed it the night before and Ohara changed his mind. If they had discussed it so much how come they missed this.
As I said wrlcome to the PYGMOL, sky and var pantomime, as obvious as pantomime men dressed as women, we can all see through it but they continue to say1000039111.jpg black is white.
 
bluemanchester said:
Edit to my earlier post above. I have just seen this on a reel on facebook, sorry dont know how to upload it to here, maybe someone could. Anyway he is saying Solanke kicked Gueli before he connected with the ball, which in all honesty Solanke does seem to get a touch. But the commentator does say if you are going to be precise, he catches Gueli before his contact with the ball so it is a foul. So why didn't skys refwatch show this angle. Instead they showed Dermot and Ohara saying they discussed it the night before and Ohara changed his mind. If they had discussed it so much how come they missed this.
As I said wrlcome to the PYGMOL, sky and var pantomime, as obvious as pantomime men dressed as women, we can all see through it but they continue to sayView attachment 182632 black is white.
Click to expand...
Sky are complicit. They are controlling the narrative in both their live broadcasts and their post match discussions. As you say, black is white.
 
55yr old teenager said:
I have always enjoyed your posts PB. They have been very informative over the last 3 years in regard to the 115 charges we face. This is why i as a female I take offense at your "should stick to ironing" it's extremely sexist and doesnt reflect well on you.
Click to expand...
I know Rachel, and have done for a good few years. We also used to work together briefly. Hence the ;-) at the end. I honestly would not have said that to someone I didn't know. Hope that reassures you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top