BT Sport or BT Bias?

Hung said:
Esteban de la Sexface said:
These people commentating on City aren't City fans. They aren't bitter. People only hear bitterness because that is what they are listening for.

Michael Owen said we were the best team in the premier league and would win it 3 times last night. He said we were a joy to watch twice.

Not everybody lives in the same City bubble we do.

the major incidents from last night

1. Dawson disallowed goal - he was onside when the ball was played.
2. Penalty and red card - never a pen, never a red card
3. Dawson on Aguero - rough but there was never any intent to use the elbow.
4. Spurs trying to kick lumps out of us. - I'd expect it, it is what happens when you are the best.

On point 4, we may expect it, but we don't expect the TV 'pundits' to essentially condone it. I am not one of the 'agenda' exponents, but Owen is very clearly negative when it comes to us. It's understandable. We have replaced his first love, Man Utd, as the dominant football force and his second love, Liverpool (although those who once adored him now think he is a cnut of epic proportions), have been ousted from the top table by the likes of us and Chelsea. Add to that the fact that we turned him down when he was whoreing himself around with that pathetic self promotion brochure and we find ourself in a situation where he is inherently negative about us. He reminds me a little of Paul Merson a couple of years ago.

He was unqualified for the job but unlike Gary Neville, he has displayed no aptitude for punditry. The mixture of prejudice and ineptitude should concern BT.

He said last night we were the best team in the country, playing the best football and would win the league.

Give me one example of something he said that was prejudiced against City last night?

Again, I repeat, not everyone is a City fan. If he was constantly gushing about City then he would prejudiced in the other way.

He is nowhere near as bad as Tyler and Quinn together. It seems to be a form of amusement for those two to see what they can get away with.
 
Did Ade touch the ball? If he did, he was interfering with play and it was offside and no goal. If he didn't touch it, the goal should have stood.

I don't make the rules, but the rules say interfering is being in the line of sight of goalkeeper and ball (he wasnt) or touching the ball. Trying to touch the ball does not make you offside.
 
Get the distinct impression that Owen only says anything nice about us becasue he would look like a total bellend if he didn't after some of the passages of play City produce.

If the Rags were capable of creating anything like what City can on the pitch he'd be practically spunking onto the microphone.

Thankfully they can't.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Did Ade touch the ball? If he did, he was interfering with play and it was offside and no goal. If he didn't touch it, the goal should have stood.

I don't make the rules, but the rules say interfering is being in the line of sight of goalkeeper and ball (he wasnt) or touching the ball. Trying to touch the ball does not make you offside.

His head definitely brushed the ball but even if he didnt he would still have been interfering with play.
 
Lucky Toma said:
Chippy_boy said:
Did Ade touch the ball? If he did, he was interfering with play and it was offside and no goal. If he didn't touch it, the goal should have stood.

I don't make the rules, but the rules say interfering is being in the line of sight of goalkeeper and ball (he wasnt) or touching the ball. Trying to touch the ball does not make you offside.

His head definitely brushed the ball but even if he didnt he would still have been interfering with play.

Exactly. Joe didn't know that Ade would not make a firm connection. He would have been preparing himself to make a save from Ade's header. Therefore it has affected play. Therefore offside.
 
Found Owen incredibly boring but inoffensive last night.

The guy on the pitch at half time and full time seemed pretty bitter about the ref decisions though, even though Hargreaves and Ginola were stubbornly resisting his attempt to provoke a big 'it's a travesty' fest.
 
Esteban de la Sexface said:
These people commentating on City aren't City fans. They aren't bitter. People only hear bitterness because that is what they are listening for.

Michael Owen said we were the best team in the premier league and would win it 3 times last night. He said we were a joy to watch twice.

Not everybody lives in the same City bubble we do.

the major incidents from last night

1. Dawson disallowed goal - he was onside when the ball was played.
2. Penalty and red card - never a pen, never a red card
3. Dawson on Aguero - rough but there was never any intent to use the elbow.
4. Spurs trying to kick lumps out of us. - I'd expect it, it is what happens when you are the best.

Will Spurs appeal the red card? I think they won't!
Dawson on Aguero - it was a foul any day of the week and a booking.
Spurs kicking lumps out of us? Why didn't we get a string of free kicks and a few more yellow cards. There was one incident where Silva was clearly of the opinion that a yellow card should have been issued for trying to staple his foot to the turf!

And the offside - at 100mph most linos would have given that! And without the benefit of every possible angle so would most think it was offside!

I'm all for having results of games determined by whatever has gone on during the ninety minutes, but if we are not going to adopt video technology it is quite the waste of time to drag it into the discussion and re-ref a game!
 
omcfc said:
Lucky Toma said:
Chippy_boy said:
Did Ade touch the ball? If he did, he was interfering with play and it was offside and no goal. If he didn't touch it, the goal should have stood.

I don't make the rules, but the rules say interfering is being in the line of sight of goalkeeper and ball (he wasnt) or touching the ball. Trying to touch the ball does not make you offside.

His head definitely brushed the ball but even if he didnt he would still have been interfering with play.

Exactly. Joe didn't know that Ade would not make a firm connection. He would have been preparing himself to make a save from Ade's header. Therefore it has affected play. Therefore offside.


The assistant gave the offside because he said Dawson was off. Ade didn't come into the decision making process for him.

He was wrong. We dodged a bullet. Thank fuck.
 
Lucky Toma said:
Chippy_boy said:
Did Ade touch the ball? If he did, he was interfering with play and it was offside and no goal. If he didn't touch it, the goal should have stood.

I don't make the rules, but the rules say interfering is being in the line of sight of goalkeeper and ball (he wasnt) or touching the ball. Trying to touch the ball does not make you offside.

His head definitely brushed the ball but even if he didnt he would still have been interfering with play.
MOTD and more importantly Sherwood (who,presumably had spoken the Ade) confirmed that he had. So off side debate over? Maybe the wrong reasons given by the officials but they came to the right decision.
 
Esteban de la Sexface said:
omcfc said:
Lucky Toma said:
His head definitely brushed the ball but even if he didnt he would still have been interfering with play.

Exactly. Joe didn't know that Ade would not make a firm connection. He would have been preparing himself to make a save from Ade's header. Therefore it has affected play. Therefore offside.


The assistant gave the offside because he said Dawson was off. Ade didn't come into the decision making process for him.

He was wrong. We dodged a bullet. Thank fuck.

Not doubting you mate but where did you read or hear this?
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.