VC

You seem to be (now and in the past) taking my comments seriously enough to want to twist them around to deflect from your own mistake.

Also, what has my constant posting on the United board got to do with you not answering any of the numerous direct questions I have posed on this thread?

Finally, you seem to be in disagreement with my idea that we are subject to the TV controller and thus our opinions are based on his presentation of the match. If you disagree with this principle then why are you banging on about me not having serious opinions anymore...surely you cannot have it both ways? Either you agree that our opinions are moulded by Joe (thereby agreeing that we are all in the same boat), or you don't (thereby meaning that we all have our own opinion regardless of Joe).

You seem to want my view to be false and thus ridiculed but at the same time want it to be true in order for you to ridicule me! How convenient, but also... how desperate!

You may think that Carrick had a stinker because he gave the ball away a few times and lost a few tackles etc...you saw this on TV. Yet in reality Carrick closed down the opposition, he denied them space and kept so and so quiet by denying him any freedom...you saw this live (TV did not show the full picture).

....................

I have said Carrick was United's man of the match Billy. All deduced by me and not the controller of football TV Coverage.

No second hand opinions either.

Please try harder.

VC

Any chance you can answer a question on this thread? You know, one of the many that I have asked you directly?

Or are you just going to ignore them and repeat that I am somehow 'wriggling'...

At the end of the day, you for some reason took offence at what I said. You then decided to try and ridicule me but got your facts completely wrong. You then brushed that under the carpet but continued to try and score points! I repeated my viewpoint and my held opinion, yet you weren't bothered about that, you just seemed intent on repeating that I cannot be taken serious anymore (even though that statement itself is flawed due to your misunderstanding of my comments).

Now you seem intent on ignoring the questions that are posed, and constantly stating that I am waffling, wriggling etc...yet it is me who is trying to explain myself and you who will not answer simple questions!

How bizzarre! At least this proves one thing...my comments are deemed serious enough to provoke debate, that is a good thing is it not? At least you haven't called for me to be banned either, that seems to be the trend at the moment, it's quite refreshing to see a thread without grown men crying on it!

I'm out, I have a game to watch, a live game, not one where we don't get to choose what we look at

VC

Eh?

I was generalising when talking about Carrick, I wasn't referring to any particular match, I just used him as he seems to be the target for many United 'fans' criticism lately!

Glad to see you got the point though I was trying to make though!

I agree with BillyBob in that the TV pictures only show half the story. The viewer is only shown the replays and angles that the TV company offers, so it can be misleading at times. It doesn't mean that someone who watches TV has no right to voice an opinion, but like someone said earlier, watching in the ground and then watching on the box gives you far more insight.

I personally prefer being behind the goal so that I can see all the passing angles and the atmosphere is normally better.

comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
posted 1 minute ago

VC

Eh?

I was generalising when talking about Carrick, I wasn't referring to any particular match,

............

To what end. It hasn't helped your argument. My opinion was not influenced by the controllers at ESPN. And it wasn't formed by Ian Darke and Steve McManaman either.


As I keep saying to you, only the easilly led let there opinions be dictated to them by others.

General

Good points, but the big problem watching the game at the ground is you only have one viewpoint, and no chance of replays.

If you miss something you have to wait for TV.

I have had great seats at OT like right down where the players entrance is, and I have had poor ones up in the nose bleed section, where you can not actually see some parts of the field of play.

Good points, but the big problem watching the game at the ground is you only have one viewpoint, and no chance of replays.
=================================

For fouls and dodgy decisions I'd agree with you, helps to have a replay or 6 to make your mind up, but for off the ball movement, tracking back,passing angles and all that sort of thing nothing beats being at the ground. I don't need replays for that type of thing. Does depend where you're sat though.

I like American football and in that sport they have giant TV screens in all the stadiums which provide replays throughout the match. The crowds reaction to bad ref calls are hilarious. Great if they could do that in football but they don't for fear of riots I think.

but for off the ball movement, tracking back,passing angles and all that sort of thing nothing beats being at the ground.

..........

Very true, also appreciating the speed of the players.

I like American football and in that sport they have giant TV screens in all the stadiums which provide replays throughout the match. The crowds reaction to bad ref calls are hilarious. Great if they could do that in football but they don't for fear of riots I think.

...................

I watch around five or six games a week. It amazes me though how the officials can watch instant replays of contious rulings and still get it wrong.

Same here Vidicschin. The refs do sometimes get it wrong but their job is made harder by the constantly changing rulebook. On the whole I think it helps more than it hinders.

Away from the point, but the biggest nonsense in the NFL is the fairly new hitting rules, defensless receivers, blindside blocks, gets my goat that does.

General

I think some of the calls we see on hits are very inconsistant.

I can see the need for the illeagal block in the back call, but not when it is a push. This call seems a bit soft to me. Especially when, as you say, a receiver is fair game for being clattered from all sides.

Some of the pass interference calls are really lame, and these should be reviewable. A clasic example was the Redskins being foced twenty five yards back to their own goal line by an incorrect, and not even close call on Sunday.

you know this was a good topic with some good varried thoughts from different United fans. Then Billybob comes in with his usual drivel and it goes belly up, so well done Billybob!

Vidicschin, good point, the PI calls are often game changers and in some cases total rubbish. They need to sort that out or let the players play a bit more. Either way there will always be a grey line that separates good coverage from illegal.

On the blocking rule I was referring to the Hines Ward rule which prohibits blocking unsuspecting players head on, not from behind. You still see massive blocks which are allowed but the lack of consistency when a flag flies for the same block later in another match is messed up. NFL is a violent and highly enjoyable league, leave if that way.

Vidicschin, good point, the PI calls are often game changers and in some cases total rubbish. They need to sort that out or let the players play a bit more. Either way there will always be a grey line that separates good coverage from illegal.

..............

They bought in that rule because the Patriot corners were kicking the butt out of it when they won one of their superbowls.

What team do you follow, if any?

VC

"My opinion was not influenced by the controllers at ESPN"

Ok mate! I imagine it was your own TV feed that you were watching then? How much did it cost you to set up your own broadcasting company, how much did you bid during the last round of PL TV rights to secure your own feed just so that you can bypass my valid argument on this thread?

You were influenced by ESPN mate, like it or not, as it was their TV coverage that you had to watch. The process being as follows...

At a live game you watch what you want from your position, you have control. On TV you watch what ESPN (or whoever) dictates, thus you and your opinion are directly being influenced by them.

You are arguing against this as if you are not subject to the rules that everybody else is, it is simple enough to understand, your opinion is influenced by the TV pictures, and those pictures are not chosen by you!


Anyway, I agree with you on the pass interference rule, it irritates me when you have receivers constantly waving imaginary flags after nearly every close call...I also dislike the new review of all scoring plays, besides that I am ok with the rules and thus will allow them to continue without any meddling from me!

Ok mate! I imagine it was your own TV feed that you were watching then?

...............

Stop being a pleb Billy.

What team do you follow, if any?
=================================

I like a selection of teams really, Raiders and Ravens especially, but I enjoy watching great players do great things and great coaches out think one another. What about you?