jamie carragher on sky

[Nick]

Found him contemporary and refreshing - liked the fact he was blunt round the edges and a bit off the cuff!

[The Horse's Mouth]

Found him contemporary and refreshing - liked the fact he was blunt round the edges and a bit off the cuff!

What kind of innuendo is that?

[Richard]

How do you enjoy someone? Is that a sexual thing?

What I do with my Monday nights is none of your business

 

[Strokes]

I think both Neville and Carragher are good pundits, certainly better than the majority imo... I like them both.

Sky go over the top analysing everything with that little machine though.

ah but do you 'enjoy' them?

[Fox92]

ah but do you 'enjoy' them?

 

I'd say no, but if we're on those terms, I don't 'enjoy' Match of the Day or Goals on Sunday either.

 

I think football is over analysed, way too much.

 

Show us some highlights; 'oh this is good for youngers, watch how Sturridge just walks into the Villa penalty area, picks up the ball and score'. I like stuff like that. But when they go into detail, it just bores me. 'watch Hazard and Oscar against Hull, look at the space and time, see if they do that today'. Well, no disrespect, but they won't, because playing Hull is a totally different thing to playing Manchester United.

[Jimothy]

I'd say no, but if we're on those terms, I don't 'enjoy' Match of the Day or Goals on Sunday either.

 

I think football is over analysed, way too much.

 

Show us some highlights; 'oh this is good for youngers, watch how Sturridge just walks into the Villa penalty area, picks up the ball and score'. I like stuff like that. But when they go into detail, it just bores me. 'watch Hazard and Oscar against Hull, look at the space and time, see if they do that today'. Well, no disrespect, but they won't, because playing Hull is a totally different thing to playing Manchester United.

Agree with that, but would also add that I hate the slowing down and angle changing of penalty decision. When Villa got their second penalty against Arsenal on the opening weekend, MOTD looked at about 4 different angles, slowed it right down and finished with Shearer saying the ref got it right because the third angle they looked at proved it was a foul. The third angle was an angle the ref was knowhere near seeing it from, so it's not proof that it was a penalty. It might prove it technically should have been a penalty but the only angle that will prove it's actually a penalty is the one the ref sees. I don't care if he got it right for the wrong reason, at the end of the day from what he saw he got it wrong, there's no way he could see it was a foul. I just wish they wouldn't use so many angles to justify or vilify a referee, the only one that matters is the one he sees.

[Danno]

Needs more time on there but quite knowledgable as well, would love to see Beckham there.

[Guest ttfn]

Agree with that, but would also add that I hate the slowing down and angle changing of penalty decision. When Villa got their second penalty against Arsenal on the opening weekend, MOTD looked at about 4 different angles, slowed it right down and finished with Shearer saying the ref got it right because the third angle they looked at proved it was a foul. The third angle was an angle the ref was knowhere near seeing it from, so it's not proof that it was a penalty. It might prove it technically should have been a penalty but the only angle that will prove it's actually a penalty is the one the ref sees. I don't care if he got it right for the wrong reason, at the end of the day from what he saw he got it wrong, there's no way he could see it was a foul. I just wish they wouldn't use so many angles to justify or vilify a referee, the only one that matters is the one he sees.

Nah.

A right call is a right call. A wrong call is a wrong call.

I have a great deal of sympathy for refs who make the wrong call because the angle they see it from is deceiving. Doesn't mean they are "right" though - you're sounding like DB11 (does he still post on here? I used to like his resolute defence of refs).

[Jimothy]

Nah.

A right call is a right call. A wrong call is a wrong call.

I have a great deal of sympathy for refs who make the wrong call because the angle they see it from is deceiving. Doesn't mean they are "right" though - you're sounding like DB11 (does he still post on here? I used to like his resolute defence of refs).

So if a ref can't see properly but from somewhere pluck out the right decision, you think that's a good ref? The ref in the Arsenal Villa game would, from the angle he had have not seen the point of contact that meant it was a penalty, you could only see that from another angle. So whilst it was a foul, he didn't know that, because he didn't see it, so how can he give it. It's like sending someone off for a head butt you didn't see. It might be right, but if you or your assistant didn't see it, how can you send him off? I'm actually saying the ref was wrong in the Villa game, I'm not defending him. You sure you read my post properly?

And DB11 would just say if its a penalty in the refs eyes its a penalty. He would pretty much say its the ref opinion, they can't be wrong, so I sound nothing like him.

[Guest ttfn]

So if a ref can't see properly but from somewhere pluck out the right decision, you think that's a good ref? The ref in the Arsenal Villa game would, from the angle he had have not seen the point of contact that meant it was a penalty, you could only see that from another angle. So whilst it was a foul, he didn't know that, because he didn't see it, so how can he give it. It's like sending someone off for a head butt you didn't see. It might be right, but if you or your assistant didn't see it, how can you send him off? I'm actually saying the ref was wrong in the Villa game, I'm not defending him. You sure you read my post properly?

And DB11 would just say if its a penalty in the refs eyes its a penalty. He would pretty much say its the ref opinion, they can't be wrong, so I sound nothing like him.

Yes I read your post properly but you don't appear to have extended me the same courtesy.

Your post was about whether "the ref got it right" not "good refs".

You have no idea whether the referee could tell from that angle. Just because you couldn't tell it was a penalty it doesn't mean that the referee (who will spend hours every day analysing similar decisions) couldn't tell.

And it's not like sending somebody off for a headbutt you didn't see. A less sensationalist analogy would be a headbutt where whether there was contact was unclear from your position, but, using the experience that you've gained through years as a professional, you can make an educated guess at what the right call is. Sometimes they might be wrong, but if referees never gave decisions where they didn't have a perfectly clear view, dozens of pretty obvious fouls would be missed every game.

My final comment re DB11 referred to the following sentence:

"The only [angle] that matters is the one the referee sees".

That's clearly nonsense. If a foul has been committed and the referee misses it because of his poor positioning (sympathy for them noted above aside) an injustice has been done. It does matter if a referee has missed something because he's not in the right position, because the wrong decision has been made. Sure, we all get on with our lives, but do you really expect SKY to just brush over that? Absolutely no problem with showing the referee's angle - in fact I'm all for it as a means of showing how tough a job they've got - but with the technology at their disposal it would be mental to spend their money analysing obscured pictures.

They could even get an ex-referee in (as I think they have in some countries) to help explain decisions and also to point out (using the multiple replays) where the referee should/could have been stood to make his decision easier. Who knows it might even help improve the quality of refereeing?

[Charnwood Norris]