Jump to content

True Faith & Bullies from the Tyne


wykikitoon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recent True Faith is decent.  Norman talks a lot of sense.  The more they talk and not student voice Dan Walker the better.  She was asked about Trippier and spent 5 minutes like a dripping tap talking shite to make one point. He's decent.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wykikitoon said:

Recent True Faith is decent.  Norman talks a lot of sense.  The more they talk and not student voice Dan Walker the better.  She was asked about Trippier and spent 5 minutes like a dripping tap talking shite to make one point. He's decent.

Yeah, Norman is canny. Shout also to special guest Stato Alex from the Toon Review  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

Is that who that well spoken kid was? Decent input from him tbf. 


yeah. The toon review is worth watching. I enjoy his contributions. You and fish will rate him as he loves an xg stat 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gemmill said:

Shout out to @Tomin the opening exchanges on Pod on the Tyne this week. 


What's the point in having a private Twitter account? Not like I tagged him in it :lol: 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

Caulkin and Payne are fucking livid at Waugh this week over the palace disallowed goal 😂

Waugh being overly contrary about the whole incident, saying that Willock was never going to get to the ball and that even without the push he would have gone into the keeper (and committed a foul).

 

I'm wondering which angles he has and hasn't seen to arrive at that conclusion as he's demonstratably incorrect with just about everything he says about it to the point where you have to wonder whether he's just drumming up controversy. Willock has a sudden increase in speed and change in direction outside of his control when Mitchell shoves him. Even with this Guaita is clearly going to be second to make a play on the ball behind Willock and based off the angle he was coming across he has no chance of saving it if Willock gets to head it.

 

There's no guarantee of course that Willock puts it on target, but the height, position, direction and speed at which the ball was moving would have made it a spectacular miss if he didnt. It was a fantastic header from Botman keeping it away from the keeper but squaring it across perfectly.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether Willock was likely to get there or not is irrelevant. He was fouled and fouled before he clattered into the goalkeeper. The laws of the game state the first offence is punishable, not the last or 'what may have happened'.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Craig said:

Whether Willock was likely to get there or not is irrelevant. He was fouled and fouled before he clattered into the goalkeeper. The laws of the game state the first offence is punishable, not the last or 'what may have happened'.

 

Agree totally, not sure what point Waugh was trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Craig said:

Whether Willock was likely to get there or not is irrelevant. He was fouled and fouled before he clattered into the goalkeeper. The laws of the game state the first offence is punishable, not the last or 'what may have happened'.

 

This completely. The game isn't about a series of chained hypotheticals ffs. And since the referee didn't look at the build up anyway by the sounds of it, he had no way of knowing that information in the first place.

 

Waugh is just being contrary. I suppose that makes the show more interesting than if all 3 of them just agreed with each other though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, OTF said:

 

Agree totally, not sure what point Waugh was trying to make.

 

Being contrary 'just for the sake of it' I should imagine which seems to be a requirement of modern day punditry - probably just to foster a debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBF to Waugh, I don't think he's like that at all.

He was saying he didn't think it was a pen.  He said he thought the goal should have stood, but didn't think it was a pen.  He also didn't think without the shove Willock wouldn't have scored.  Which they argued about.

IMO, that shove anywhere else on the pitch it's a FK.  Which is similar to the Schar foul.  Why Ref's shit their pants when incidents are in the box I don't know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

TBF to Waugh, I don't think he's like that at all.

He was saying he didn't think it was a pen.  He said he thought the goal should have stood, but didn't think it was a pen.  He also didn't think without the shove Willock wouldn't have scored.  Which they argued about.

IMO, that shove anywhere else on the pitch it's a FK.  Which is similar to the Schar foul.  Why Ref's shit their pants when incidents are in the box I don't know.

 

It was either a goal, or a penalty. The only reason it wasn't a penalty is the goal should have stood. 

Put it this way, had the ball bounced wide rather than into the net, would Salisbury have awarded a penalty? This is why I think match officials should have media duties or, at the very least, their match reports should be public domain so their rationale can be understood. 

The wall of silence only serves to heighten people's ire.

Edited by Craig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Craig said:

Put it this way, had the ball bounced wide rather than into the net, would Salisbury have awarded a penalty?

 

Of course he would have.

But Mason would have called him over to the review the situation. Shown him 10 seconds of Bob the Builder and told him to chalk it off as a goal kick!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Craig said:

 

It was either a goal, or a penalty. The only reason it wasn't a penalty is the goal should have stood. 

Put it this way, had the ball bounced wide rather than into the net, would Salisbury have awarded a penalty? This is why I think match officials should have media duties or, at the very least, their match reports should be public domain so their rationale can be understood. 

The wall of silence only serves to heighten people's ire.

 

That's a very good point if the ball hadn't gone in and one I haven't seen mentioned anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • wykikitoon changed the title to True Faith & Bullies from the Tyne

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.