Before the game, during half time & now after the game it is all about Charlton. Sick of it.
Was just thinking the same. Can't understand the Charlton love in for the life of me.
Jim & Jamie mentioned it, that there were three punters up on the gantry, 2 ex Charlton players and 1 ex manager, no Fulham representation. Perhaps Sky have their favorites and we're not one of them.
Yep - definitely bias. Not sure why they are giving scumbag Bowyer so much air time and praise. And now he just said charlton should have fouled cav to stop him scoring - he thinks his players are too innocent
Keith Andrews .Who is he?
They said they kept Mitro quiet. Having a laugh. He was so all over them the only way they could contain him was to grapple,hold & shirt pull him at every set piece. Mitro gave his all & is my MOTM.
Just thinking the same thing, driving me mad, it was like the Charlton show with the pundits 🙄
Makes me even more happy to have been at the match then!
Mind you it takes two teams to make a good competitive match so Charlton deserve some praise - first half particularly!
Bein sports was all Fulham the 2 nd half
Quote from: Logicalman on October 05, 2019, 02:44:42 PM
Jim & Jamie mentioned it, that there were three punters up on the gantry, 2 ex Charlton players and 1 ex manager, no Fulham representation. Perhaps Sky have their favorites and we're not one of them.
If we are not 1 of them why do they keep showing our matches, just to disrupt our fixture list?
Usually I don't care what commentators and "pundits" say, but I must agree that today the co-commentator (Keith Andrews?) annoyed me with excessively pro-Charlton comments, culminating in him saying that it would have been a "travesty" if Charlton had not got at least a draw. A "travesty"? They had slightly the better of the first half, we had much the better of the second half - Charlton defended with determination and we didn't get a third goal, so good luck to them, but it would hardly have been a "travesty" if we had won. It would have been a case of us taking one of our many chances, or one of the two shots which hit the bar going on - hardly against the run of play.
Was about to put the 2nd halve on, but perhaps better of to have sound down then...
Watched 2nd halve and talk after, totally agree all about Charlton nothing absolutely nothing about Fulham...
I've never undertood why they allow Keith Andrew anywhere near a TV studio.
Quote from: grandad on October 05, 2019, 02:46:58 PM
They said they kept Mitro quiet. Having a laugh. He was so all over them the only way they could contain him was to grapple,hold & shirt pull him at every set piece. Mitro gave his all & is my MOTM.
If they think Charlton defense kept Mitro quiet, then i am looking forward to how he goes with a defense that fails to keep him quiet.
We have a Moneybags reputation in the Championship which encourages Sky to load the pundits panel and favour the financial underdogs.
I am surprised that no one ha picked up on the fact that they considered Mitro's goal to be offside although I have not seen their video proof.
Don't have it,they are ruining football.
There will come a time when there want be any
3pm Sat kick offs.
What next Thursday morning games at 9-30am.😵
Quote from: The Rational Fan on October 06, 2019, 09:15:39 AM
Quote from: grandad on October 05, 2019, 02:46:58 PM
They said they kept Mitro quiet. Having a laugh. He was so all over them the only way they could contain him was to grapple,hold & shirt pull him at every set piece. Mitro gave his all & is my MOTM.
If they think Charlton defense kept Mitro quiet, then i am looking forward to how he goes with a defense that fails to keep him quiet.
My favourite Mitro moment yesterday was when he flattened 2 of their defenders at a corner.
Quote from: Stoneleigh Loyalist on October 06, 2019, 09:35:45 AM
We have a Moneybags reputation in the Championship which encourages Sky to load the pundits panel and favour the financial underdogs.
I am surprised that no one ha picked up on the fact that they considered Mitro's goal to be offside although I have not seen their video proof.
Mitro was off side in the build up but should have had a stone wall penalty in the first half. I try not to "buy" the bias line, but gave up with SKY pundits a couple of years ago as the bias was so unprofessional that it was a waste of time listening to it.
Quote from: res on October 06, 2019, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: Stoneleigh Loyalist on October 06, 2019, 09:35:45 AM
We have a Moneybags reputation in the Championship which encourages Sky to load the pundits panel and favour the financial underdogs.
I am surprised that no one ha picked up on the fact that they considered Mitro's goal to be offside although I have not seen their video proof.
Mitro was off side in the build up but should have had a stone wall penalty in the first half. I try not to "buy" the bias line, but gave up with SKY pundits a couple of years ago as the bias was so unprofessional that it was a waste of time listening to it.
So the panel loaded with Charlton connections is acceptable ? .
Only commentator that has ever been pro Fulham to my knowledge is the Northern Irish Chap on Channel 5, he has always spoken well of us and loved our to the Europa League Final and Play Off final......Cant remember his name?
Quote from: SuffolkWhite on October 06, 2019, 11:09:54 AM
Only commentator that has ever been pro Fulham to my knowledge is the Northern Irish Chap on Channel 5, he has always spoken well of us and loved our to the Europa League Final and Play Off final......Cant remember his name?
Colin Murray .Does Quest channel EFL highlights.
It was beyond bias to the point of farce . Andrews described every fulham foul as a bit nasty/naughty , every charlton foul as not much in it . Bowyer afterwards saying that Cav's goal was simple and poor , the panel all nodding agreement . No recognition of the pace and power , the thought to cut across the defender to take him out of the game or firing it with his weaker foot into the top corner .
They were desperate to get Mitro sent off , i think the big man handled himself very well yesterday , easy for him to have seen red.
We probably created more chances than we did wednesday night . I really can't see what charlton could have complained about if we had won . Hats off they upset us in the first half and scored a good goal but there was only one team that wanted full time.
Quote from: Stoneleigh Loyalist on October 06, 2019, 09:35:45 AM
We have a Moneybags reputation in the Championship which encourages Sky to load the pundits panel and favour the financial underdogs.
I am surprised that no one ha picked up on the fact that they considered Mitro's goal to be offside although I have not seen their video proof.
He looked pretty clearly offside when Cairney headed the ball. The Charlton defender was all over him, but he was behind him.
Here is an image of it.
(https://i.imgur.com/zFCPCbW.png)
Quote from: Tabby on October 06, 2019, 12:15:49 PM
Quote from: Stoneleigh Loyalist on October 06, 2019, 09:35:45 AM
We have a Moneybags reputation in the Championship which encourages Sky to load the pundits panel and favour the financial underdogs.
I am surprised that no one ha picked up on the fact that they considered Mitro's goal to be offside although I have not seen their video proof.
He looked pretty clearly offside when Cairney headed the ball. The Charlton defender was all over him, but he was behind him.
Here is an image of it.
(https://i.imgur.com/zFCPCbW.png)
But he didn't go for the ball and under the current (in my mind wrong) rules he was not interfering with play. When the ball came back to him he was both onside and receiving the ball from an opposition player so no problem.
Everyone is biased to their own team. Even if you watch a match and start off unbiased eventually take sides. That is unless you are totally heartless. It was a good game for anyone who started as a neutral
For Charlton's 2nd goal they had 3 players in an offside position when the header was glanced in. No different to Mitro's situation.
Quote from: grandad on October 07, 2019, 09:41:40 AM
For Charlton's 2nd goal they had 3 players in an offside position when the header was glanced in. No different to Mitro's situation.
It is very different. The 3 players in an offside position didn't pounce on the rebound and score from it. If Cairney had scored that header it would be the same.
I get being one-eyed to wrongs, but this is getting a bit ridiculous.
On the subject of bias then what is the reason why Sky exists? The simple answer is that it exists to make money and whilst it may, rather superficially IMO, seem to care about the customer who 'phones up to say that they want to cancel their subscription, as a corporation it really couldn't give a damn as long as the revenue from advertising, sponsorship and its own 'child' businesses continues to steadily rise in real terms if not exponentially or better. They will play to the audiences that they see as forming a majority interest, potentially or in real terms. Charlton rising from the ashes of a club that once achieved greatness in an area where there are no similar attractions means a potentially better audience for the media (e.g. more subscribers).
That bias is in everything they do. Don't expect anything remotely resembling neutrality or decent customer service from a company that doesn't understand the meaning of those words, and cares even less to spend the money necessary to provide such things.
I'm just watching the post-match Charlton love-in from Sky.
What a load of sycophantic bollocks. Mitrovic "Offside" goal, if their defender had marked Mitro rather than wrestling him to hold him back Mitro would not have been ahead of him. And Bowyer telling them that they should have fouled Cav for his goal is a shocker for a manager to admit on telly.
Right I'm off to get my hair dyed pink like their striker...
Quote from: grandad on October 05, 2019, 02:46:58 PM
They said they kept Mitro quiet. Having a laugh. He was so all over them the only way they could contain him was to grapple,hold & shirt pull him at every set piece. Mitro gave his all & is my MOTM.
Just seen some quotes from the Charlton centre backs....Mitro gave them "the toughest game of the season" and "it was hard to compete with his strength and competitiveness". Just ignore the Sky pundits, they really are clueless.
In the Mail yesterday the whole of the report was about a Charlton player who is on loan from that lot down the road. Not a single word about us. :031:
092.gif
Quote from: Tabby on October 07, 2019, 10:17:23 AM
Quote from: grandad on October 07, 2019, 09:41:40 AM
For Charlton's 2nd goal they had 3 players in an offside position when the header was glanced in. No different to Mitro's situation.
It is very different. The 3 players in an offside position didn't pounce on the rebound and score from it. If Cairney had scored that header it would be the same.
I get being one-eyed to wrongs, but this is getting a bit ridiculous.
The ball had been put back in play by the Charlton keeper and by the time he played the ball Mitro was on side as pr the comment above.
Quote from: Bill2 on October 08, 2019, 11:15:38 AM
Quote from: Tabby on October 07, 2019, 10:17:23 AM
Quote from: grandad on October 07, 2019, 09:41:40 AM
For Charlton's 2nd goal they had 3 players in an offside position when the header was glanced in. No different to Mitro's situation.
It is very different. The 3 players in an offside position didn't pounce on the rebound and score from it. If Cairney had scored that header it would be the same.
I get being one-eyed to wrongs, but this is getting a bit ridiculous.
I despair on the number of supporters who do not have a clue about the offside rule. It does not matter if the ball came back off the keeper when Cairney headed the ball Mitro was offside. The rules clearly state that there has to be 2 defenders between Mitro and the goal to be onside ( does not have to be the keeper it can be ant two defenders) so yes the goal should not have stood.
However Mitro was clearly pulled offside by force from the defender so a penalty could have been awarded.
The ball had been put back in play by the Charlton keeper and by the time he played the ball Mitro was on side as pr the comment above.
Mitro was in an offside position at the critical time of the header by virtue of the defender playing the man and not the ball. Anywhere else on the pitch it is a foul but referees make a rod for their own back by not giving them in the penalty area. I counted four other instances of Charlton defenders playing the man and not the ball in the area because they know this referee (Stroud) seldom (if ever) gives them. It is something that has long needed to be kicked out of the game.
It wouldn't have hurt the rule makers to have added clear dimensions to the rules in the changes made last summer since it was briefly top agenda but then drifted back to how much can you get away with. It should be enforced at all times no matter where it happens but referees apply it arbitrarily and not particularly thoughtfully. After a spate of penalties there would be fewer players willing to run the risk of giving fouls away but the football authorities just don't learn their lessons because they think it is much harder to referee when they are forced into decisive action like that rather than being free to ignore it.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned their second goal. Their number 17 was clearly offside- I've got image of it but won't let me upload.
Quote from: Jim© on October 08, 2019, 02:38:00 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned their second goal. Their number 17 was clearly offside- I've got image of it but won't let me upload.
But he was not interfering with play so he is ok.
Quote from: sarnian on October 08, 2019, 03:02:34 PM
Quote from: Jim© on October 08, 2019, 02:38:00 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned their second goal. Their number 17 was clearly offside- I've got image of it but won't let me upload.
But he was not interfering with play so he is ok.
No, he was offside the second that Pratley swung the ball in. Bobby DR was almost playing him on, but he was offside and moving back to an onside position, hence not given off. I've got the still, just can't upload it.
That Charlton centre half should go on Strictly Come Dancing, he'd win it at a canter.
Charlton's first goal was a mile offside - Sky showed one replay which showed their goalie hoofing it to the offside individual who ran back onside and won the header to create the attack. Had he not benefitted from such a long run , I would suggest he would have failed to get the desired evalation. Was same 'lino' who missed Fulham's one (do linesmen get anything right?).
Sky moaned about Fulham's offside goal but only showed Charlton's once while Keith Andrews failed to observe as he prattled on about nothing whatsoever. Sky's all-Charlton was also irritating, why they have a penchant for teams named after bald-headed footballers is beyond me....
Quote from: sarnian on October 08, 2019, 03:02:34 PM
Quote from: Jim© on October 08, 2019, 02:38:00 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned their second goal. Their number 17 was clearly offside- I've got image of it but won't let me upload.
But he was not interfering with play so he is ok.
The No 17 scored so how was he not interfering with play ?
Quote from: Nick Bateman on October 10, 2019, 07:14:32 PM
Charlton's first goal was a mile offside - Sky showed one replay which showed their goalie hoofing it to the offside individual who ran back onside and won the header to create the attack. Had he not benefitted from such a long run , I would suggest he would have failed to get the desired evalation. Was same 'lino' who missed Fulham's one (do linesmen get anything right?).
Sky moaned about Fulham's offside goal but only showed Charlton's once while Keith Andrews failed to observe as he prattled on about nothing whatsoever. Sky's all-Charlton was also irritating, why they have a penchant for teams named after bald-headed footballers is beyond me....
Their first was from a goal kick wasn't it? You can't be offside from a goal kick. Their second was 100% offside.
