Scaramanga
Well-Known Member
Probably screamed that when she was with McLaughlin!
Something tells me the only time Gollum made her scream was when he forgot to flush a jobby
Probably screamed that when she was with McLaughlin!
Boy did, McFadden did. I never disputed this. Walker may have been forced to backtrack. I already told you I turned over.Okay thanks for making it easy.
1) She does indeed say she is playing devils advocate and asks whether there is an argument that a player can go over when a challenge is made even if no contact. McFadden then says possibly but that’s not what happened in this situation.
2) Walker says there may be minimal contact and he’s gone over feeling that.
3) Never met her in my puff.
Now do me the courtesy and answer my question. Did Boyd, McFadden, Walker and then McCoist agree it wasn’t a penalty?
Is she not supposed to be there as a presenter and not someone giving her opinion?
How many times is it going to be mentioned she thought it was a penalty.
So you have the presenter, O'neil and Walker saying it was a penalty and Boyd, Ally and Mcfadden saying it wasn't yet Walker has just said it is 3-1 for a penalty.
Amatuer bullshit on scottish sky as usual.
Clearly in the minority but i think she’s lovely.
Boy did, McFadden did. I never disputed this. Walker may have been forced to backtrack. I already told you I turned over.
So someone starts a thread saying this:
I don’t understand your claim of saying this thread is embarrassing. Everything claim people have made against Sky in here is true. You have even finally admitted this yourself.
Seems you owe some FFers an apology for your “embarrassing“ claim and siding with the bias presenter over bears.
The evidence was literally broadcast on tv. You keep arguing black is white.Walker at no point said it was a penalty and was clear at the end it wasn’t. So the 3-1 in the original post which was supposed to be an example of the bias was in our favour.
You have already said you haven’t seen it so you might want to sit the rest of this out.
She's a mentally challenged wee cow with an agenda.Is she not supposed to be there as a presenter and not someone giving her opinion?
How many times is it going to be mentioned she thought it was a penalty.
So you have the presenter, O'neil and Walker saying it was a penalty and Boyd, Ally and Mcfadden saying it wasn't yet Walker has just said it is 3-1 for a penalty.
Amatuer bullshit on scottish sky as usual.
Ach I wouldn’t get excited about it #55Is she not supposed to be there as a presenter and not someone giving her opinion?
How many times is it going to be mentioned she thought it was a penalty.
So you have the presenter, O'neil and Walker saying it was a penalty and Boyd, Ally and Mcfadden saying it wasn't yet Walker has just said it is 3-1 for a penalty.
Amatuer bullshit on scottish sky as usual.
Did you get your Labrador to type that?Clearly in the minority but i think she’s lovely.
The evidence was literally broadcast on tv. You keep arguing black is white.
You are trying to create a false narrative that only a conversation at the end of the game counts.Walker at no point said it was a penalty and was clear at the end it wasn’t. So the 3-1 in the original post which was supposed to be an example of the bias was in our favour.
You have already said you haven’t seen it so you might want to sit the rest of this out.
Not only FT is relevant.You’ve just said everything on this thread is true. The 3-1 in favour of a penalty is nonsense.
Why are you lying? You’ve already said you didn’t see it so I’ll let you go back and watch it.
You are trying to create a false narrative that only a conversation at the end of the game counts.
We have been discussing the narrative they created throughout the whole match and at half time.
You are trying to force through an opinion that Walker was aligning himself with it not being a pen when he said 3-1. Others on the thread have indicated they believe Walker was confused and assumed that McFadden and O'Neill had taken the green eyed view that it was Celtic and must be a pen, when in fact McFadden had made an honest call. So this part is question.
Many Rangers fans over man months have questioned Barbour's impartiality relating to not just her outrageous take and muddying of the waters on what is a 100% blatant dive and act of simulation in addition to a whole season of favouring Celtic.
So it is perfectly reasonable to question Barbour's contributions here.
You taking only the comments at the end of the game when they have backtracked on an initial absurd stance, when viewed alongside a whole season of bias, to then say other bears discussing her blatant bias as "embarrassing" is, in itself, embarrassing. You certainly aren't a bear I would want to have any discussion with in real life. Bear makes reasonable point about lack of impartiality in Sky broadcasts and staff. You defend those who seek to do Rangers down and attack the bears. You are a strange Rangers fan.
Come back now with some more deceitful comments about how only the full time back tracking is relevant...
It did happen.It was quite clear Walker says it wasn’t a penalty and he even gave his reason why afterwards.
There are those in the media that attack us and I’m happy to defend us against them.
I’ll leave you to argue over something that didn’t happen.
I wouldn’t mind taking a dive in her boxShe'll be screaming 'penalty' in her sleep tonight.
McCoist doesn't really push the Rangers perspective, trying too hard to be neutral.
Boyd fighting a lone fight v about 5 of them.
She’s a cow.
also let’s not forget Chris McLaughlin turned her gay
I was sick of the sight of O'Neil who had far too much talking time on it . I was starting to think I was watching the Martin O' Neil show plus the fact he is a boring bassa .One of the worst yet. Having bitter old O'Neill is just making it absolutely awful.
I'm only hanging on to see the Gerrard interview.
Other than that it is brutal viewing.
I'm not speaking about one comment when I make that point.On this occasion McCoist at least said a dive.
He has to do that more.
I'm not speaking about one comment when I make that point.
Its more the general tone he brings to the game.
Walker - disgustingly biased Celtic.
Crocker - disgustingly biased to Celtic
O'Neill - do I even need to say.
McFadden - Pretty fair on big calls it seems. Slight bias towards Celtic.
Boyd - Pretty fair on big calls it seems. Slight bias towards Rangers.
McCoist - Straight down the line. Constant talk of how great Rodgers, Turnbull, O'Neill etc are.
It did happen.
At the time.
And during half time.
You keep spreading lies to attack follow followers and defend those who wish to do Rangers down.
O'Neill is the bastard who ramped up bigotry and sheer hatred when he was manager of the mentally challengeds. He practically groomed the tramp in his evil ways. A bitter old lady's front bottom as was proven today by his pathetic performance.She's not a mentally challenged by any stretch. Grew up a st johnstone. Been in her company a few times and certainly no bias either way.
MON came across as a bitter old bastard mind you and I don't really think she knew what to do about it.
You stand with those who want to create an agenda against Rangers / for Celtic.Watch it again. Walker at no point says it’s a penalty. He says to McCoist he may have felt slight contact and went down and McCoist says not for me.
At half time Barbour raises the question of whether a player making a tackle but you go over trying to avoid it and McFadden rubbishes it.
O’Neill them rambles on about agreeing with her when she says I’m removing myself from this because as she said she was just playing devils advocate.
The guys on Sky Sports agreed 4-1 it wasn’t a penalty with only O’Neill saying it was without giving a reason.
It’s not even a matter of debate as I’ve watched it back and I am basically quoting word for word.
I’m sure there are idiots like Hartson and Sutton trying to suggest it was a penalty so perhaps it would be better if we both took our fight to them.
You stand with those who want to create an agenda against Rangers / for Celtic.
I stand with those who want to question bias from what should be a impartial broadcaster.
Sorted.
Good to know where we both stand and where I should file all future posts from you.
Is there a link for this?Wibble keeps trying to humiliate Boyd, but he doesn't have the patter.
He also just said hoohoo for hoodoo.
Their agenda contributes to Morelos getting cited for things and Edouard getting away with everything and not “having a reputation“ that they use to castigate Alfie.Why does anyone care what she thinks?
It’s just her opinion.You have yours, she has hers.
She puts it out there, to play devils advocate, and keep the discussion going.That’s what all tv and radio presenters do.That is part of their job.
It’s not like her decision, or Wibble’s or Walker’s, who are totally playing to the gallery, is going to mean it gets over turned.
It’s done.
The ref made his decision.
End of.
Long May it continue, they’ll never address their frailties! The bravest man in football said tge were brilliant!! But didn’t want to talk about the goal they conceded! Fucking mentalistsThis post match analysis is brutal.
Basically, they were amazing, should have had a penalty and did I say, they were amazing.
It was a shitey 1-1 draw.
one of the tim leaning commentators do this though, even Crockerall Ally has to do is similar to Carragher and Neville, professional to other teams but people know who you are supporting and want to win
trying to be everybody's pal is nauseating when it's quite obvious who he wants to win the game
He thought he was a superstar! 2 decent seasons and he’s pep gusrdiolaI was sick of the sight of O'Neil who had far too much talking time on it . I was starting to think I was watching the Martin O' Neil show plus the fact he is a boring bassa .
Pricks like him and Lennon are the reason bigotry will never die .It's lovely to see that we still upset Wibble so much. I used to still have grudging respect for O'Neill as a former NI playing great, but his spell managing the beggars (international variety) and his palpable bitterness has wiped it out. Cheer up Martin O'Neill!
Who really gives a %^*&. If the papish ref that teaches at a papish school says no penalty. Then hallelujahWalker at no point said it was a penalty and was clear at the end it wasn’t. So the 3-1 in the original post which was supposed to be an example of the bias was in our favour.
You have already said you haven’t seen it so you might want to sit the rest of this out.
Their agenda contributes to Morelos getting cited for things and Edouard getting away with everything and not “having a reputation“ that they use to castigate Alfie.
It would be naive to ignore the influence the press have had on the CO/trial by tv system we have in Scotland and how it has negatively impacted Rangers and benefitted Celtic.
That is why.
What I don’t understand though, is those who would wage a spirited defence of someone who has a hand in setting an agenda that contributes to damaging Rangers.
We all know if Alfie did identical dives to Edouard yesterday Barbour, Walker and Crocker would be leading the furore to have him cited. And we all know he would be cited.
In a recent European game, I think, in commentary they used Alfie’s “reputation” for going down easy as a reason he didn’t get a decision. How wild is that. Alfie has a reputation for diving and Edouard doesn’t. Yet who is guilty of the more frequent and more absurd acts of simulation?
Their agenda contributes to Morelos getting cited for things and Edouard getting away with everything and not “having a reputation“ that they use to castigate Alfie.
It would be naive to ignore the influence the press have had on the CO/trial by tv system we have in Scotland and how it has negatively impacted Rangers and benefitted Celtic.
That is why.
What I don’t understand though, is those who would wage a spirited defence of someone who has a hand in setting an agenda that contributes to damaging Rangers.
We all know if Alfie did identical dives to Edouard yesterday Barbour, Walker and Crocker would be leading the furore to have him cited. And we all know he would be cited.
In a recent European game, I think, in commentary they used Alfie’s “reputation” for going down easy as a reason he didn’t get a decision. How wild is that. Alfie has a reputation for diving and Edouard doesn’t. Yet who is guilty of the more frequent and more absurd acts of simulation?
The time they were on about Alfie’s reputation was the Beaton no pen decision v Livi.Their agenda contributes to Morelos getting cited for things and Edouard getting away with everything and not “having a reputation“ that they use to castigate Alfie.
It would be naive to ignore the influence the press have had on the CO/trial by tv system we have in Scotland and how it has negatively impacted Rangers and benefitted Celtic.
That is why.
What I don’t understand though, is those who would wage a spirited defence of someone who has a hand in setting an agenda that contributes to damaging Rangers.
We all know if Alfie did identical dives to Edouard yesterday Barbour, Walker and Crocker would be leading the furore to have him cited. And we all know he would be cited.
In a recent European game, I think, in commentary they used Alfie’s “reputation” for going down easy as a reason he didn’t get a decision. How wild is that. Alfie has a reputation for diving and Edouard doesn’t. Yet who is guilty of the more frequent and more absurd acts of simulation?
That's the difference between professionalism and rabid yahooism .McCoist doesn't really push the Rangers perspective, trying too hard to be neutral.
Boyd fighting a lone fight v about 5 of them.
I'd give her a drunk boabying
So she’s no a peh eater...Perth
The spirited defence comments weren’t aimed at you, for clarity.'spirited defence'?
Mate.
A lot of what you say could be true, and is your opinion, which I totally respect.
But in the grand scheme of things ...we had the last laugh, and in the grand scheme, it doesn't matter what they think.In fact it make them look even more embittered.Especially MON who in my opinion was very disrespectful to Boyd, and McFadden.
Just embarrassed himself once again on TV.
But again... it won't change a thing.
The result yesterday stands, and the result who won the league is in the history books.
Nothing will ever change those facts.
My mistake. Thanks for putting me right.The time they were on about Alfie’s reputation was the Beaton no pen decision v Livi.
Like you say, Boyd clearly favours Rangers. But he never takes absurdly biased views on incidents involving Rangers. If a decision objectively should have gone for or against us he will say so. Again, the triple threat of C, W and B will never do that.That's the difference between professionalism and rabid yahooism .
Boyd gives a big grin and a chuckle now and again and it sees him sidelined for a couple of games ...
This needs changed for next season because Alfie will have no chance if he's still here .
Low Standards for a Bear?Clearly in the minority but i think she’s lovely.
Never mind that cnut turning her to women, if she was the best I could do I’d have to take a look at my chances with men!Low Standards for a Bear?
I know ...it’s cool.The spirited defence comments weren’t aimed at you, for clarity.