Premier League 2023/24

[Colly]

Was it @Gazz who suggested last time that it's probably just the fact TNT Sports panel is so Liverpool orientated that they're inevitably going to choose their games when they can?

I do think it's an absurdly minor gripe though, particularly this time round when they're travelling less than an hour to an away game thst kicks off a whole 2 and a bit hours before the 3pms. I've never bought into the general "Thursday/Sunday" whinge, whinging about the early kickoff is even dafter.

[METALMAN]

It is weird that the fans moaning about this seem to have forgotten that the other team is also playing right after an international break.

[Cymbols]

Yeah I’d be all for Liverpool not playing in that slot if only because it is really fucking boring having them on BT/TNT all of the time.

It isn’t some conspiracy against Liverpool, the broadcaster likes having them on, and having a bunch of pundits on to wank over them. 

[METALMAN]

If don't like this blame ChatGPT, not me. This is also obviously unfair because it takes in the period of Liverpool’s VAR fuckup so I don’t think it is properly representative. If I get the funding I will extend this to the full thread. Also I’m intending this as a joke so don’t get too upset. All football fans whine and moan! (Except me)

Analysis of Victimisation Sentiments on pages 29-38 of this forum

Objective:

To consolidate findings from two batches of analysis to confirm whether the posts express feelings of victimisation related to football. This comprehensive report combines textual analysis, contextual consideration, replies to the posts, and quantitative measures to provide an in-depth perspective.

Methodology:

1. Textual Analysis: Thoroughly analyse the content of the posts to confirm instances of victimisation.
2. Contextual Consideration: Examine the replies to these posts to gauge if the community validates or negates the feelings of victimisation.
3. Quantitative Measures: Count the frequency with which each identified poster talks about being victimised.
4. Data Presentation: Summarise the results in a coherent format, including quotes from the posts as examples.

Consolidated Data Presentation:

Poster	Supported Team	Victimisation Instances	Quotes Supporting Victimisation	Contextual Consideration	Frequency of Victimisation Posts (Batch 1 + Batch 2)
DavidMarrio	Liverpool	5	"feels like it's just accepted", "no accountability"	Some community agreement, Colly counters	10
Szumi - A Polack	Liverpool	5	"RIDICULOUS rule", "jump all over it"	Not available	5
Hobo	Liverpool	2	"the player tripped over his own legs"	Not available	2
Tigerstyle	Liverpool	1	"Spurs stole 3 points"	Not available	1
Lineker	Tottenham	2	"inexcusable", "controversial and potentially unfair"	Suggests it's part of the game	2
Jimmy	Tottenham	1	"poor recently"	Not available	1
Colly	Newcastle	7	"equally bad fuckup", "damned if they do and damned if they don't"	Contradicts Liverpool victimisation	7
Adam	Everton	2	"The whole thing is a disgrace", "shafted"	Not available	2
stokeriño	Chelsea	1	"utterly surreal"	Not available	1
FestiveJack	Man Utd	1	"professional wrestling referees"	Not available	1

Textual Analysis:

DavidMarrio (Liverpool)

Sentiment: Strong feeling of both personal and collective victimisation.

Szumi - A Polack (Liverpool)

Sentiment: Feels that team and fans are unfairly treated.

Hobo (Liverpool)

Sentiment: Perceived injustices indicate a sentiment of victimisation.

Tigerstyle (Liverpool)

Sentiment: Implies victimisation via unjust circumstances.

Colly (Newcastle)

Sentiment: Feels referees and media are unfair, but criticises the narrative of specific victimisation.

Adam (Everton)

Sentiment: Feels games and decisions have been unfair, suggesting victimisation.

FestiveJack (Man Utd)

Sentiment: Feels referees are not doing their job properly, indicating a sense of a staged or manipulated environment.

Contextual Consideration:

The community response is mixed, with Liverpool fans being the most vocal about feeling victimised. While poor officiating is widely agreed upon, the notion of team-specific victimisation is not universally accepted.

Quantitative Measures:

DavidMarrio, with a total of 10 instances, is the most vocal about victimisation, followed by Colly with 7 instances. Liverpool supporters, in general, appear more likely to express feelings of victimisation.

Summary:

The report consolidates data from two batches of analysis, revealing that supporters of Liverpool are particularly vocal in expressing feelings of victimisation. However, the sentiment of specific victimisation for a single team is not universally accepted within the community, as evidenced by posts from supporters of other teams. Overall, there is a strong sentiment of dissatisfaction with the state of officiating, which resonates across teams, but claims of targeted victimisation are more contentious.

 

Spoiler

First Batch Analysis of Identified Posts

Objective:

To perform a second-pass, in-depth analysis on the provided posts to confirm if they indeed express feelings of victimisation related to football. The analysis considers the textual content of the posts, their context, and the replies to these posts.

Methodology:

1. Textual Analysis: Thoroughly analyse the extracted posts to confirm instances of victimisation.
2. Contextual Consideration: Examine the replies to these posts to see if the community validates or negates the feelings of victimisation.
3. Quantitative Measures: Count the frequency with which each identified poster talks about feeling victimised.
4. Data Presentation: Summarise the results in a coherent format, including quotes from the posts as examples.

Data Presentation

Poster	Support Team	Victimisation Instances	Quotes Supporting Victimisation	Contextual Consideration
DavidMarrio	Liverpool	5	"feels like it's just accepted", "no accountability", "anti-Liverpool/scouse rhetoric always trumps"	Some community agreement, but counter-argument by Colly
Szumi - A Polack	Liverpool	2	"RIDICULOUS rule", "VAR would never cause a two-goal swing"	Not available
Hobo	Liverpool	2	"the player tripped over his own legs", "something has gone wrong somewhere"	Not available
Tigerstyle	Liverpool	1	"Spurs stole 3 points"	Not available
Lineker	Tottenham	2	"inexcusable", "controversial and potentially unfair"	Suggests it's part of the game; not a Liverpool-centric problem
Jimmy	Tottenham	1	"poor recently"	Not available
Colly	Newcastle	2	"equally bad fuckup", "perceived victimisation"	Contradicts victimisation sentiment, claims not just a Liverpool issue
Adam	Everton	1	"The whole thing is a disgrace"	Not available
stokeriño	Chelsea	1	"utterly surreal"	Not available

Textual Analysis

DavidMarrio (Liverpool)

Frequently cites examples of perceived unfairness in officiating, including lack of accountability. Mentions "anti-Liverpool/scouse rhetoric," pointing to a feeling of systematic victimisation. Appears to be a strong believer in the victimisation of his team.

Szumi - A Polack (Liverpool)

Voices concern over VAR rules and suggests that Liverpool is disadvantaged by the system, which aligns with a feeling of victimisation.

Hobo (Liverpool)

Points out perceived injustices in referee decisions and expresses surprise given Liverpool's previous fair-play record, indicating a sentiment of victimisation.

Tigerstyle (Liverpool)

Suggests that Spurs "stole" points, implying victimisation via unjust circumstances.

Lineker (Tottenham)

Acknowledges the system's flaws but suggests it's part of the game, diluting the idea of specific victimisation.

Jimmy (Tottenham)

Mentions that refereeing has been poor but doesn't explicitly state victimisation for his team.

Colly (Newcastle)

Argues against the perception of Liverpool-specific victimisation, implying that poor officiating affects all teams.

Adam (Everton)

Describes the situation as a "disgrace," which could imply a sense of victimisation due to poor officiating.

stokeriño (Chelsea)

Mentions the game's score as "utterly surreal," which might imply an unjust or unexpected outcome but doesn't necessarily point to victimisation.

Contextual Consideration

The community's response to these posts is mixed. While there's general agreement on the poor state of officiating, not everyone validates the feeling of specific victimisation. For example, Colly directly challenges DavidMarrio's assertion of anti-Liverpool sentiment.

Quantitative Measures

DavidMarrio, a Liverpool supporter, leads in terms of victimisation instances, mentioning it five times. Most Liverpool supporters also express feelings of victimisation at least once.

Summary

The analysis indicates that supporters of Liverpool are the most vocal about feeling victimised, particularly DavidMarrio. While there is community agreement on the poor state of officiating, the sentiment of team-specific victimisation is not universally accepted.

 

Second-Pass  Analysis: Identifying Feelings of Victimisation in Football Discussion Posts (Batch 2)

Methodology

1. Textual Analysis: Analyse posts to confirm instances of victimisation.
2. Contextual Consideration: Examine replies to see if the community validates or negates these feelings.
3. Quantitative Measures: Count frequency of victimisation-related posts from each poster.
4. Data Presentation: Summarise in a written report.

DavidMarrio (Supports Liverpool)

• Frequency of Posts: 5
• Textual Analysis: DavidMarrio repeatedly discusses experiences where he feels unfairly treated, either personally due to his team affiliation or in the officiating of games. Phrases like "raise doubt" and "special treatment" indicate a perception of bias.
• Contextual Consideration: The posts largely focus on personal experiences and observations, without much input from other community members, making validation hard to gauge.

Adam (Supports Everton)

• Frequency of Posts: 1
• Textual Analysis: Adam refers to past games and decisions that he considers to be unfair. Terms like "shafted" suggest a feeling of being wronged.
• Contextual Consideration: No replies available for further context.

Szumi - A Polack (Supports Liverpool)

• Frequency of Posts: 3
• Textual Analysis: Questions fairness in game rules and officiating, often suggesting a perceived inconsistency or bias affecting the outcome. The term "jump all over it" regarding Klopp's comments also indicates a feeling of undue negative attention.
• Contextual Consideration: Not enough information on community validation or negation.

Colly (Supports Newcastle)

• Frequency of Posts: 5
• Textual Analysis: Colly appears to feel that there is unfair officiating, but also criticises media narratives surrounding refereeing. Terms like "damned if they do and damned if they don't" suggest a perception of unavoidable criticism.
• Contextual Consideration: No information available regarding community replies.

FestiveJack (Supports Man Utd)

• Frequency of Posts: 1
• Textual Analysis: FestiveJack discusses the role of referees, suggesting they are not enforcing rules properly. Phrases like "professional wrestling referees" indicate a feeling of a staged or manipulated environment.
• Contextual Consideration: No information available on community responses.

Summary Table

Poster	Team Supported	Frequency of Victimisation Posts	General Sentiment
DavidMarrio	Liverpool	5	Feels personally and collectively victimised
Adam	Everton	1	Feels games and decisions have been unfair
Szumi - A Polack	Liverpool	3	Feels team and fans are unfairly treated
Colly	Newcastle	5	Feels referees and media are unfair
FestiveJack	Man Utd	1	Feels referees are not doing their job properly

Note:

This is an extension of the first batch, and should be amalgamated into the previous report for a comprehensive understanding.

Data analysed:

Spoiler

 

Poster: DavidMarrio Post: "But that was honestly one of the worst officiating performances I've seen. On pitch and VAR. It's across the league and there's no accountability or repercussions and it feels like it's just accepted as the standards are crap. I do think so far this season, we've shown we are probably the best team in the league when it comes to back againdt the wall, up against adversity" Context: DavidMarrio is discussing the performance of referees and VAR in a football match and suggests there is no accountability for poor officiating, which he sees as unfair. Poster: Szumi - A Polack Post: "The back of the Spurs player's studs hit Jota in the knee. You would think studs going that high into a player's knee would be violent conduct! 🙄 (Gotta laugh through the pain!)" Context: Szumi - A Polack is talking about an incident in the match where a Spurs player's studs hit Jota in the knee. They indicate a feeling that the refereeing was unfair as the action was not deemed violent conduct. Poster: Hobo Post: "Agreed. That was as foolish. As was a referee giving a free to a player who clearly tripped over his own legs." Context: Hobo comments on a referee’s decision that he perceives to be incorrect, indicating the player tripped over his own legs rather than being fouled. He expresses a feeling that the decision was unjust. Poster: Tigerstyle Post: "At the end of the day, Spurs stole 3 points, which is, whatever. They’re going to drop a lot more than Liverpool even with 12 players on the pitch and another in the sky on their side." Context: Tigerstyle suggests that Spurs "stole" 3 points, implying that he feels the match was unfairly adjudicated or that the circumstances were unjust. Poster: DavidMarrio Post: "I just want to point out. If we're saying that offside decision is a case of 'it'll even out' then it's just an acceptance of how bad the standard of officiating is across the league as a whole. What's the point in VAR if we're still going with the 'ah you get some you don't' attitude. Go back to the old way of things and have goal line tech. The whole point of VAR was to go you've made a clear and obvious mistake there. Not muddy the waters more. What bothers me is how bad officiating has come to the point it feels like every game across a match week will have had some fuck up in it and there's no accountability or anything from it cause they all stick up for one another and don't hold their hands up ala Mike Dean saying 'ah i didn't wanna put pressure on my mate'. Also where is the consistency. First two match weeks they cracked down on players waving yellow cards. Then it just doesn't exist anymore. Mac Allister against Chelsea, Nunez against Bournemouth....and then poof, it's gone that rule now." Context: DavidMarrio, who supports Liverpool, is expressing frustration over inconsistent officiating and VAR decisions. He feels that the system is broken and that there is a lack of accountability among officials. Poster: Szumi - A Polack Post: "So apparently VAR isn't allowed to do anything once Spurs restart the match after the 'offsides'/check complete. That's a RIDICULOUS rule that I almost cannot believe is even a rule. I genuinely feel like VAR realized they fucked up by the time Son scores, and at that point, there's no way they're going to say anything because they'd have to cancel out the Spurs goal AND give Liverpool the goal they legitimately scored. VAR would never cause a two goal swing." Context: Szumi - A Polack, also a Liverpool supporter, feels victimised by the limitations and execution of VAR, suggesting that the system would never reverse a two-goal swing even if a mistake was realised. Poster: Lineker Post: "Bad calls happen to all teams all throughout every season and nobody should be pleased with that fact. But fact it is. I mean when we played last season, Jota should have been sent off for virtually decapitating Oliver Skipp but wasn't. It is part of the game. However, if you are (rightly) going to embrace new technologies such as VAR, then getting the most basic of calls, seemingly as today's, wrong, is inexcusable." Context: Lineker, who supports Tottenham, acknowledges the issues with officiating but suggests that it's a part of the game. He criticises the failure of VAR to correct basic errors, implying that technology has not achieved its intended goal of fairness. Poster: Jimmy Post: "I do think that if the top job (refereeing at the Prem) was a more lucrative career, you'd see some sort of knock-on effect, but ultimately I agree with you. Obviously, I'd also improve the pipeline, too." Context: Discussing the state of refereeing, especially at the grassroots level, and how it's been poor recently. May indicate a feeling that officials are not being held to the standards they should be. Poster: DavidMarrio Post: "Not just Darren England. Like to add Michael Oliver (4th Official) and Dan Cook (assistant VAR). Just not a good look at all" Context: Discussing officials involved in a VAR error. Suggests that it's not just one person's fault but a collective failure, possibly insinuating biased or unfair decision-making. Poster: Lineker Post: "Liverpool are to appeal the red card shown to Curtis Jones during their hugely controversial defeat at Tottenham on Saturday." Context: Describes an incident involving a red card that Liverpool is appealing, implying the decision was controversial and potentially unfair. Poster: Hobo Post: "It is wild that Liverpool have topped the fair play table regularly during Klopps tenure and now all this is going on. Something has gone wrong somewhere." Context: Discussing Liverpool's recent controversial incidents, suggesting that something is wrong or unfair when comparing it to their fair play record. Poster: stokeriño Post: "I keep staring at the '0-2' and it won't stop being utterly surreal." Context: Discussing a game's score, expressing disbelief. Could imply the idea that the result was unexpected or unjust. Post 1 Poster: DavidMarrio (Supports: Liverpool) Post: "But they even themselves out and other bad decisions in the past and all that tribalism bollocks.... Absolute incompetence and a farce" Context: Discussion on a VAR-related issue that occurred during a game, affecting Liverpool. DavidMarrio uses the word "incompetence" and mentions "tribalism bollocks," which can indicate feelings of victimisation from poor decision-making. Post 2 Poster: DavidMarrio (Supports: Liverpool) Post: "Yeah but anti-Liverpool/scouse rhetoric always trumps common sense thinking in football. Any chance to score points, 'Always the victims' and all that jazz." Context: Continuation of the discussion on VAR decisions. DavidMarrio brings up the "anti-Liverpool/scouse rhetoric" and says, "'Always the victims,'" indicating a sense of victimisation. Post 3 Poster: Hobo (Supports: Liverpool) Post: "tbh every club in the league and its supporters should be mad at that and not give way to 'lol liverpool' sentiment. The latter doesn't help improve the situation." Context: Also discussing the VAR decision affecting Liverpool, Hobo mentions that everyone should be upset, rather than making it about anti-Liverpool sentiment, suggesting feelings of victimisation. Post 4 Poster: Colly (Supports: Newcastle) Post: "It's really bad, but at least the audio confirms it was just a really stupid error and not the conspiracy that many online have been whinging on about." Context: Discussing the VAR issue. Though Colly denies a conspiracy, the post acknowledges that many online have been "whinging" about it, hinting at perceived victimisation by those people. Post 5 Poster: Adam (Supports: Everton) Post: "The whole thing is a disgrace. I've no idea why they are talking to each other in such a way, so quickly moving through it all, never once having it stated what the on-field decision was." Context: In the discussion about VAR decisions, Adam mentions that "The whole thing is a disgrace," which may indicate feelings of victimisation about the poor quality of officiating. Colly (Supports Newcastle) Post 1 Poster: Colly Post: "I think this is a nonsense by the way. You can go back to my comments on the Champions League final in Paris to see I don't have that attitude, but I also don't see why fans of other teams should be up in arms about the decision. I certainly don't remember fans of other clubs kicking up a fuss about the one I mentioned above which was admittedly less comical but an equally bad fuckup, especially when the on field ref even watched it on tv and still got it wrong." Context: This post is a response to DavidMarrio's comments on anti-Liverpool sentiments in football culture and the limitations of VAR. Colly argues against the perceived victimisation of Liverpool supporters. Post 2 Poster: Colly Post: "I'm aware this is my snobbishness coming out (my town was once rated the poorest in the country and I went to the shittest of the 3 secondary schools...), but as a concept it's a holiday where you try to make your moneys worth by consuming as much food and drink as possible. That's why there was such uproar a few years back when Spanish resorts suggested limiting the amount of booze you could have daily because they were sick of babysitting and cleaning up after pissed up Brits. Add to that the fact you can go all the way to another country and not leave the complex in two weeks, it's not entirely surprising to bump into 'intolerant Londoner'." Context: Colly is commenting on all-inclusive holidays and discusses how this form of tourism can attract a certain type of behaviour. He links this to the previous discussion about intolerance towards Liverpool supporters.

DavidMarrio (Supports Liverpool) Post 1 Poster: DavidMarrio Post: "I'm not saying about people in here but generally speaking the shit I've had said to me because of where I'm from and the team I support, its really not nonsense. Holiday for my wife's 30th we spent 5 days in an all-inclusive hotel having a Londoner have a pop because of where we are from, every time saw us." Context: DavidMarrio highlights personal experiences of being victimised based on his location and team affiliation. He discusses his negative experience during a holiday where he was targeted by another guest because of where he is from. Post 2 Poster: DavidMarrio Post: "That could have been any match. It may have happened several times and we may not have known. But if this brings catalyst for change then good cause it needs to happen. If not I'd rather go back to not having VAR and if someone makes a mistake it's sound cause at least it's more understandable." Context: This post seems to express feelings of victimisation stemming from a perceived lack of fair officiation in football matches, which DavidMarrio feels disproportionately affects his supported team, Liverpool. Post 1: Poster: Adam Post: "Sheffield United could ask for that Villa game to be replayed. Or the entire 2006-07 season, for that matter. What about the ghost goals that occur? Donny Rovers were absolutely shafted against Portsmouth in 2012 and relegated as a result, can we be reinstated to the Championship please?" Context: Adam seems to feel that there have been several injustices in football decisions, specifically mentioning that "Donny Rovers were absolutely shafted." Post 2: Poster: Szumi - A Polack Post: "As a Liverpool fan, Klopp is an absolute idiot for making the comments about a replay. He had to know how everyone was going to jump all over it." Context: The poster appears to feel victimised by the public reaction to Klopp's comments about a replay. Post 3: Poster: DavidMarrio Post: "According to the panel, it was the worst weekend for referees this season with four missed VAR interventions -- more than the rest of the season combined." Context: DavidMarrio points out a perceived bias or inadequacy in refereeing, which could imply feelings of victimisation for his team, Liverpool. Post 4: Poster: Colly Post: "Yeah I wouldn't put too much stock in the post-match panel thing, especially for a 3 to 2 majority (Brexit means Brexit)." Context: Colly expresses skepticism towards the credibility of post-match panels, implying a lack of fairness in these decisions. Post 5: Poster: Szumi - A Polack Post: "Kudos to the referee for being brave enough to show a second yellow for a dive. It was a clear dive, but so often refs won't show the yellow there to send someone off for a dive." Context: While this post commends the referee for making a brave decision, it also alludes to a common trend of referees not making what the poster believes to be the correct decision, possibly implying feelings of victimisation over time. First-pass analysis on segmented portions of a 38-page football discussion forum to identify and extract posts that potentially indicate feelings of victimisation Methodology: Keyword Scanning: Look for terms or phrases that might indicate a feeling of victimisation, such as "unfair," "biased," "conspiracy," and so on. Initial Identification: Extract the full text of posts containing these keywords or phrases. Aim to capture the post content as well as the username of the poster. Data Presentation: List the extracted posts and corresponding usernames in a straightforward manner for second-pass analysis. Posts Indicating Potential Victimisation Poster: Szumi - A Polack (Supports: Liverpool) Post: "I didn't get a great view at it, but doesn't the ball hit McTominay's arm before he shoots? I thought that automatically meant it wasn't a goal, or did they change the rules yet again?" Context: Szumi is questioning the fairness of the game rules, and seems to imply that there's inconsistent refereeing affecting the match outcome. Poster: DavidMarrio (Supports: Liverpool) Post: "Kovacic getting the special treatment it seems. No idea how he isn't off." Context: DavidMarrio feels that Kovacic is being treated in a special, presumably unfairly favourable, manner by the officials. Poster: Colly (Supports: Newcastle) Post: "The only possible reason I can see is that Oliver maybe hasn't seen the contact on the ankle for the second one (on his blind side) and just thinks he's kind of caught him with his body. Ridiculously lucky though, even with the first foul." Context: Colly is commenting on how a player has got lucky due to what appears to be an oversight or bias on the part of the referee. Poster: Jimmy (Supports: Tottenham) Post: "Theo Walcott is an awful pundit - Sky's desire to be more like TalkSport has made their coverage terrible this year." Context: Jimmy criticises the quality of punditry and seems to feel victimised by the poor quality of sports coverage that he perceives as biased or unfair. These posts can be used for a second-pass analysis to dive deeper into the sentiments and contexts surrounding each statement. Poster: Colly Post: "True fact, I once plugged into a projector at Villa Park and it killed my laptop, and I had to deliver a presentation on the merits of volunteering without my photos of me looking altruistic. I took lots of free pens as semi compensation." Context: Colly discusses an unfortunate experience he had at Villa Park. While it's not directly related to the game, the tone suggests a feeling of being wronged or disadvantaged. Background Information: Supports Newcastle Poster: DavidMarrio Post: "I genuinely can't believe the words doesn't want to have a negative impact on the game is even something brought into consideration. The lad goes studs up into the back of someone's leg." Context: DavidMarrio expresses disbelief at the decision-making surrounding a foul, indicating that he feels the ruling was unjust. Background Information: Supports Liverpool Poster: Colly Post: "What do you expect from Howard 'he lets the game flow' Webb?" Context: Colly comments on the refereeing, implying that Howard Webb’s reputation for letting the game flow is problematic. This may indicate a feeling that the game was managed unfairly. Background Information: Supports Newcastle Poster: stokeriño Post: "The degree of hair-splitting and roundabout arguments required for them to explain the different outcomes to Kovacic's and Gusto's incidents... I shake my head." Context: stokeriño criticizes the explanations provided for different rulings in the game, suggesting that they are convoluted and unfair. Background Information: Supports Chelsea Post 1 Poster: DavidMarrio Post: "The thing that's sticks out is the fact you've got Oliver saying he doesn't want to ruin the game by sending of a City player and the week before is reffing in the UAE. Even if there is nothing there whatsoever its something that can raise doubt. Its something they need to come out and address and put a protocol in place. Its like works having gift policies and having to declare items they may have received." Context: The discussion is about refereeing, with DavidMarrio indicating that the referee's decisions could be biased due to external factors. The phrase "raise doubt" and the need for transparency protocols can suggest feelings of victimisation. Post 2 Poster: FestiveJack Post: "Referees who ref strictly or even just to the letter of the law are not given major games in favour of the vibes based approach that gets called 'game management' by its proponents. We don't really have referees any more. We have professional wrestling referees. They're not really there to enforce the rules." Context: FestiveJack is discussing the role of referees in football matches, claiming that referees are not doing their jobs properly. Phrases like "They're not really there to enforce the rules" could indicate feelings of victimisation. Post 3 Poster: Colly Post: "Refs are damned if they do and damned if they don't though, last week the Liverpool game was "ruined" by Jones' sending off. I disagree entirely, and I still think Oliver hasn't seen the second Kovacic foul fully and that's why he hasn't gone, but that's the media response every time. 'The spectacle of the game is ruined'. Bloody hell, Van Dijk got sent off even earlier against us and even I wouldn't suggest that game didn't still have an interesting narrative..." Context: Colly discusses how referees face criticism regardless of their decisions and suggests that the media narrative can be unfair. Terms like "damned if they do and damned if they don't" and "media response" could indicate feelings of victimisation.
 

 

[stokeriño]

I love that it picked up on my disbelief at Chelsea scoring goals as possible victimisation.

[King Ellis]

It's a good job Hughesy isn't here, the thing would explode.

[Colly]

Where can I register my objection to being inserted into the language model?

[METALMAN]

Information commissioners office 

[Cymbols]

On 12/10/2023 at 19:12, Colly said:

Ruh-roh.

 

Late to this one, but looking increasingly like a good thing Zaniolo is only a loan. 

[DavidMarrio]

Believe the kickoff change is more to do with Manchester police (nobheads from both sides in recent years but City don't exactly help try to cooldown the ill will) rather than broadcasting rights as I think we were due to be on Sky regardless. 

Thursday/Sunday I don't buy into being a thing. Its more if you're travelling away to eastern european countries. 

 

Also top of the victimisation chart, you'll never sing that!

[Twist]

40 minutes ago, Cymbols said:

Late to this one, but looking increasingly like a good thing Zaniolo is only a loan. 

Apparently it's related to betting on illegal, non-regulated sites for blackjack and poker for Tonali. Seen no mention of sports betting for him specifically although I think Zaniolo bet on Roma?

[The Lusophone]

2 hours ago, METALMAN said:

FestiveJack (Man Utd)

Sorry, I'm a Plymouth Argyle fan only now

[Szumi]

@GuyIncognito to put it in here since it's football related, Fulham fans are unhappy with the ownership because of how much they've continued to jack up ticket prices. But also after selling their best attacker (which I get, given the money Saudi offered), their only replacement for him was Raul Jimenez, a ST well past his prime and who looks nothing like he used to after that horrific skull injury, which is understandable, but not ideal for Fulham.

[Colly]

That baffled me in isolation but I think I follow now. I think we should turn EWB into a Choose your own adventure novel. If you want to pick up the sword go the the Random Wrestling Thoughts thread, page 26.

[stokeriño]

4 hours ago, Colly said:

That baffled me in isolation but I think I follow now. I think we should turn EWB into a Choose your own adventure novel. If you want to pick up the sword go the the Random Wrestling Thoughts thread, page 26.

> POO IN BAG?

[The Lusophone]

This is the funniest outcome.

[Lineker]

 

[DavidMarrio]

Tonali has apparently admitted to betting on Milan to win

[Colly]

For me that should be allowed.

[gunnar hendershow]

The classic Pete Rose "I only bet on my team to win" defense.