Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Martyn Ziegler of The Times has yet to respond to my tweet asking how long he thinks Wenger should be banned for, for actual "assault" (for effect I used dictionary definition) being as he stated Shez should get a year,. His timeline mentions nothing, given his strident views, hat is surprising. Not.

Henry Winter also of the Times retweeted Ziegler's comments and commented that threatening violence was an entirely different level to swearing, so I also asked him how someone so high profile and role model and all over the press should be dealt for actual "assault"?

 

I wonder if the effect of a row with Arsenal on their careers, as opposed to the effect of a row with Oldham, is clouding their judgement?

Edited by singe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember The Times once running a piece (there is an anorak section in their Monday football supplement) about which letters of the alphabet had not been represented in the premier league by clubs starting with them. O was one...

Of course one only notices these sorts of things when it is about one's own club but it's not hard to extrapolate it into thinking that much of what is printed is just wrong, even when it is just badly researched rather than being made up.

 

And I don't suppose The Times is alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember The Times once running a piece (there is an anorak section in their Monday football supplement) about which letters of the alphabet had not been represented in the premier league by clubs starting with them. O was one...

Of course one only notices these sorts of things when it is about one's own club but it's not hard to extrapolate it into thinking that much of what is printed is just wrong, even when it is just badly researched rather than being made up.

 

And I don't suppose The Times is alone.

Far from it, but you expect better from The Times, and there seems to be a trend towards journalists operating an opinion based approach instead of a fact based one.

Personally, if you're going to opine more than produce fact, I don't think you should be allowed to call yourself a journalist and be limited to calling yourself a writer or columnist. Qualified or not. This would raise the reputation of journalists too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of these newspaper columnists have never broken a story in their lives - they just offer up an opinion, which isn't difficult.

 

And the priority for them every time they take to their keyboard is self preservation. They're probably on good money but will be anxious that their editors can easily replace them with cheaper options.

 

So they have to try to say something punchy while also not rocking the boat. Perfect example is Sheridan/Wagner coverage.

 

Sheridan is easy prey for them - they can call for him to be hung drawn and quartered without any potential for a meaningful backlash. So they look punchy and outspoken.

 

Switch to a famous manager though, in charge of a famous club - and they won't have a cut off him unless their editor tells them to.

 

That's a bit sad and pathetic - but that's how it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rarely-wrong Chron is onto the case. In addition to apologising, Shez says "It was six weeks ago. I don't know why it's not come out earlier. Someone is probably stirring one or two things, but I'm not happy with myself and I should never have done it".

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/10/oldham-athletic-news/101739/my-regret-at-foulmouth-tirade-shez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stevie_J, on 21 Jan 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:snapback.png

I thought it was :censored:ing hilarious. Especially the bit about his kids' Christmas presents.

Agreed, really made me laugh.

Exactly, that bit is how you know it was not a serious , serious rant. I'd be amazed if the official didnt laugh at that bit at the time.

Edited by singe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheridan himself does not seem to share your view, Singe.

As I have posted a number of times, and tweeted, his threat is indefensible. And he rightlywas punished and apologised. I pointed out to The Times journos that he had written and apologised- funny how they left that bit out.

But the swear words themselves would have been heard many times before, and not the reason he was charged.

Look at the double standards, by the Times and others about the Wenger incident.

In (undeniable anger with swear words) his kids are not going to get Christmas presents is clearly not entirely serious.

 

For me there are many levels, you can't use shades of grey phrase these days but it is that.

Something like:

1) Mild swearing

2) More serious swearing

3) Anger

4) In your face uncontrolled rage

5) Verbally threatening

6) Verbally threatening with rage

7) Physical contact

8) Shoving

9) Head Butt

 

etc

Actual Physical contact has to be worse than worse, I'd accept a good case for on par with unctrollable rage. But it's not less.

 

It's the same for punishments for players, it's more severe if there is contact.

 

He got a 5 match ban, it's not a flimsy punishment, though clearly could have been worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rarely-wrong Chron is onto the case. In addition to apologising, Shez says "It was six weeks ago. I don't know why it's not come out earlier. Someone is probably stirring one or two things, but I'm not happy with myself and I should never have done it".

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/10/oldham-athletic-news/101739/my-regret-at-foulmouth-tirade-shez

Wonder who it was stirring......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sickening forearm smash by Calvin Andrew on Clarke 12 game ban reduced to 9 games ...Shez swears a bit coz his kids wont get Christmas pressies 5 games ...Maybe he should have chinned the fourth official and received 4 more games ? Puts it all into perspective :bat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sickening forearm smash by Calvin Andrew on Clarke 12 game ban reduced to 9 games ...Shez swears a bit coz his kids wont get Christmas pressies 5 games ...Maybe he should have chinned the fourth official and received 4 more games ? Puts it all into perspective :bat:

That's my issue, It would not be a bad thing if there was greater punishment for disrepute with officials, even if that meant greater punishment for Shez. But it has to go hand in hand with heavier punishment for players serious fouls, cheating, and greater sanctions of officials that perform poorly, although much better training and rules to make it easier to spot infringements are needed in tandem. It's a downward spiral at the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's hardly likely to say, is he?

So

he didn't mean what he said to referee?

He didn't mean what he said in Chron?

He didn't mean it when he kissed the badge?

He didn't mean it when he said he wasn't looking for a different job?

He didn't mean not to tell Newport he was looking for a job?

 

.ummm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So

he didn't mean what he said to referee?

He didn't mean what he said in Chron?

He didn't mean it when he kissed the badge?

He didn't mean it when he said he wasn't looking for a different job?

He didn't mean not to tell Newport he was looking for a job?

 

.ummm!

He said what he said. Whether he meant it or not. Only words. He got banned. A lengthy one. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...