The shortcomings of Match of the day!
When Commentators, presenters and guests get it inexcusably wrong!
Please note, the answers given to the ‘virtual interview’ questions in this exposé/article, are (by and large) in the ‘Public Domain’. See the TRUTH’s editorial page (the link to which can be found on the main contents page) for more.
Alan Shearer. As a football pundit, you are always quick to accuse players of ‘ball watching’. Now retired from the game, however, you also have a tendency to ball watch. Before I get to my point, I’d like you to watch these goalkeeping saves, some from the 12 yard penalty spot.
What do you notice about all of them?
Alan Shearer: ‘The goalkeepers made the saves with their feet.’
Meaning that?
Alan Shearer: ‘They were in control of their lower limbs.’
Equally, they could be in control of their arms as well?
Alan Shearer: ‘Certainly.’
In one game involving Chelsea, the highlights included and pointed out John Terry’s hand touching the ball in the penalty area from the opposing team’s corner. Not necessarily you, but someone indicated it was?
Alan Shearer: ‘Handball and a penalty.’
Watch the clip, and instead of watching the ball, watch John Terry’s hand?
Alan Shearer: ‘Ah, right. An opposing player has a hold of John Terry’s hand and it’s he that’s made John Terry’s hand touch the ball.’
Roll forward to the 2018 World cup final between France and Croatia. The contentious penalty awarded to France, one that took quite some while for the match referee to look at; twice, in fact.
The ball was floated in from the corner as apposed to being a shot:
Gary Lineker. You appear to have a short span of attention, noted by an on air observation you made on Match of the Day about Eden Hazard’s improvement after Chelsea’s disappointing 2015 season, following their successful premiership winning one under Jose Mourinho, in particular, when Antonio Conte was appointed their new coach?
Gary Lineker: ‘Did I. To be truthful, I can’t remember.
Take it from me, you did and on more than one occasion.
To answer your question, let me take you all the way back to the first game of the 2015 season. Chelsea at home to Swansea City. A quite eventful game and for more than the sending off of Chelsea’s goalkeeper.
Taking what you’ve seen prior to the penalty incident into consideration, was the Croatia player in full control of his arm movement towards the ball?
Alan Shearer: ‘Yes.’
That wasn’t, however, what you said at the time, though?
Alan Shearer: ‘No.’
So, and let me get this perfectly clear and correct, your original response, that it wasn’t a penalty, was wrong?
Alan Shearer: ‘Yes. On reflection and consideration, a penalty was the correct decision.’
Thank you for clearing that shortcoming up.
Towards the end of the game, Eden Hazard was injured:
Carneiro and chief physiotherapist Jon Fearn were summoned onto the pitch to attend to Hazard by match referee Michael Oliver:
Carneiro and chief physiotherapist Jon Fearn were the subject of criticism from Mourinho after the first game of the 2015 season. Chelsea was playing Swansea City. According to Mourinho, she and Fearn rushed onto the pitch to attend to Eden Hazard when he felt the injury was not of a serious nature. He was further annoyed because this meant that Chelsea, having already had a player sent-off during the match, were temporarily left with eight outfield players. Under the laws of the game medical staff are not allowed onto the field without the referee's permission, but have a duty to tend to an injured player when summoned.
Mourinho commented on the situation, a comment that was picked up by the pitch-side microphone: ‘He’s not dying!’
What does that suggest to you?
Gary Lineker: ‘It rather suggests that players only need treatment if they are dying.’
What about disrespect to his players?
Gary Lineker: ‘That also.’
Enough for his players to play below their standard for fear of being injured, especially since Caneiro had been demoted and insulted by Mourinho?
Gary Lineker: ‘Possibly.’
Possibly enough for Eden Hazard’s ball skills to diminish – he being the brunt of Mourinho’s comment?
Gary Lineker: ‘Possibly.’
All the same, it does answer your question as to Hazard’s improvement after Mourinho was sacked as Chelsea coach?
Gary Lineker: ‘Yes.’
Thank you. There is, however, more.
In a recent example of Gary demonstrating short term memory loss, the following tweet, one attributed to Gary Lineker, was posted on twitter:
Who presented the BBC Sport’s live broadcast of the Euro 2020 final from Wembley on July 11?
Gary Lineker: ‘I did.’
That, you certainly did. The tweet above, one attributed to you, was, therefore, posted while you were on air?
Gary Lineker: ‘I can confirm that the above tweet was posted during the game and while I was on air, presenting the Euro 2020 final for BBC Sport.’
You will notice that, this being a virtual interview with Gary Lineker, the TRUTH has no way of knowing if Gary Lineker actually typed and posted that tweet himself (the first action culminating in the second). The TRUTH did, however, post this tweet in response:
Moving on, two months, exactly, to the day, September 11, and the following tweet appeared on Twitter:
Gary, the first 11 words of that tweet (‘First time in my life I’ve ever tweeted while on air’) rather suggests one of two things, they being?
Gary Lineker: ‘Right. Either I didn’t type and post the tweet in response to Luke Shaw’s goal for England during the Euro 2020 final, or I forgot that I had posted it while on air.’
Precisely.
Duplicity (synonymous with mislead, corruption and lie) by MOTD. To better understand it, I’d like to tell you and those reading this interesting, intriguing article about another programme, one that, despite having nothing whatsoever to do with football, has a bearing on what follows.
‘Deal or No Deal’. A Channel 4 game show presented by Noel Edmonds. Throughout the shows many seasons, and apart from 2 special occasions when the show was purportedly live, Noel, forever gave the impression to viewers that the show was being broadcast live each day, despite the fact that in one magazine interview he stipulated that they recoded 3 shows per day.
The fact that the programme was recorded months in advance of the transmission date was subsequently confirmed by two on-screen oversights. In the first, Noel asked a future contestant about her love of Bon Jovi. In her reply, she indicated she was going to see them in concert and named the month, only for that particular edition of the game to be broadcast months after the date she mentioned. Thinking fast, Noel prompted her to change her answer; whereupon, she said she had seen the band. Yes, I have that very recording of the C4 game show.
Oversight number two underlines my attention to detail, and, as will be seen, that is very much what the football point is all about.
Having watched a particular broadcast, I sent Channel 4 an e-mail, informing them as to what I had noticed. For some reason, Noel took several photos of that day’s contestant and then had them appear on the game board, overlooking the fact that the digital photos included the date and time they were taken, a date almost three months before the broadcast date of that edition.
First and foremost, the following relates to MOTD’s Premiership highlights programme; one in particular. 18 Jan 2015. Swansea City V Chelsea.
Gary Lineker. From this snapshot of that game’s Chelsea team sheet, does Diego Costa start the game?
Gary Lineker: ‘He started the game.’
So, in no way was he a substitute?
Gary Lineker: ‘Definitely not one of the substitutes.’
If I roll the footage on to this cutaway frame:
Who do we see on the substitute’s bench circled?
Gary Lineker: ‘Diego Costa.’
Well done for noticing that; however, if I roll the footage on, who do we see scoring a goal for Chelsea at the 34th minute mark?
Gary Lineker: ‘Costa!’
Diego Costa, right, his 2nd goal of the match?
Gary Lineker: ‘Yes.’
Further on, 36 minutes, according to the MOTD on screen notification, and which Chelsea player do we see assisting Oscar’s 2nd goal?
Gary Lineker: ‘Diego Costa.’
In fact, not only is Diego Costa still very much at the forefront of the Chelsea attack at the on-screen 71 minute mark, but he was not substituted, according to the on-screen messages, until just before the 77 minute mark?
Gary Lineker: ‘From what you’ve shown me, I can confirm that to be true.’
It doesn’t take a genius to realise what happened, all the same, it’s only right that you, as the programme’s presenter, explain it.
Gary Lineker: ‘Someone from the MOTD editing department took a cutaway from a point in the match after Diego Costa was substituted and inserted it before the 34th minute point.’
Precisely.
During the course of that footage, I muted the sound and for good reason. I will now un-mute the sound and let you explain what you hear, in particular, in relation to what occurs from the point after Willian hits the angle of the Swansea City goal.
Gary Lineker: ‘The commentary, specifically that in relation to Willian’s shot, continues over the length of the cutaway.’
It certainly does that, alright.
That rather suggests, unequivocally, that the commentary is added to the actual highlights, especially when you consider the fact that as little as 5 minutes of a 90+ minute game (5.5%) is all that is sometimes shown on MOTD, while there is a reserved emotion from commentators when a goal is scored.
There is; however, another clue, one reminiscent of the episode of Columbo from season 2, entitled: ‘The most crucial game’. Although the detective knows who the murderer is, he lacks the necessary evidence. In looking for it, presuming it is something present on a tape recording, he discovers it’s something missing. During the MOTD studio analysis, it’s the same thing. Although, as you would expect, the sound of the crowd (volume of which is dialled down, lowered) is very much present, the match commentary is what is clearly missing. 'Horse before cart' as Columbo indicates. Furthermore, in slow motion playback, the sound of the crowd would also be slowed down, producing the same effect as playing a 45rpm record at 33rpm. Obviously, you add the sound of the crowd from somewhere else, otherwise…?
Gary Lineker: ‘Yes.’
More recently, 4th of January 2020, and it happened yet again. Two male commentators alternated commentary on several 3rd round FA Cup games during the highlights programme.
Furthermore, over the weekend of the second games of the 2021 Premier League season, there was one of two clear and obvious occurrences of the commentary being added to the match highlights.
The first related to a tweet attributed to Saturday’s MOTD presenter, Gary Lineker, along with a comment made during the Aston Villa V Newcastle game.
Gary, you tweeted what in response to the ball deflecting off of Jack Grealish for his first Man City goal?
Gary: ‘Proper Goal.’
According to the footage of you interviewing the Aston Villa Manager, Dean Smith, after the game, you were notably where at the time?
Gary: ‘The MOTD studio.’
One that uses a green screen onto which the graphics are added, just like that of a film?
Gary: ‘Correct.’
And here’s the proof:
What did the match commentator say of Danny Ings overhead goal, one for which he had his back to the goal?
Gary: ‘His comment was “A proper goal of quality”.’
Admittedly, Ings scored his ‘Proper goal of quality’ during the added on time of the first half, many minutes after Gary posted the above mentioned tweet. However, it does rather beg the question: was the commentary added to the match highlights?
Sunday’s MOTD2, however, is irrefutably clear. The game: Southampton V Manchester United.
Steve Wilson. Yours was both the commentator’s voice for that match and the voice heard conducting the post match interviews?
Steve Wilson: ‘That is correct. I was also named as the commentator by Mark Chapman.’
Which player did the viewer see scoring Southampton’s goal?
Steve Wilson: ‘Manchester United’s Fred.’
The goal was scored on 30 minutes. During the three replays of the goal, which included the reaction of the United players, you said what?
Steve Wilson: ‘My comment was: “The Premier League have deemed it to be an own goal by Fred”.’
That you did. However, that begs the question. How could you possibly have known that at the time?
Steve Wilson: ‘You’re right. There's absolutely no way I could have known the outcome of a decision made by someone many miles away.’
Of course, the game was broadcast live on SKY Sports Main event channel, which maybe where it was heard from. All the same, it’s reminiscent of how Columbo caught Patrick McGoohan’s character in a lie in one episode of the US TV series.
McGoohan’s alibi hinged on him having dictated a speech in his office for his secretary to type out. He slipped up, however, by making a remark about something that had been said later on, the actual time that he had recorded the speech, which was the following morning.
Likewise, Steve Wilson, the MOTD2 commentator, mentioned something that was said long after the 30 minute point of the game. And the only way that was possible is for his commentary to have been added to the match highlights.
Today is Tuesday 24th of August 2021. Yesterday, Monday, the TRUTH sent an e-mail to the Premier League, asking them for the timed information as to when they made their reported decision. So far, they have failed to reply. I’ll let you, the TRUTH’s avid reader, wonder about that. All the same, and in Michael Howard’s words, it rather suggests the Premier League has something to hide.
In the main, it is cutaway shots, mostly to the crowd and with the commentary over the cutaway, that suggest the commentary has been added to the highlights. Even more so when the match in question was shown live on SKY sports or BT sports. In those cases, the contract arrangement the BBC has prevents them from showing the highlights, generally on Monday and towards the end of the season, before a certain time of night/late evening.
VAR watch!
Or how MOTD & MOTD2 Match commentators, presenters and studio guests, got it so horribly wrong it was laughable!
Over the course of 29 premier league games for all but 4 teams, the overriding bone of contention and debate was VAR’s contempt for, not just the players, but the laws of the game, in particular, those which constituted a penalty. Week after week, MOTD and MOTD2 would put VAR under the microscope, and quite rightly so. However, on some occasions, the match commentator, and or the presenter, and or the studio guests, most of who are ex-footballers, demonstrated either an equal lack of knowledge regarding the laws of football or made asses of themselves with mindless suggestions while not being totally honest, as the TRUTH will now explain and with help from those culpable.
To begin with, and this has quite a bearing on what you are about to read and hopefully digest, following Preston North end’s 3rd round FA Cup defeat at home to Norwich, their manager, Alex Neil, had this to say: ‘Both goals are clearly offside, but I think the difficulty you’ve always got with Premier League referees now is, they basically don’t make decisions anymore because of VAR.’ Meaning that, the referees have become LAZY.
An additional set of points on the VAR stadium screens appears below. For now, though, courtesy of the FA (Football Association), here is what they say about Law 12:
NB. If any of the above occur in the penalty area, a penalty kick 'has' to be awarded!
Match round 3 of 38:
Norwich V Chelsea.
Despite VAR’s Premier League use being in its infancy, it had a duty to check the validity of a goal, much the same as Touchdowns are checked in American football games. One aspect of consideration is the build up to a goal being scored and whether a foul was committed in order to dispossess an opposing player. In American football terms it would be called interference.
Danny Murphy. When Gary and his studio guests, of which you were one, commented on VAR’s use for that match, in particular, the way in witch Norwich’s Godfrey dispossessed Chelsea’s Tammy Abraham, you said what?
D Murphy: ‘The first one was in the “build up” to the goal, Tammy Abraham’s. And I think it was a foul. The reason VAR weren’t going to look at it was it was too far back in play [words to that effect].’
You then went on to commend Norwich for what, under the laws of the game, was cheating, the foul that you noticed?
D Murphy: ‘I can’t deny it, I did.’
The thing is this. A foul is a foul, not matter where it is committed, correct?
D Murphy: ‘You’re right, it is.’
And yet, you actually approved of cheating by the Norwich player?
D Murphy: ‘Yeah, I did.’
In the interest of impartiality, you should have criticised VAR, more so that of the match referee for not ruling the goal out for the foul. Put another way, last season, without VAR, the match referee would have awarded a free kick to Chelsea?
D Murphy: ‘Yeah, he would have.’
Studio discussion after Manchester United V Crystal palace.
Ian Wright: ‘It’s subjective, it’s all subjective.’
That word again (see ‘Sport: How Some referees and VAR treat players with contempt’). Subjective is defined as: ‘Of or based on a person’s emotions or prejudices’. You used that in relation to the ‘clear and obvious’ fouls that resulted in 2 penalties being awarded to Manchester united. Again, and as with Danny Murphy, were the Manchester United players fouled in the penalty area?
Ian: ‘Yes.’
So where is the subjectiveness?
Ian: ‘There isn’t any.’
September 1 2019:
Arsenal V Spurs.
After Harry Kane was pushed over in Arsenal’s penalty area, something he made a point about in the post-match interview, Jermaine Jenas, you made what comment?
Jermaine: ‘I’d be fuming if he [Kane] won that penalty, there.’
Right, so you don’t think a penalty should have been awarded, despite Kane being clearly pushed in the back, something that is only acceptable in rugby and American football?
Jermaine: ‘Yeah.’
Later on, and following another game, Jermaine Jenas will contradict himself. Either way, and under the laws of the game, a penalty should have been awarded for the push on Kane’s back. Furthermore, what is the purpose of the pitch-side VAR monitor? All will be revealed in due course.
September 28 2019:
Bournemouth V West ham United.
Despite the obvious fact that Joshua King was having his arm and shirt pulled by West Ham’s Cresswell in West Ham’s penalty area, a point noticed by the match commentator, Ian Wright said: ‘They [VAR and the referee] got it right,’ by not awarding a clear and obvious penalty. Only to then say: ‘I don’t know anymore.’ An indication that, he, along with the players, has accepted the incompetence and disrespect of VAR and match referees.
Aston Villa V Burnley.
Jermaine Jenas. Yet again, despite agreeing that a foul had been committed by a Burnley player on Aston Villa’s Nakamba, you were happy for play to continue, resulting in Burnley scoring a goal rather than a free kick being awarded 8 yards inside Burnley’s half?
Jermaine: ‘I most certainly did.’
Clearly, Jermaine, and this is the second time it’s happened, you, like VAR and most Premier League match referees, have no regard for the rules and laws of football as well as the players!
Don’t consider becoming a referee by the way. On second thoughts, you’d probably succeed only to fail like the rest of those who disrespect players.
October 5 2019:
Liverpool V Leicester City.
Alan Shearer. What was your comment about a penalty being awarded for a trip on Liverpool’s Mane?
Alan Shearer: ‘I don’t think it’s a penalty.’
When Gary pointed out there was contact, you replied?
Alan Shearer: ‘It's a contact sport, Gary.'
American football and Rugby are contact sports where a player with the ball can be tripped over. Is British football either of those, because that is what you are saying by approving and condoning tripping?
Alan Shearer: ‘No.’
Right, so your remark was unfounded, then?
Alan Shearer: ‘Yes. In hindsight, my remark was unfounded as Mane was clearly tripped over by a mistimed tackle.’
Thank you.
Brighton and Hove Albion V Spurs.
Jermaine Jenas. Despite not being one of the two studio guests, I would like you to watch this (Footage played showing Spur’s Sissoko foul Brighton’s Connolly by Spur’s corner flag). On this occasion, unlike the two mentioned above, the match referee awards a free kick to Brighton for the foul.
Jermaine: ‘Right. I see all that.’
Here’s the thing. Taking your previous comments as being true, if the referee had not awarded a free kick, you would agree with his decision, owing to the fact that the foul was committed as ‘far back in play’ as is possible?’
Jermaine: ‘Based on what I originally said, yes. The foul was committed too far back in play.’
Once again, I’d like to remind you, more so that of the TRUTH’s readers, that, under the laws of the game, a foul is a foul irrespective of where it is committed, and either a free kick or penalty is the correct decision.
October 20 2019:
Leicester City V Burnley.
Gary. In playing back the footage of the alleged trip by Burnley’s Chris Wood on Leicester’s Jonny Evans, you agreed it was a trip?
Gary: ‘As I seem to recall, we all did.’
Take a look at this footage from the programme, this particular angle. What do you see, there? (Pauses footage.)
Gary: ‘There’s no contact.’
So, on that evidence, which VAR, like MOTD had, Leicester’s Evans cheated?
Gary: ‘On that evidence, yes, he cheated.’
Further proof that VAR is nothing more than an invitation for cheating.
See the TRUTH’s expose:
‘Sport: How Some referees and VAR treat players with contempt’, for more examples out of 130 logged by the TRUTH.
October 27 2019:
Burnley V Chelsea.
Studio comments after Burnley’s Manager accused Chelsea’s Hudson-Odoi of diving, despite clearly being pushed in the back by Burnley’s Lowton.
Jermaine Jenas: ‘When you break this down and really have a look at it, Hudson-Odoi is pushed in the back. The left arm of Lowton is on him for a while. I don’t think it’s a penalty.’
You what! Under the laws of the game, are players, the goalkeeper included, allowed to tackle a player, buy the use of the hands; in particular, the way Lowton did?
Jermaine: ‘No. Under the laws of the game, players are not allowed to use their hands.’
Once again, Jermaine Jenas demonstrates his, I’m struggling for an adjective to describe someone who’s opinions are so contradictive, confused and unbelievable, having agreed that a foul had been committed on Hudson-Odoi, and in the opposing team’s penalty area of all places.
November 10 2019:
Spurs V Sheffield United.
On the time it took VAR to revue what, under the laws of the game, was an off-side decision, MOTD presenter Gary Lineker rather lost it:
Gary: ‘3 minutes 40 seconds. What about. Why don’t they say, you’ve got 30 seconds or a minute maximum, to work out your decision, and if you can’t make your mind up in that time, give it, go with the referee’s decision.’
Danny Murphy. You said what?
Danny Murphy: ‘Get rid of it.’ The ‘it’ being VAR.
You also agreed with what Gary said.
Danny Murphy: ‘Yeah, I did.’
You are right, of course. VAR was brought in too early and is being used by those who either have no comprehension for the laws of football, or simply forget the laws of football when they sit in their appointed VAR room.
December 7 2019:
Watford V Crystal Palace.
Alan Shearer. Having heard Troy Deeney’s post match interview and both watched and noted the point he made about being ‘head locked to the ground’ by Gary Cahill in the penalty area, you said what?
Alan Shearer: ‘He’s not getting a penalty for that.’
Let me take you forward almost 2 months, to February 1 2020. Liverpool V Southampton. When asked to comment on the two shouts for penalties by Gary Lineker, you said what of the one on Firmino?
Alan Shearer: ‘Clear and obvious penalties. Long on Firmino, there.’
Okay, so how does that differ from the one on Troy Deeney, other than the fact that Long has less of a hold on Firmino?
Alan Shearer: ‘It doesn’t. They don’t.’
Right, so what you are now saying is, either neither or both were penalties, meaning you got one of them wrong?
Alan Shearer: ‘That about sums it up.’
Martin Keown. Your comment was?
Martin: ‘I do think he [Cahill] is fouling him…he just about gets away with it.’
To me and every impartially minded person reading your comment: ‘he just about gets away with it’, it sounds as if you approve of cheating. Moreover, an impartial comment would have been something like: ‘I do think he is fouling him. He shouldn’t have gotten away with it.’ The it being cheating.
December 15 2019:
Wolves V Spurs.
Jermaine Jenas. After the Arsenal V Spurs match of September 1 2019, you rejected Harry Kane’s claim for a penalty?
Jermaine: ‘That I did, and rightly so.’
We’ll see how right you are with this: shows Jermaine footage of Kane being pushed by Wolves Dendoncker, who is subsequently booked by the referee. Clearly, under the laws of the game, you were 100% wrong with your comment?
Jermaine: ‘Having seen the footage of Kane being pushed by Dendoncker, yes, I was wrong. Kane should have been awarded a penalty during the Arsenal match and under Law 12 of the game.’
December 28 2019:
Watford V Aston Villa.
In contradiction of Jermaine Jenas’ claim that a foul is okay when it is ‘back in play’, Watford’s Mariappa received the first of two yellow cards for a foul ‘back in play’ on Villa’s No 10, Grealish.
As for Mariappa’s second yellow, the match commentator remarked: ‘There was no real contact there…’ Meaning, he should not have been booked, only to then remark ‘…the intent was there, though.’ Meaning that, Mariappa, remembering that he had just been booked 6 minutes earlier, pulled out of the tackle.
It’s worth pointing out that, a person with the intent to commit a crime, murder for instance, will not be found guilty of the crime, murder, for the ‘clear and obvious’ reason that their intended victim is alive.
Watford were awarded a penalty, one that, in contradiction of both Alan Shearer and Martin Keown above, was for something as simple and straightforward as a shoulder barge – no wrestling, and certainly, no ‘head lock to the ground’ – on Troy Deeney.
Question! In what way is a shoulder barge more obvious a foul than that of a player putting two arms/hands on another player’s back and barging him over?
None that the TRUTH can reason.
Burnley V Manchester United.
Foul in build up to goal by United’s No 9, Martial, on Burnley’s No 5, Tarkowski, spotted by match referee. Unfortunately, if either Danny Murphy or Jermaine Jenas were the match referee they would have, on comments made above, allowed Martial’s goal to stand.
January 1 2020:
Burnley V Aston Villa.
Alan Shearer. You said what of Aston Villa’s goal being ruled offside by VAR?
Alan Shearer: ‘It’s second phase.’
It strikes me that, you are confusing it with a player returning from an offside position, while that ploy by players may no longer be permissible. Either way, if a player is offside, then, under the current offside law, the goal should be ruled out.
February 23 2020:
Manchester United V Watford.
Two points of note here.
1. In addition to a screen informing fans that a VAR review was in progress (see similar notification next), a female voice was heard making that announcement to fans via stadium tannoys.
2. Although VAR ruled out Watford’s goal, they missed the fact that, prior to the ball touching a Watford player’s arm, Man United’s Maguire wrestled Troy Deeney, thereby fouling him.
On my earlier point: ‘what is the purpose of the pitch-side VAR monitor?’ A MOTD commentator said: ‘You do wonder what VAR is for, apart from offside decisions.’
June 20 2020. At long last MOTD was back after almost 4 months absence.
Spurs V Manchester United.
On the Paul Pogba foul that resulted in a penalty, Alan Shearer agreed it was a penalty.
Alan Shearer: ‘It’s a definite penalty.’
For what reason?
Alan Shearer: ‘Dyer clearly pushes him with his arm.’
And yet, Alan, you’ve discounted penalty claims for far worse offences. Players being held and wrestled to the ground?
Alan Shearer: ‘Yeah, I did.’
So, in retrospect, you were wrong with those previous decisions as mentioned above?
Alan Shearer: ‘Yes, I was wrong.’
Then, of course, apart from the earlier live match where what was about to happen could not be predicted, there was the sound of the crowd that was added to all the game highlights, including Bournemouth V Crystal Palace, further proof that, as mentioned above, the commentary is added to the highlights of each game.
There now follow comments relating to the VAR screen:
Much criticism of the VAR screens in Premier League grounds has been said by match commentators, MOTD & MOTD2 presenters and their guests. As you will note from the following their comments are unfounded as this photo montage of a VAR decision proves:
MOTD and MOTD2 would have you believe that absolutely ‘nothing’ is shown on the screens while a decision is under review:
In the above photo alone, I count 5 notifications of a ‘VAR Review’ in addition to that of the BIG screen, while additional notifications are displayed all the way around the ground.
October 27 2019:
Arsenal V Crystal Palace.
Ian Wright: ‘The thing with the fans sitting in the crowd…haven’t got a clue what’s going on. I can’t get my head around. The Premier League have to do something about it. They can’t be sitting there, not knowing what is going on.’
Ian, take a look at this montage and describe what you see on the screen just below the score and time elapsed in three of them:
Ian Wright: ‘Notifications that VAR are checking possible offside.’
Right. And so the fans sitting in the crowd are made aware of what’s going on by the VAR stadium screens?
Ian Wright: ‘Yes. The fans sitting in the crowd are made aware of what’s going on by the VAR stadium screens.’
Mark Chapman’s comments: ‘Nothing is explained to the fans in the ground. They don’t see anything…they [the fans] are being treated like idiots.’
Norwich V Manchester United.
Remark by match commentator, Jonathan Pearce: ‘Again there’s a break in play, again the fans in the ground are left in the dark.’
Despite saying all that, the replay clearly shows what on the stadium screen?
Jonathan Pearce: ‘VAR is checking for a penalty.’
Right. And so the fans in the ground were informed what was going on and, therefore, not, as you said, left in the dark?
Jonathan Pearce: ‘Correct. The fans were not left in the dark.’
November 3 2019:
Everton V Spurs.
Match commentator: ‘Inside the stadium, there is no notification on the big screen that there is a VAR check in progress.’
That, despite the evidence to the contrary above notifying the fact that a decision was in progress.
November 30 2019:
Spurs V Bournemouth.
Commentator’s remark: ‘Well, we didn’t get the VAR notification on the big screens inside Tottenham stadium.’
That’s as maybe; however, review this photo from Tottenham stadium:
Mark Chapman. During an edition of the BBC2 show: ‘NFL this week’, you made a comparison between VAR and American Football?
Mark: ‘Yeah, I did.’
Obviously, unlike the Premier League, the NFL have been using a similar technology to that of VAR for over 20 years, in particular, pitch side review booths?
Mark: ‘Most certainly.’
Moreover, when it comes to touchdowns, which is the NFL’s equivalent of scoring a goal in our football, which VAR, as with the NFL, checks the validity of?
Mark: ‘Exactly that.’
You, however, decided to, in your comparison, not just mention but show two clarifying points by one of the game’s commentators as to why one touchdown was ruled out and the other was ruled a success?
Mark: ‘Yeah, I…did.’
So, how does that compare with VAR?
Mark: ‘You’re right, it doesn’t.’
And why is that?
Mark: ‘The match commentator in both American and Premier League football has nothing to do with those who decide if a touchdown or goal is valid.’
Precisely!
December 21 2019:
Brighton and Hove Albion V Sheffield United.
In reply to those commentators etc (see above this) who have stated that ‘Fans are kept in the dark’ etc, about VAR decisions. 16:11 minutes into the game, the VAR screen indicated: ‘Checking goal possible offside’. At 16:12 minutes the screen read: ‘Decision no goal offside’.
Question! In what way were the fans not informed that a VAR check was in progress?
February 1 2020:
Leicester City V Chelsea
Notably, the TRUTH saved the best until last, and to MOTD’s total detriment!
Following Soyuncu’s pull on Tammy Abraham, VAR reviewed yet another negative decision on their part (non-award of a ‘clear and obvious’ penalty). For part of the duration, a television camera was trained on the stadium screen while Tammy Abraham was shown looking up at it. Proving that, once and for all, despite the claims to the contrary by MOTD and MOTD2 commentators, presenters and studio guests, that fans are informed and not, as Ian Wright said: ‘haven’t got a clue’.
June 20 2020:
Bournemouth V Crystal Palace, shown live on the BBC.
Gary Lineker. After the ball had gone out of play and the referee went to see Bournemouth’s Joshua King after Gary Cahill’s tackle, what happened?
Gary: ‘VAR reviewed the footage to see if a serious foul had been committed.’
How was that information relayed?
Gary: ‘The VAR screen.’
So, despite there being no crowds of spectators, VAR, as per usual, indicated what they were doing on the stadium screen(s)?
Gary: ‘Yes.’
And thanks to MOTD, the TRUTH has the footage from the programme.
That does rather confirm that comments made on MOTD and MOTD2 about fans not being informed etc, are untrue?
Gary: ‘Yes.’
Furthermore, MOTD and MOTD2 commentators, studio guests and at least one presenter, were the ones ‘keeping people in the dark’. Specifically, the millions of MOTD and MOTD2 viewers of the highlights programmes?
Gary: ‘I can’t tell a lie. Yes, as you say, MOTD and MOTD2 commentators, studio guests and at least one presenter, were the ones keeping people in the dark.’
Thank you for your honesty.
Notes:
1 From some of the comments; in particular, those relating to fouls, be they in or outside the penalty area, Danny Murphy, Alan Shearer and Jermaine Jenas, to name three, demonstrated themselves to be as disrespectful as VAR and the FA (Football Association) to the players concerned.
2 In addition to the above, it is worth pointing out, mentioning the following remark (assumption) by a MOTD commentator during one of the final games of the 2018 season: “If he does that next season, VAR will award a penalty!”
Like I said, it’s an assumption, and, by and large, a totally misplaced one considering the 130+ incidents that the TRUTH logged.
Finally, for all the whinging and whining by commentators, presenters and their studio guests, the ‘clear and obvious’ point that has eluded them is this: The fans, those who pay their money to sit in the stands ‘week in week out’ are frustrated with VAR because of the time it takes to come to a negative decision, ie, VAR’s failure to apply the laws, in particular, Law 12 of the game, and award a penalty for a foul on a player, noted by this photo:
The TRUTH’s recommendation to MOTD & MOTD2 is this: either study and comprehend the laws of football, in particular, Law 12 above, so that, in future, commentators, presenters and studio guests, don’t make fools of themselves, or replace them with those who do know the laws of the game. If the later is the case, don’t, whatever you do, consider former match referees.
Footnote: Having published this 26 years update of the original printed TRUTH from and since 1994 to the internet, the TRUTH has contacted, by e-mail, one or more of those named in this article. Specifically, BBC sport/MOTD. Furthermore, the TRUTH has attached a copy of Law 12 to the e-mail. Of course, the TRUTH, as always, expects the BBC to treat it with contempt, thereby showing contempt and disregard for Law 12 and contempt for the players.
The following e-mail was sent to the BBC for the attention of Match Of The Day:
It has come to the TRUTH's notice that some MOTD commentators, presenters and studio guests are oblivious as to the Football Association's Law 12.
With the premier League set to resume, I hereby attach Law 12, and suggest that those mentioned above, study it, bearing in mind that, if any of the offences listed are committed in the penalty area, a penalty should be awarded.
The TRUTH will be watching, while notification of this e-mail being sent has been added to the following article:
'The shortcomings of match of the day!'
Law 12 (see above) was sent as an attachment.
Confirmation e-mail received:
Contact us: the.irrefutable.truth2020@gmail.com