Bold - so why do I have to show you anything? You go on to say I've given no evidence - I have repeated (what you already knew) about the comments of the main pundits, I have also showed you that Arteta is one of the players that committed the most fouls. How is this not evidence? What more evidence would you like? Bear in mind that if you request more evidence, you will also have to provide evidence that shows any pundits that suggest it wasn't a penalty. So far you have provided none, other than your own view. Caps - I'm showing you pundits views. I don't think I've really given my own views, because I assumed you knew what they were. Underlined - I never said I was the voice of objectivity or reason - that's you putting words in my mouth. I have avowedly stated my unobjectivity from that post you responded to earlier. What we were discussing is how we can assess the group objectivity of others. I am merely demonstrating the best chance of objectivity that we have, as weak as it may or may not be. As for moaning - I think we have already done that. Of course we were moaning. When you have a perceived injustice you moan just as much. A little harsh to say this recent discussion is moaning, though, given that we've not been discussing the match per se, just the opinions of pundits. I'm pretty easy now. Our season relies on us doing the best we can from our remaining games, same as you. We've both got something left to fight for so attentions can be turned elsewhere. I like to hear opposing opinions that challenge my own, is all. If you are not interested, fair enough, just don't answer. Don't resort to personal attacks though.
Sorry, my post was not clear. The "..." was meant exactly as you describe. I think Keown is a decent pundit. I wouldn't reject his opinion simply on the basis of this, though I would qualify it. As we have qualified all the others. I didn't reject any bias from Hansen and Moyes, I simply said that it is not as heavy as direct supporters' bias and I can pick several reasons for them to be biased against us Trust me, I am (and all Norwich fans are) a long way from holding MotD pundits as gospel speakers. We experience more than you the editing of highlights. Take a look at Lawrenson's opinion of us if you don't believe me. I think all underdogs would say the bbc is very "big" team focused, in fact. I appreciate that some teams are "bigger" than other "big" teams though... The question we have been debating is, if we completely dismiss all their views, and all those of the commentators and other pundits in question, whose opinion can we rely on as a measure of objectivity? No-one. They are, unfortunately, the only miserable iota of objectivity that we have. Finding them irritating is part of the fun, because realistically, there is no-one else to argue with.
Just a question Canary; what are your objectives here? You're spending a lot of time arguing, but you're not going to convince anyone you're right.
a) All of their opinions are still not 'evidence' (and you haven't got their opinions anyway, just a load of match reports). If enough people tell you you're talking rubbish will that eventually mean that that's evidence that you're talking rubbish? Let's hope so. b) What are we supposed to be providing you evidence of exactly? I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just refuting your made-up conclusions that aren't based on anything other than hearsay. c) Stating that someone who neither supports Norwich or Arsenal is more objective than a fan of either team is, again, false. I don't support Spurs or Chelsea or Stoke or Watford... but I'd probably be more biased making opinions about those teams that many of their owns fans.
1. It probably wasn't a foul for the Norwich goal 2. It probably wasn't a corner for the Arsenal penalty 3. It probably was a penalty 4. Walcott should probably have had another penalty 5. Walcott was definitely offside for our third goal. All-in-all, I'm not sure what you're moaning about. Poor decisions all round, Norwich lost. The only thing you can moan about is the order of events and the lateness of the come-back. Because Norwich scored first (from the 'foul') you believe that because we scored controversially late on, that somehow you had a 'plucky' victory snatched from you. Nonsense. You lost. Move on.
There was definitely a strong case for the penalty, but it is certainly a matter of opinion and it is common for penalties like that not to be given. You mentioned the commentators well in play he did give his opinion that it was a pen so it depends who you listen to which I guess would naturally be however supports your view. I watch every minute of every Arsenal game as u can always find a feed and time and again I see major incidents in our favour cut out so I personally wouldnt say there is an Arsenal big club bias by the BBC or the media in general. I don't really want to start the conspiracy theory name jibes but the big team that does always seem to get favourable coverage is United, you also see allot of praise for Spurs from the media too for some reason even though they rarely achieve anything of note.
a) You asked me for evidence that pundits have said it wasn't a penalty. I gave you that evidence - I told you about Moyes, Crooks et al (though you already knew). That is evidence of their opinions. I'm not sure what evidence you're expecting me to produce? b) You said that you disagreed that pundits have, on the whole, said it wasn't a penalty. I have only found one (Keown). Therefore, currently we have a majority. c) You are, again, straw manning... It is a matter of common sense that, on the whole, people who are a fan of neither team are more objective. The question is then merely one of weight and quantity. Here, I am saying there is just as much weight against us as against you with each of the pundits, and the quantity suggests that they are more likely to be objective. This is, unfortunately, indisputable. Once again, if we can't rely on them, who do you propose we rely on?
You might call it being a knob but clearly it has it's advantages which is why players do it. Like surrounding the ref, it's not something managers put on the chalkboard but lots of teams do it and that's because it helps. You well know Arsenal will use every trick in the book to try and gain an advantage if they need to and I don't think Tottenham are any different either. There are some players that are particularly nasty and some teams that will use more "gamesmanship" than others but other than outright filthy behaviour, like violent conduct, there's really no one who's in a position to criticise. The funny thing is that Arsenal are equally adept at niggly fouls, you just tend not to do it so much when you're chasing a game and time wasting every player and team does, from picking the ball up after a foul and running away jogging away, to players taking their time over a setpiece. If you think Arsenal are so well behaved then you only need to go back a few years to when for numerous examples of when Arsenal players were behaving appallingly. In short, that's why it's embarrassing seeing an Arsenal fan trying to tell others how there team should play/behave. You might aswell start criticising teams for hoofball like you never had a team that played like that. Anyway, if it offends you that much then perhaps you should start by being annoyed with the refs that allow it rather than the teams that you think take advantage.
Those are all your opinions, though. You have no evidence and no reference for any of your opinions. So let's play a little game, here's my evidence following your numbering: 1. It probably was a foul for the Norwich goal - both the linesman and the referee gave it, no pundits seem to have questioned it. Moreover, Kamara was touched, so it is a question of whether the touch caused the fall or he fell over himself. A difficult call. 2. It definitely wasn't a corner for the Arsenal penalty - only heard Arsenal fans claim that this wasn't, seems a strange one? Not heard/seen any evidence to the contrary. 3. It possibly wasn't a penalty - a marginal call. In favour are the linesman and Keown. Against are all those listed above. 4. Walcott possibly shouldn't have had another penalty - both linesman and referee had a clear view, no commentators only Arsenal fans have brought this up. In the rules, this is marginal, seen them given, seen them not. Probably a close one. 5. Walcott was definitely offsid for your third goal - match replay. See what I've done there? If I want to moan, it is my right. Why does it bother you? Ultimately, as I said earlier, most people who could even remotely be classed as objective sway towards the above. Doesn't that seem odd to you? What do you do in that situation? Who's objective view do you rely on?
Agreed, but you will still find it ahead of Norwich, as expected - so much of our game is manipulated every time we play, unfortunately. Not so sure about Spurs, people are much more interested in Arsenal, I have to say.
Apologies, I thought this was clear. As I have asked a number of times - I'm intrigued as to whose opinion you do rely on if you completely refute everybody's credibility? The point is that, simply, the opinions of MotD, Sky Sports, etc., etc. are, I agree, far from objective. However, we have nothing else and at least there is a broad enough range to give us some measure of objectivity. If you remove that, if you don't question your own opinions, I think it's a very boring world. Everyone agreeing? How tedious. I'd like to see my opinions questioned, my evidence probed (no innuendo intended) and, where relevant (the weight of the evidence or strength of the argument opposes my view) I am more than happy to change it. I suppose I am narrow-minded in that I can't understand how people are happy without this.
Any perceived media bias was whilst we had 'Arry, before he arrived we banned several journalists from press conferences and our relationship with the media was at an all time low. Once we sacked 'Arry all the stories coming out were about how unfair it was to sack him, how AVB was doomed to fail and that the squad were divided and many hated him. Given how all those stories were untrue it's hard to see how the media favour us. Even when it comes to praising us it's because most have had to eat their words as few predicted we'd be challenging for the top 4 at the start of the season and once we went 7 points ahead of 5th in the league, it was hard to ignore that we were doing well. Since then, naturally there's been little to no praise of us as our advantage was thrown away. I think you're just more sensitive to Spurs getting praised, the media is full of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and United fans and ex players so that's where the bias tends to be.
I have an excellent idea. How about you all start forming your own opinions rather than relying on others?
Is this still going on? I lost all interest when Canary referred to Wenger as a "brilliant strategist." He clearly doesn't watch much Arsenal
i just love opposition fans. One week we are told that it is an obvious penalty and a stonewall red card when Metersacker wraps his arms around a guy and pulls him to the ground. Almost the next week Giroud gets hauled down by someone putting his arms round him from behind and hauling him down and we are told, don't be silly it goes on all the time; no call is the right call. I'll freely admit that the referee was crap, but trying to suggest that he gave more calls to Arsenal than to Norwich is just stupid. If he had called the game strictly and fairly Norwich would have 10 men at the end, and it would have been about 4-0 to Arsenal.
You're saying it's not your personal preference to trust your own opinion?? That now explains a lot. If you need Alan Hansen and Garth Brooks to tell you what to think about football then... well... oh dear.
