Brighton Highlights

[Winchester Royal]

I usually pick it up on Iplayer and then flick through until I find our highlights.

how do you get it on iplayer ?????

They didn't make one for boxing day, but that's what I usually do. Hence the irritation when i found out they didn't air one.

[i_kingsley]

I usually pick it up on Iplayer and then flick through until I find our highlights.

how do you get it on iplayer ?????

They didn't make one for boxing day, but that's what I usually do. Hence the irritation when i found out they didn't air one.

i tried looking on iplayer and it still wont let me look because im not in the uk
any idea would be a great help

[RoyalBlue]

It is going to be axed..2012/2013 is going to be match of the days last season aswell...Watch this space

It's true:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/29/football-league-show-to-be-axed-by-bbc-115875-23665448/

What the hell do we pay our licence fee for?

Oh I forgot, so the sodding Welsh can p*ss the money away by running everything to do with BBC Wales in two languages! If they love Welsh so much, why don't they sod off and run their country off their own tax rather than ours!

[Yahoops]

Having watched the high's shouldn't Mr Church get that goal?

He gets a definite head to it and unsights/confuses the keeper who seems to dive early or summat

Church said he didn't touch it.

[Snowball]

Having watched the high's shouldn't Mr Church get that goal?

He gets a definite head to it and unsights/confuses the keeper who seems to dive early or summat

Church said he didn't touch it.

Hilarious. There must be a force field around him, then.

[Ian Royal]

Looks more like a flick off the defender than hitting Church to me. And given Church says he didn't touch it that seems more likely than Church.

[Snowball]

Looks more like a flick off the defender than hitting Church to me. And given Church says he didn't touch it that seems more likely than Church.

Royals skipper Jobi McAnuff wasn't letting anyone take his two-goal Boxing Day treat away from him - despite Simon Church seemingly trying to claim the second goal!

The strike rounded off a ten-pass move started by Adam Federici, and it initially looked as if Simon Church got the final touch on McAnuff's excellent strike.

Asked if he was claiming the Royals' deflected second, the skipper said "I was never not claiming it, it has always been my goal!

"Churchy was somewhere in the vicinity and, as all strikers do he threw a hand up for it, but he has admitted it didn't touch him and it's taken a nick off the defender.

"So I'll be putting my captain's role to good use and claiming that one myself!



DIPLOMACY at work. Looked like a typical Church nicks the glory goal to me.

See how the eye-ball (and the original report) can deceive?

[Snowball]

Right on the half time whistle it was 2-0 - McAnuff's effort deflected home.

Simon Church looked to have been loitering and initially it looked like he may have got the final touch -
but the consensus was that it was the skipper's second and it rounded off a great first half for him.


No mention of a defender there, eh?

[Ian Royal]

FFS just admit you're wrong you egomaniac.

[melonhead]

football league show was awful anyway, spent half the time doing shite analysis, waste half of every report with managers walking up to the stadium/through corridoors, and give that prick clem ten minutes of shite too.

give us proper highlights that are longer than a minute for each game, with replays
and if it means the programme goes on for hours, so what- its on a midnight, theres nothing else on anyway.

if it goes to sky it will be annoying, but at least theyll do a proper job of it

[Svlad Cjelli]

I'm convinced Chuirch got a nick to the second goal - but that it's been given to Jobi for political reasons.

[melonhead]

from the highlights its church and the defender together and defender looks more likely- plus no way church wouldnt claim it if it was his

[Snowball]

I'm convinced Chuirch got a nick to the second goal - but that it's been given to Jobi for political reasons.

Exactly.

At the very worst it's like an assist.

Either


(a) He got a definite touch and should get the goal

(b) His challenge caused the defender to get a touch, result goal

Either way the two of them unsighted the keeper and changed the flight of the ball


I shall award Churchy the assists and p!ss a few people off.

[Snowball]

FFS just admit you're wrong you egomaniac.

That is so funny. I simply LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED.

[Snowball]

I'm convinced Chuirch got a nick to the second goal - but that it's been given to Jobi for political reasons.

Ian Royal says you're wrong, so admit it

[Greatwesternline]

Snowball, if you're going to start interpreting every goal by your own standards of what is an assist for you and what isn't, your statistics on assists will become less and less transparent, and it will become increasing subjective.

Given your love of statistics as objective evidence rather than the subjective "opinions" of how people feel players performed, it is somewhat strange that you want to start to use your own subjective views of what is and what isnt an assist, rather than what the players/OS have stated.

You can't have it both ways chappy, stick with stats or stick with opinions, don't mix and match if you want your stats to have

A) Credibility or
B) Authority

[melonhead]

Snowball, if you're going to start interpreting every goal by your own standards

LOL!

[Ian Royal]

I'm convinced Chuirch got a nick to the second goal - but that it's been given to Jobi for political reasons.

Seriously though, why? Where on earth is the gain?

McAnuff'd got one already. Church is a striker in need of goals to prove himself. McAnuff clearly doesn't need to prove a great deal given he's the captain and a regular.

Church says he didn't touch it, the highlights are inconclusive but it could just as easily be the defender. Occams razor says minor deflection off the defender. No need for any conspiracy.

[Snowball]

Snowball, if you're going to start interpreting every goal by your own standards of what is an assist for you and what isn't, your statistics on assists will become less and less transparent, and it will become increasing subjective.

Given your love of statistics as objective evidence rather than the subjective "opinions" of how people feel players performed, it is somewhat strange that you want to start to use your own subjective views of what is and what isnt an assist, rather than what the players/OS have stated.

You can't have it both ways chappy, stick with stats or stick with opinions, don't mix and match if you want your stats to have

A) Credibility or
B) Authority

"I shall award Churchy the assists and p!ss a few people off."


Seems like it's working...

[Snowball]

1. The Holy Church of Reading FC ALWAYS tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

2. It will NEVER, by any deed or omission, mislead fans, supporters opposition managers or boards.

3. It will never play with facts for reasons of politics.

4. All injuries are certified by the W.H.O.

5. No players drink alcohol or try recreational drugs or commit adultery.

6. No RFC player will ever cheat, dive or try to get an opposition player sent off.

7. Jimmy Kebe was NOT taking the piss and RFC has "video evidence" to prove it.

8. RFC are not interested in signing Adam Le Fondre

9. RFC will never change anything written on the OS even if it's political to do so.

10. Mr McDermott is a teapot.