by yeovilgull » 18 Mar 2014, 14:59
Yes I saw this. I didn't think the presenters were biased against Joss. They implied that it was harsh to ban him for 10 games on that evidence and in fact said they couldn't see any bite taking place. One of the presenters also commented on the (lack of) reaction from the Chesterfield player and that he would have reacted much more if it had been him and he had been bitten.
they go on to compare biting to a serious foul/tackle saying that a dangerous foul is part of the risk of the job but biting and spitting shouldn't be in football.
All in all I thought it was an unbiased piece of reporting looking at both aspects.
Anbody who missed it and is interested can see it on BBC IPlayer Late Kick off South and West and go forward to nearly 26 mons into the show.
Yes I saw this. I didn't think the presenters were biased against Joss. They implied that it was harsh to ban him for 10 games on that evidence and in fact said they couldn't see any bite taking place. One of the presenters also commented on the (lack of) reaction from the Chesterfield player and that he would have reacted much more if it had been him and he had been bitten.
they go on to compare biting to a serious foul/tackle saying that a dangerous foul is part of the risk of the job but biting and spitting shouldn't be in football.
All in all I thought it was an unbiased piece of reporting looking at both aspects.
Anbody who missed it and is interested can see it on BBC IPlayer Late Kick off South and West and go forward to nearly 26 mons into the show.