Maybe he isn't, but then it is quite possible in some instances to judge a TV programme without seeing it. For example, if ITV2 were showing a documentary about Anne Widecombe's fanny, you'd know without seeing it that it was horrible and messy. Rather like Hull's performance last night.

There you have it Wilf, " the quote of the week " for the diary mate!!!

give it 15 mins it will be on humberside that wideicombes minge reeks

cant blame Agar for that .....or can we....

add that to geek stats everyone raves about and you still have the square root of nowing nowt about what the fook went on at wigan

...



How does he know anne widicombes fanny is messy is a more important subject mind

Really?



You might want to think that statement through a bit more.

I know what you did there

Say you didn't watch something on tv the other night, I don't know, lets say Lost. Your mate at work did watch it and tells you it was rubbish. Then someone else asks you what you thought of it. Do you tell him a) you don't know because you didn't see it, or b) it was rubbish?



By listening to the radio the commentators are giving you their own opinion, and you are then somehow trying to pass them off as your own. Yes they might be able to tell you what happened in the game, how the tries were scored etc, but you can find that out by reading the match report. Saying, "Richard Horne obviously had a good game because Gwilym told me so," is not a valid opinion (and I know those weren't your words before you start).

Must be a long way back to hull when your e then

No, it is not the same thing!



The commentators may give their opinions, e.g. "Tansey has been poor" or "Whiting should have scored" but they also provide facts, e.g. "Radford has been penalised" or "Hall has knocked on". You can listen to a commentary and form an opinion, based on what you have heard. For example I know Berrigan was quiet because his name was barely mentioned on Five Live.



In your analogy it would be like a friend describing in detail what happened in Lost minute by minute. If I hadn't listened to the commentary but someone told me "Hull were rubbish" then of course I couldn't form an opinion.



By the way, Lost was bloody brilliant this week

You're right, to an extent you can get a rough idea by listening, provided the commentry is accurate, but it is no subsitute for actually watching it, not by any means. The opinion of someone who has watched carries far more weight than someone who has listened.

This is fantastic, you actually are serious.

You're both partly right.



You can form an opinion on the generalities of a game from the commentary - although if you're listening to DDD it's a lot more difficult. For instance, forming the opinion that we gave away far too many penalties and/or didn't have enough possession doesn't require that you saw the game. What you can't form a full opinion on is the details of how well individual players performed, how good was the ref, etc. This is why I never vote on the MOM thread when I haven't seen a game for example.



And your analogy was a bit off TBH. If someone had given you a running commentary of the Lost episode you'd have been able to form an opinion of whether it sounded like a good episode or not.

So you've never formed an opinion on [ianything[/i that you haven't witnessed with your own eyes?





Think about it.

I did go to the game and did not think this Hull team would get outclassed in the way they did on friday. Without seeing TV close ups of penalty decisions it did seem that a raise in the noise levels of the Wigan fans always resulted in Mr Halibert blowing his whistle. I do wonder whether we are better suited to winter conditions than open running conditions.

Sadly, I agree with this. Think the wing is wrong for him - time to develop him more in his true centre position.



This season is starting to remind me of last - we start strong then teams suss out our weakness and play on it. This time it's our lack of wingers. How can a Super League club have only one experienced winger ffs? I know we thought we were covered with Lyne and Tuffour coming through and Briscoe there but all of a sudden with Calderwood's lack of game time that theory's looking pretty damn weak.



I cannot understand why, knowing as they did about the court case etc, Hull gave Raynor the 5 shirt only to get rid of him just before the season started. Surely this should have happened ages ago if it was going to at all and the close season goal be to get an experienced replacement. Would we have shipped 48 on Friday if Raynor had been playing?



Either way, suddenly, for me, we have a new priority - get a second experienced winger signed pdq.

Was getting rid of Raynor a bit hasty?

Calderwood and Raynor on each wing . Yeaman at left centre . Hall , Briscoe and Whiting fighting for the right centre spot.

Tom is a talent but he needs to play centre.

Legal advice could easily have changed. It's entirely possible that the club were advised that he'd be fine, only to be told later that the situation was now worse. I think that they stuck with him as long as they could but the combination of a less optimistic legal prognosis and his continuing injury trouble combined to change their mind.



Just an unfortunate combination of circumstances.

no it was the right choice.

Circumstances but getting rid was right choice....my concern is the Moa re-signing...was very hasty and could have used money for another back or qouta spot

And then, when one of our props got injured, we'd be without cover.

Lauali can cover....got ample cover up front but no cover in wings.

No cover? We've only 1 recognised SL winger in the whole squad.

Not really.

Rubbish, you have no idea if the penalty a) should have been awarded b) it was a forced penalty(holding the tackler down to gain penalty) or c) it was a blatant penalty. You would be using [iother[/i peoples opinions to make your own.



Maybe my analogy wasn't the perfect example but you get the idea I was trying to get across.

None of which has any relevance to the [inumber[/i of penalties compared to the other team. Neither is any of it relevant to the amount of possession. You don't need to make a value judgement of why the pens are happening to know that there are too many of them or that they're causing a problem. Now - if you wanted to get into a discussion about how justified they were, as you outline above, you'd need to have seen the game.





Yes, but your idea is flawed. Or at least partly. There are parts of a game that it's perfectly possible to get enough info about from a radio commentary to form an opinion , and parts that there aren't.