30 replies to this topic

[my missus]

just a reminder it should be good.

Edited by my missus, 19 July 2012 - 10:42 PM.

[carlos]

awful program . Rod Studd could have an argument in an empty room. Surprisingly, I thought Stevo made some valid points. Studd just seemed to want to wind everyone up.

[Rob]

Great program. Glad its got the air time it deserves, I guess this is becasue of its popularity on the website.

I think Rod Studd was factualy wrong about the Harris case, he said or implied it went to Court and the Bulls lost. My understanding was that it was settled out of court.

I wonder when it was filmed? The bit about Noble coming back was probably true when they recorded it, but events have since overtaken the program.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Good programme. That guy next to Studd offers some good reasoned insight that isn't based on emotion, unlike the others who just seem to want to have a competition to see who can be the loudest and say the most things.

Studd is a wind-up merchant. Sometimes it's funny to see him take Stevo to task, but it's often disrespectful as well. I can see Stevo's veins popping out of his head at times!

[Amber Avenger]

I wonder when it was filmed? The bit about Noble coming back was probably true when they recorded it, but events have since overtaken the program.

It was recorded Tuesday Morning I think. The problem is with the Bulls situation is that almost everything is outdated by the time you are finished!

[Stan Doffarf]

I had to turn it off. It was like four half-cut teenagers arguing in the pub. Couldn't even follow much of it because they were all shouting over each other.

[hindle xiii]

I like the concept, but I much prefer if it was more organised. I didn't like last night's episode, even though it was Bradford-centric. It was too combative to follow. I also think the uncertain and unclear nature of the current Bulls situation led it to be a confusing programme.

[bearman]

I think it's brilliant. 4 blokes that are opinionated and care about the game.
Studd lights the touch paper and Stevo reacts.
The two proper journalists add some reason to the debate. It's lighthearted and entertaining.

[hindle xiii]

I think it's brilliant. 4 blokes that are opinionated and care about the game.
Studd lights the touch paper and Stevo reacts.
The two proper journalists add some reason to the debate. It's lighthearted and entertaining.

It is, but they just end up talking over each other and repeating the same point a dozen times.

[carlos]

Exactly hindle, if they are going to do it , then it needs to be like sunday supplement with the football writers. Its on for a good himour i think which gives time to have proper debate rather than rushed shouting!

[Southstander13]

Who were the guests for this one? Not seen it this week.

I think the first few episodes were a bit calmer, and the discussions much more organised but since then Rod Studd seems to have decided shouting down others and being loud is the way forward! I find it frustrating to watch at times. Although I would say that it only seems to be like that when Stevo is involved!

[HKR AWAY DAYS]

I like this show. I asked Chris Irvine about it on Twitter and he said that to get it on TV we must try and advertise it and support it. Looks like that worked so hopefully it'll be a regular fixture.

[MrPosh]

I think that Irvine and Wilson are excellent on it.

Studd does a good job presenting (I find myself disliking him, but I think that's half the point) and Stevo is, well, Stevo. Wish he didn't keep repeating that Bradford fans want to know who's to blame.

That's way down the line, if and when we've still got a club.

[hindle xiii]

I've just caught up on this weeks' episode, what a horrible way to end! Studd just ranting for the sake of it with his stupid idea of 'captain's challenges' akin to tennis. Over-seeing one major flaw in that the video referee is not there for the teams but for the referee. Two challenges per half/per game? No. Stupid. The video referee system is fine, it's just the implementation of it is a little awry.

[Rob]

I've just caught up on this weeks' episode, what a horrible way to end! Studd just ranting for the sake of it with his stupid idea of 'captain's challenges' akin to tennis. Over-seeing one major flaw in that the video referee is not there for the teams but for the referee. Two challenges per half/per game? No. Stupid. The video referee system is fine, it's just the implementation of it is a little awry.

I don't agree.

I like the idea of a Captain's challenge, or Coach's challenge, but not in the way Rod Studd suggests.

There should be no limit on the number of challenges per se - but rather a limit on the number of wrong, or unproven challenges allowed.

I would suggest that each captain is allowed 1 wrong or unproven challenge.

But if the challenge of a decision gets a decision reversed, then the team continues to be able to challenge decisions.

A limit of 1 wrong decision per team would stop captains or coaches taking the p**s with challenges.

Through my Bradford rose-tinted specs, I think we have had more than our fair share of harsh decisions over the years. The Ganson affair in Cardiff would have been successfully reversed if we had been able to challenge it.

Although clearly not all controversial decisions would be eliminated. Think of the Leon Pryce 'try' which was disallowed in the 1999 Grand Final (disallowed due to a Michael Withers 'knock on'). This would not have been successfully challenged as the video referee had already looked at the decision and decided Withers had knocked on.

The video referee has clearly reduced the number of incorrect decisions. The ability to challenge a decision would reduce even further the number of incorrect decisions. We will never eliminate incorrect decisions totally from the game. But I think the game should continually strive to improve all areas, including reducing mistakes made by match officials in games.

Some people have suggested dropping or suspending referees when they make big mistakes. I can't see how this improves the referee's ability. We need to give them more assistance when they inevitabily miss the occasional rule infringement.

An acceptable alternative to a 'challenge' system would be to have video referees continually feeding back info the man in the middle. The man in the middle then makes a judgement on the strength of advice recieved from the touch judges and video referee. And the video referee could assist in some cases of obvious forward passes. Yes, there's the camera angles issue. But nevertheless some forward pass decisions could be assisted by the referee.

[OMEGA]

Rod Studd obviously has little more than a superficial knowledge of the game and just smirks and bluffs his way through every subject.

The sooner he and Stevo realise its not about them and is actualy about the discussion of the game the better.

Stevos TV persona and poor attempts at humor are wearing seriously thin and getting very old, can we please find someone who will lift us from the low brow type of childishness that pervades every SKY SL broadcast.

[Black Country Wire]

I've just caught up on this weeks' episode, what a horrible way to end! Studd just ranting for the sake of it with his stupid idea of 'captain's challenges' akin to tennis. Over-seeing one major flaw in that the video referee is not there for the teams but for the referee. Two challenges per half/per game? No. Stupid. The video referee system is fine, it's just the implementation of it is a little awry.

I absolutely agree with this. The big problem with the "challenge" system is what happens if a ref makes an absolute howler (they're only human) which has to stand because the challenges have been used up. No doubt Studd will then be amongst those stating it's disgraceful that they couldn't use the video ref to make the right decision.

[hindle xiii]

What's more, from what I could gather, Studd was advocating it as a change to the system, so not an additional option.

[Dave T]

Rod Studd obviously has little more than a superficial knowledge of the game and just smirks and bluffs his way through every subject.

The sooner he and Stevo realise its not about them and is actualy about the discussion of the game the better.

Stevos TV persona and poor attempts at humor are wearing seriously thin and getting very old, can we please find someone who will lift us from the low brow type of childishness that pervades every SKY SL broadcast.

I think the main issue here is that the guests appear to be the same people every week.

I quite enjoy the show, but it is becoming like this board. We know the views of certain people, and tbh once they move onto a topic, you know what their stance will be.

Can they not try and get at least one or two topical guests on to air some different views?

[hindle xiii]

I think the video ref is ok, my only gripe is it isn't available for everyone, every week.