The lottery of the penalty shootout

In this World Cup so far, we have had 4 second round and 2 penalty shootouts.  In that sense, we have had 2 of the most different penalty shootouts that you could have possibly had already during this second round.

The first one involved Brazil and Chile, where there were as many penalties saved as there were scored.  The second one involved Costa Rica, the unexpected unbeaten team of this World Cup, and Greece, and in that one, only one penalty was missed, by Greece at a crucial time, their fourth penalty, which meant that Costa Rica had to score to win, which they did.  Costa Rica didn’t miss a single penalty, and that is one of the rare situations where you can truly say that a team went through on penalties on merit, scoring every single one they took.

Otherwise, the penalty shootout is a lottery.  Saved penalties, missed penalties, over the bar, wide, hitting the woodwork, easy saves, spectacular saves, we’ve seen them all at various points.  It’s no way to end even a Johnston’s Paint Trophy match, let alone something as big as a World Cup match. 

No team ever deserves to go out on penalties, and it hurts to see it.  Some commentators seem to be under the false idea that a penalty shootout is something that all neutral fans love.  In fact, I find this not to be true at all.  Most true sports fans, the ones who want to see a great game, no matter who teams, no matter what the sport, absolutely hate the penalty shootout.  It turns a game of skill, heart, passion and conditioning, into a game of chance, a game of luck, a game of who can win the lottery.

In sports like basketball and hockey, you get overtime periods, and you keep getting overtime periods until you score.  In Soccer, you have 2 15-minute periods of Extra Time, no more and no less.  Then you are onto penalties.  Golden goal extra time was trialled, as was silver goal, where you had until the end of the 15 minute period to reply, depending on how late the goal was scored.  For some baffling reason, both players and fans complained about these, and they have been quietly forgotten by most within the game, and most fans as well. 

But, if after 2 periods of extra time, you cannot separate them, then you should have additional periods of extra time, where the next goal finishes the game.  It should be a moment of skill that wins it, not a moment of luck.  It would also stop the horrible situation that we get in most extra time games, where one or both teams ends up playing for penalties, for some, most or in some cases, all of that second period of extra time. 

Costa Rica’s penalty shootout was the exception that proved the rule.  Scoring every penalty you take, you can’t argue that they didn’t deserve to go through from that match, especially as they had a pretty blatant handball in the 18 yard box, missed by the referee, and that meant they didn’t get the penalty they should have had, but in the end, it didn’t matter, justice was done, and Costa Rica continue as the surprise undefeated team of this World Cup.

But I hope that sometime soon, we can finally persuade the footballing authorities, to do away with the lottery that is the penalty shootout.  It’s no way to decide a game, especially not at a World Cup.

Madonna and Katy Perry raunch it up, dominatrix style

I rarely post about the celebrity obsessed side of the media, as to be honest, it mostly bores me.  It either builds them up or tears them down, and that’s pathetically predictable and predictably boring.

Another predictable story angle is when a celebrity does a raunchy photo shoot or video, the more culturally conservative elements, will go batty over the raunchiness, and hyper-criticise the shoot.

So, when we had the raunchy shoot that involved Madonna and Katy Perry in lots of leather and thigh high boots, we got it all.

Personally, I believe in artistic freedom, and that means doing things that maybe aren’t quite so family friendly, alongside the more family friendly material.  Adults are fans of these singers, as well as kids, so they should be allowed to do something that is designed to appeal to their more adult fans.  Besides, there’s something really refreshing about seeing Madonna being dominated by Katy Perry in a few of those shots.

The alternatives to the Dawlish route, and those getting in the way.

BBC News Online has a page up about the alternatives to the Dawlish route, for the railways in Cornwall and Devon.

Now, I’ve posted about this before, both on my radio show’s Facebook page, and here on the Viewpoint blog.  And I’ll be honest with you, this matters a lot to me.  After the closure of Plymouth City Airport, the loss of the helicopter link to the Isles of Scilly, and the continued situation at Newquay airport, which could close if subsidy isn’t made available, the fact that our only rail link to Exeter, Bristol, London, Birmingham, Scotland, and Wales is shut for 2 months, is a situation I want us to avoid in the future, AT ALL COSTS.

Let me say that again, at all costs.

With that said, let’s look at the routes proposed. 

The first three I’ll mention here, are new routes, which require a lot of work.  They basically by-pass Dawlish to rejoin the main line, either at Dawlish Warren, Powderham or Exminster.  These are not pre-existing lines, and would require a lot more work than any of the other routes.  In my view, these would only be any good if there had been no other alternatives.

The next route I’ll mention here is the old Teign Valley line, which connects Newton Abbot to Exeter, via Chudleigh and Christow.  It needs a little rebuilding, but it is a workable solution for when the Dawlish line is disrupted as it has been this winter.  I do have to agree with what the experts say though, it is of limited benefit really, but after the disruption we’ve had, I’ll happily take a limited benefit route over the messy situation that we as travellers have had to put up with.  This route should be put in place.

The last route is my personal favourite and should be running all the time, even alongside the main Dawlish route.  This is the over Dartmoor route that runs from Plymouth, up the current Gunnislake branch line to Bere Alston, then up an already committed line to Tavistock, then along a rebuilt stretch to Okehampton before joining up with an existing line that is currently used for freight, and Sunday passenger service during the summer, to Exeter.  This route should never have closed in the first place, and frankly, it shouldn’t be just an emergency route, it should be in operation all day, every day.

Unfortunately some people near the Tavistock route, seem to have very distorted priorities in this affair…

“…Colin Rogers, who owns the old Tavistock station - a mixture of holiday cottages and private homes - said property owners were concerned about how much compensation they would get…”

Compensation?  COMPENSATION???

Perhaps those property owners should consider compensating the business in their own area and everywhere westward for the loss of income that has resulted from the line closure at Dawlish.  If they invested in property without having a substantial cushion of liquid capital, then they’re playing in a class that they have no right to be in.  If they can’t handle the risk, they shouldn’t be playing the high risk, high rent district of property.

Viewpoint Sports: Does being 'booked' actually mean anything?

I've been thinking about this for a while, during various times watching either live football or football highlights programmes.  You watch a player commit a foul, and the referee decides that the foul is serious enough to warrant a 'booking' as it is called.  So the referee calls the player over, produces a yellow card, and puts the player's name and/or number in a little black book that he carries.

Sorry, but what kind of penalty is that?  What does going in the referee's little black book actually mean?

Apparently, not much.  A yellow card is a 'caution' that is issued to the player concerned.  That's it, merely a caution.  In Rugby Union, a player that is yellow carded is sent to the 'Sin Bin', for 10 minutes, temporarily reducing the team by 1, which in other sports is sometimes refered to as a "Power Play".

On this day, there were 5 Premier League matches in England.  Between those 5 games, there were 17 yellow cards and 2 red cards.  Now one of those reds was a straight red card, and upon viewing the footage, even that seemed harsh.  The Scottish Premiership saw 2 matches today, one of which had no yellow or red cards, the other had 5 yellows and no reds.  7 top flight games in the UK, and between them all, 22 yellow cards and 2 red cards.

In the English Premier League today, one team, Southampton, had 5 yellow cards issued against them. That's almost half a team in the referee's book.  It's not as bad as an infamous match in the 2006 World Cup when Portugal and the Netherlands were issued 16 yellow cards between them and 4 players got yellow carded twice and got sent off. 

It seems that cautions mean nothing.  Maybe it is time to change what a yellow card actually means in Football. 

Now there are two possible options.  One is to make a yellow card mean the same as it does in Rugby Union, 10 minutes in a penalty box or sin bin for the player shown the card, temporarily reducing the team strength by 1.  Such a move would stop the cynical fouls that result in bookings that prevent what look to be potential goals.  It would also make players think twice before making silly challenges as your team being down a player for 10 minutes is more of a penalty, than a mere caution.  Upon a second yellow card, it would still become a red and a sending off for the duration of the game. 

The other, is to separate the yellow card and red card offences, in other words two yellows would not be an automatic red card, and have various penalties, probably various cards, for differing lengths of time in the 'Sin Bin'.  You could have three levels of penalty, worth 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 15 minutes depending on how serious the foul was, and the red card would still mean sending off. 

I like both thoughts, and to be honest, either one would have more of a deterrent effect than a mere caution. 

Good Morning Britain to return, but is it the change needed?

Earlier this week, we had perhaps the worst kept secret in broadcasting revealed to be true.  Good Morning Britain was indeed to return to ITV, although this time the hosts would be Susannah Reid, joining from BBC Breakfast; Ben Sheppard, former GMTV host; Charlotte Hawkins, joining from Sky News; and Sean Fletcher, joining from Sky Sports News and previously with BBC News Channel.

But this is not the first time ITV has changed the name of their breakfast programme.  In fact, Daybreak came about as a result of perceived problems with GMTV. 

But is another change of name and personnel what is required, or is it a case of moving the deckchairs on the Titanic?

In my analysis of Daybreak, and it's competition, BBC Breakfast, I noticed that whilst Breakfast looks like it comes from a BBC News studio, the look of Daybreak contrasts quite wildly with ITV News, despite having ITV News branded bulletins as part of Daybreak.  If anything, ITV needs to make it more like ITV News.  At the very least, the news bulletins every half hour should come from the ITV News virtual studio, albeit the colour scheme of the studio should reflect the Good Morning Britain look, to distinguish it from other ITV News bulletins, in the same way that ITV News at Ten does from the other bulletins.  

Editorially, the ITV News agenda has improved massively since the days of the 1999-2004 editorial debacle that was the excessively tabloid ITV News, which had replaced ITN News, even though the new look ITV News was still produced by ITN.  But the morning agenda, which has been carried through GMTV and Daybreak, hasn't caught up quite.  At times, it does catch up, and at other times, it seems to go backwards to being more tabloid again.  GMB needs to be popular, not tabloid.  There is a distinct difference, and it needs to be explained.

Tabloid is what you see in the red-tops, over-hyped, editorialised, and generally overdoing everything kind of news.  Another form of tabloid agenda is one that has been popularised by some local US TV stations, 'If It Bleeds, It Leads'. That's tabloid.  Shock value over News Value.

Popular News, as I call it, is the kind of news that actually isn't overhyped, isn't sensationalised, and isn't necessarily showbiz-based, but it is based on what people actually need to know.  It includes news about the economy and consumer related items, essential news about politics, mostly about real issues rather than the endless debates about Europe in the Westminster bubble; and it would also include some news about crime, although not in the hyper-sensentionalised 'if it bleeds, it leads' way that tabloid news does.

If ITV wants Good Morning Britain to be more successful than Daybreak, then it needs to totally embrace the current ITV News agenda, which is more like what I call 'Popular News'.  

But more than that, it needs to avoid the trap of going for competitions through the morning. Competitions are not required at that time of the morning, because most people who have the TV on at that time of day, can't stop to think about what the answer is, so don't bother with them.  Radio is learning this, and slowly moving away from competitions during their breakfast shows.

More than that though, GMB needs to cover things like Sport, which seems to get very little coverage currently on Daybreak.  Having Sean Fletcher as part of the team seems to indicate they are taking that angle more seriously.  Another angle that needs more coverage in the mornings is regional news.  6 minutes of regional updates across 3 bulletins, one per hour, isn't enough, when your competition is running 18 minutes of regional updates across 6 bulletins, twice an hour.  The contrast is stark, very stark.  If anything, even just a doubling of the number of updates, making theirs twice an hour, would be an improvement, but more than that, they do need to make their updates longer, and do something with them that makes them not just a copy of what the BBC does, but distinctive.

Some showbiz news will be a part of the programme, especially around the time of the awards ceremonies, like The Oscars.   But overdoing showbiz news is not a good thing, especially in the mornings.  ITV News has a lot of resources across the country, and using those resources wisely for the right stories, is going to be part of making GMB a success.

If they make a few changes of substance alongside the returning name and the new presenters, then it could help turn ITV's fortunes around.  If not, then it will simply be moving the deckchairs on the sinking ship.  Only time will tell us, if that is what happens.

Dawlish rail link to re-open April 4th.

This is a story that pleases me no end.

It will be exactly 2 months between the line getting damaged by storms, and the line re-opening, and that is great news.

Network Rail has been working around the clock to make the repairs that are needed to restore the line to working order.  They deserve our thanks and our appreciation.

Also, First Great Western deserve a lot of credit, for how they have handled the entire situation.  They have worked very hard to make sure that, as much as physically possible, some kind of service remained in place, even if it wasn't the one they had wanted to run, as based on their published timetable.

However, the whole situation has shown up issues that need to be tackled without delay.

The first one I'm going to bring up, is the continuing debate over whether there should be an airport in Plymouth.

I'm going to make no bones about this.  THERE MUST BE AN AIRPORT IN PLYMOUTH.

Why?  You even need to ask why?  The old Plymouth City Airport to London service could transport people there in less than an hour, whjilst the train still takes 3 hours at quickest.

It was also linked to Newquay Airport, in fact the route started there.  The whole route from Newquay to London via Plymouth took no more than 90 minutes, and was run up to 5 times a day.  And if you think that is the only route that Plymouth had, think again.  There were many others to other UK domestic airports, which made for a speedy connection to many places.

Such services could be provided again.  Flights to the Channel Islands, Bristol, Bournemouth, Cardiff, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast, Derry, Birmingham, St Mary's in the Isles of Scilly (via Newquay and Lands End[if they can tarmac it]), Leeds, Southhampton, Manchester, Liverpool and many more places are all possible, helping to create an air network that would be speedier than the train, and enable cross country travel between the South West and the rest of the country in no more than 3 hours.  Heck, even some limited international flights to places like Dublin or Paris would help no end.

Sadly, the airport's owners, Sutton Harbour Holdings, have shown no real interest in re-opening the airport, claiming it wouldn't be viable.  Yet it seems to be the case that the airport was viable when Plymouth City Council operated it.  And maybe a consortium could run Newquay and Plymouth airports together, making sure both remained viable and operational.

Because in many ways, when Plymouth City Airport closed, the routes that ran from Newquay became a problem, as the customers that were picked up at Plymouth made those routes viable.  Now the airport at Newquay needs subsidy to run.  If Newquay closes, then Exeter becomes the only major airport in the South West, and as we've seen with the railways since February 4th, getting to Exeter would be problematic.

So what to do about the railway itself?  Well, the favourite idea for creating a second route, has been the re-opening of the old LSWR line that ran from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton and Tavistock.  The route from Plymouth to Tavistock has already be committed to prior to this, and it does seem to make sense to re-open that old stretch of track.  The line was closed in 1968, and it was a shame that this happened.  The process of concentrating traffic on one line, the one that got damaged on February 4th, meant that old LSWR line was deemed surplus to requirements.  It doesn't seem surplus to requirements now.

There is also an old Teign Valley route which is being considered, and in my view, reviving this, AS WELL AS, the Plymouth, Tavistock, Okehampton, Exeter route, would be an ideal double solution to the problem.  The northern line needs to be revived anyway, and run as a regular service all the time.  The Teign Valley line would work as a back up should the line at Dawlish get damaged again.

There is one other point that I would like to make in regards to the railways around Cornwall and Devon.  The fact that some areas, especially around North Cornwall, have been cut off from the railway network and could do with being revived in order to create a second Great Western route.  The line between Newquay and Perranporth should be re-opened, as should the lines that connected Padstow, Bude and Launceston to the rail network.  Indeed, connections should be made between Penzance and Perranporth, possibly via St Ives, and between Newquay and Padstow, which would have the effect of creating a nice mini network of lines that since 1963 have only been served by bus services, and that has meant that the bus companies, First Western National and Western Greyhound, have something of a public transport monopoly in those areas, and it would bring competition back. 

At the moment, the lack of transport connections is reinforcing the old image of those of us in Cornwall and Devon as being in the sticks and cut off from the rest of the country.  We need to counteract that immediately.  Restore the lines that should never have been cut, the connections that are in danger need to be protected, and even enhanced as much as possible.  We must not rely entirely on roads, especially roads like the A38 where there are accidents every day, which close the road for hours at a time.

Newquay Airport must remain open.  Plymouth City Airport must be re-opened.  Lands End Airport must be tarmaced.  The old railway lines that were closed must be re-opened.  We must do whatever it takes, pay any price, to make sure our links with not just the rest of the country, but also the rest of the world, are not cut off.

Daily Star goes hyperbole-mad, and made up words.

This is not a news story that needs any further promotion, but what The Daily Star has done has highlighted what is wrong with the tabloid media today, and in no small way either.

The story is about someone who has been labelled a former 'it' girl.  She also happens to be the Daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol, and elder sister of the current holder of that title, and the story concerns the outfit she wore to a party in Los Angeles, something she actually tweeted about, including a picture, obviously taken in the back of her limo, which gave a slight preview of her dress.  In other words, this ain't much of a story.

But, The Daily Star, also known as the Daily Star-Struck(!), decided it was worth covering and hyping to levels unseen outside of the Superbowl or the Olympics.  To do that, they describe her outfit thusly...

"...The socialite merged gapboob and dominatrix leather while attending a charity gala in California..."

Gapboob?  The very fact that the computer I am writing this post on doesn't even recognise gapboob as a word says a lot.  It's a made-up word, because somehow they think their audience won't understand the technical term of cleavage. 

As for it being 'dominatrix leather', leather is worn by many people other than dominatrix-types, but of course, since the whole '50 Shades of Grey' thing became popular, tying it in to that imagery has become the standard thing to do.  But somehow, I can't imagine a dominatrix wearing a full length dress with a fishtail hem, as the Daily Star describe it...

"...The full-length frock, complete with fishtail hem, was made from biker chick leather, bringing a very Fifty Shades of Grey vibe to proceedings..."

See what I mean about '50 Shades of Grey'?   Wait, it gets worse...

"...Lady Victoria's attempts to soften her look with an elegant updo and silver chandelier earrings failed to steer this look away from fetish friendly as she attended the unite4:humanity red carpet event..."

First, why would you need to steer this look away from fetish friendly?  Second, she looked glamourous, stylish and elegant in that dress.  And that is something not every woman could achieve.

She pulls of an elegant look, with leather, and she is critcised in the article for an indecent neckline, and wearing dominatrix leather.  Is it any wonder that newspapers are losing readers, as their grip on the real world seems to get more tenuous by the day, and the amount of hype that they put in to a non-story to make it a story, does the exact opposite of justifying the story's existence in the newspaper.  It highlights that the 'story' probably should never have appeared.


More power to Lady Victoria Hervey, I say, for wearing a very stylish leather dress, that made her look stunning.

30 idiots complain about Celebrity Big Brother.

The Daily Star reported that 30 people had complained to Ofcom about Celebrity Big Brother, specifically the task that required some of the housemates to perform 18-rated entertainment, a task that by the way, producers had to censor for broadcast after the 9pm watershed.

Honestly, what do these 30 people think they are watching?  Celebrity Big Brother is nothing more than licenced and legalised voyeurism.  It's the only way the general public can watch celebrities being themselves without finding themselves in court on a stalking charge.

Unsurprisingly, Mediawatch, the ex-Mary Whitehouse organisation, ciriticised it, but then, that's not news.

It's not high culture, it's programming designed to appeal to the base instincts.  That was just another expression of that. 

By the way, extra hypocrisy points go to Daily Star and Channel 5 owner, Richard Desmond.  He owns the channel that commissioned it because he wanted material to fill up his newspapers and magazines, and now his own newspaper is giving voice to those criticising the programme on his own channel, and partially encouraging the criticism.  That takes a total lack of any scruples.  If you are going to have a programme on your own channel, and you allow your own newspaper to be critical, then you are undermining the staff who produce the programme, and you are also saying that you are only interested in ratings and sales, not in anything else. 

Rupert Murdoch: The captain is unapologetic and beligerent

Yesterday, Channel 4 News in the UK reported on the revelation that a secret recording of a March 2013 meeting at News International, now News UK, of journalists for his newspapers.  The report is shown below.



This shows we've all come to know over the years.  He is totally beligerent, unapologetic, and contemptuous of all authority other than his own.  This is why he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a major broadcaster, or indeed, a major newspaper these days.  He is so out of touch with the public mood.  He lives in his own bubble, with little real connection to the world that his readers and viewers inhabit.

Glenn Greenwald v David Gregory - The state of journalism these days

Earlier today on NBC's Meet The Press, David Gregory had on as a guest, Glenn Greenwald, the man who broke the stories of NSA leaker Edward Snowden.

This was always gonna be interesting...

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now, let's be honest here. Neither of these two people were starting from an attitude of trying to find the truth.  Both are basically political operatives, especially Glenn Greenwald.  Most journalists that operate in the Beltway bubble, are basically too close to Government to be truly independent of it, we've seen that before between 2001 and 2003.  And Glenn Greenwald has a history of attacking people who challenge him on his stories.  Trust me on that one, I've been on the recieving end.  He doesn't debate people, he just tries to humiliate them, which totally debases and devalues whatever points he was trying to make.

The fact is, the real story is getting lost in this "Where In The World is Edward Snowden?" nonsense, and also being lost in Glenn Greenwald's egomania.

The real story is this.  Why did two parties flip positions on this whole idea, just because a Democratic Party president is now in office as opposed to a Republican president?  Why do politicians think it's okay to have people spying on innocent civilians?  If it wasn't right for George W Bush's administration to do it, then it still isn't right for Barack Obama's administration to do it.

In Britain, our government is not really run by politicians, but by civil servants.  They keep the machinery of government operating all the time.  They're not called civil servants in the US, but basically, there are government workers, who are employed to keep the US Government operating, and basically, these people are not elected, they are employed, and basically, they, like most other workers, will do whatever it takes to justify their existence.  And there are similar individuals in most governments around the world.  That's who really runs your government.

There is no Illuminati, no secret organisation that controls governments worldwide.  It's much simpler than that.

But that's not what makes for good journalism these days.  Truth does not sell newspapers.  Truth does not sell advertising on talk radio stations.  Truth does not help the bottom line of media companies.  So, here's the truth about journalism these days.  Journalism is not about truth any more.  Journalism these days, is about supporting a political agenda, and using that agenda to make money from it.  Most so-called journalists these days are nothing more than political operatives supporting agendas that are designed to make money for their political and economic masters.  Reality and actuality have very little to do with journalism these days.  From Fox News, Sun News, The Daily Mail and The Daily Star on one side, to the Mirror, The Guardian, Current and MSNBC on the other, journalists these days are just about making money, and not about telling the truth. 

That's the reality of journalism today.