Is Tim Lane the most biased caller in the country?

[R1KSTA]

i would put eddie (back in the day) before anyone! he only called the collingwood play, nothing else!

 

[R1KSTA]

People bag Walls for being biased, but tonight I gained some respect for him.
Tim Lane was seriously that biased towards Carlton that Walls seemed to have got sick of it and started giving him s**t, then Darcy pulled Lane up on how biased he was being. Funniest sh!t I've heard all year.
How the hell does Lane keep getting the commentary gig when Carlton play?

it just seems that we always play on a saturday night and on channel ten!!

 

[caboose]

Loved the fact that he was having such a sook that he essentially left Huddo to do the commentary for a sustained period of time at the end of the third quarter and the start of the last.

The bloke is an absolute disgrace when it comes to Carlton. It's boring and tiresome to listen to his one-eyed comments, and he should be taken off the air for all of their games. Period.

 

[bus24]

Was actually quite comical. Just got on the angry pills beforehand, obviously.

He lost the plot completely, and in the end that ____wit Walls ended up trying to "call" the game while he cooled off. Very humourous

 

[winty]

No, Frodo Hudson is the worst.

They should put a camera in the commentary booth so we can see if Hudson is naked and fapping off when he calls Geelong games.

w***er.

Hudson isn't that biased at all. Was watching an old tape of a Geelong game against Collingwood in 2000 when Geelong were struggling for two and a half quarters, before making a comeback and ultimately winning. He was bagging Geelong mercilessly. He was even bagging a 50-50 decision rewarded TO Geelong, even when his fellow commentators were trying to convince him it was the correct decision.

Would've been interesting to hear what Tim Lane's comment would've been if he was commentating in the 2005 Semi if it was Carlton getting sunk by Nick Davis' last minute goal. I would suggest his tone and language would have been a lot more colourful than Huddo's "I see it, but I don't believe it!"

 

[Omegaman]

Was there ever a thread like this about Clinton?

Thanks God.

I'm sure someone knows, but the thing about Clinton was that I never knew who he barracked for and it never came through in his calling. (the Pies I think?)

Tim Lane is symptomatic of Ten's commentary in general: a bunch overpaid, miked up sports journo's in a corporate box, hanging s**t on each other's team and making the classic drunk's mistake of thinking they are wittier than they really are. For all my complaints (and I have many), even Seven gets away with a more level headed presentation, thanks largely to Commetti's eloquence and Ox/Tim Watson's lack thereof. Brooce dribbles on at times, but at least he seems to regard what he does as a privilege and not a platform to plug "Brand MacAvaney".

And while I'm at it, kudos to Buck's for not making a major public issue of his coaching aspirations. Michael Voss, take note.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Saturday Night on Ten = Amature hour.

Have you not heard him on Collingwood games.

Have been really impressed when he has done other games but his barracking at Collingwoods game was not great.

lol you'd be the first then. If anything I don't think Bucks really offers much of anything about the Pies, probably doesn't want to give away any secrets.

 

[Messenger]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/ne...tically-fruitful/2008/05/31/1211654383184.htm

This is what he was talking about last night, SirJimi05. Explains it better than he did last night, but it makes sense once you take the fruit crap out of it.

As for bias; the fact that he chose to use a tackle on a Carlton player as an example is neither here nor there. You have titled your thread "Is Tim Lane the most biased caller in the country?" You haven't proven your charge.

Free kicks should be awarded against miscreants: either for illegal tackles or for a failure of intent on the part of the ball-carrier to keep the game in motion. Talk of "rewarding the tackler", simply for the execution of his tackle, is nonsense.

In a nutshell. The issue is now interpretation of what a tackle should achieve to be rewarded with a free.

Then he went on to say that there is not enough protection given to players in tackles these days because they are being swung around and thrown into the ground. I am sorry Mr. Lane but the reason players are doing this is because they are being payed a free kick against if they don't do it, as the player with the ball simply drops his knees and goes to ground.

The league started this season being red hot on players being flung into the ground after the tackle. What you couldn't do in Round 3 you can get away with 6 weeks later.

The players are being swung around because the umpire is allowing a player to clear the ball and providing latitude in prior opportunity that ball carriers don't enjoy in other circumstances, such as under a pack with two opponents. Melb v Haw showed players from both teams being swung in circles, sometimes through 720 degrees with no whistle.

 

[September_Glory]

You guys haven't heard bias commentary til you listen to Jako commentating an Eagles game.

hahaha gotta love Jako. It's funnier listening to him doing Freo games. When opposition scores its "What Fremantle didn't do there was..."