|
|
Post by livilad2001 on Oct 26, 2015 14:17:11 GMT 1
Just kinda shows you how much they care about the club and the fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Oct 26, 2015 15:23:51 GMT 1
A prime example of the media exploiting something was Jason Talbot's high boot to Nicholson's face, when LIVItv put up a short clip of the incident it was used by the media to go after and destroy Talbot, which also lead to the CO getting involved and offering him a ban. They're cyber sharks looking for a smell of internet blood. I think Talbot nearly removing the guys face in the first place was the catalyst behind the uproar that surrounded the incident. And the fact that Hearts themselves put up a picture, taken in the dressing room during the game, on Twitter showing the stud marks on lads face showed that Hearts themselves were intent on going after Talbot too. Perhaps but it was the clip that was put all over the internet and the CO wouldn't have got involved from a picture showing the incident, def mistake putting up that clip. |
|
|
|
Post by liviman on Oct 26, 2015 22:02:31 GMT 1
I think Talbot nearly removing the guys face in the first place was the catalyst behind the uproar that surrounded the incident. And the fact that Hearts themselves put up a picture, taken in the dressing room during the game, on Twitter showing the stud marks on lads face showed that Hearts themselves were intent on going after Talbot too. Perhaps but it was the clip that was put all over the internet and the CO wouldn't have got involved from a picture showing the incident, def mistake putting up that clip. To suggest LIVItv caused Talbots ban is bonkers. The pictures were very damaging for Talbot especially the ones released right after the game by Hearts FC. Talbots challenge was reckless. |
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Oct 27, 2015 1:18:23 GMT 1
If that clip hadn't been put together and stuck up Talbot wouldn't have got his ban, the CO couldn't possibly take pictures of an injury as evidence to offer a ban, it was the actual video showing what happened that got him involved. To suggest otherwise is bonkers.
My original point though was the media exploiting things put up on facebook, twitter, forums etc, they plastered it all over the internet and used took full advantage of our naivety. Hippo/Moses need to be more internet savvy, as do a lot of football players.
|
|
Pedro
Administrator 
Posts: 1,172 
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 27, 2015 12:57:18 GMT 1
Hearts tweeted a picture of the players face, from the changing room, during the game. Hearts had a camera crew at the game. Sky had a camera at the game too, so let's not be silly and say that LIVItv got Talbot his ban.
Talbot got himself banned for nearly kicking a Hearts players face off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Oct 28, 2015 0:39:05 GMT 1
The Livi TV clip didn't help matters tho did it? Excellent footage of it by the way, but it didn't help. As JS points out it wasn't Sky footage or Hearts footage that was being viewed everywhere.
If the ref had taken action at the time to send him off then you would be right to say he got himself banned but the ref didn't send him off did he? The CO issued the ban based on video footage. No footage = no ban. Would he have seen Sky and/or Hearts footage? Probably. But the LiviTV clip highlighting it definitely didn't help.
|
|
Pedro
Administrator
Posts: 1,172
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 28, 2015 22:22:48 GMT 1
The CO issued the ban based on video footage. No footage = no ban. Would he have seen Sky and/or Hearts footage? Probably. But the LiviTV clip highlighting it definitely didn't help. So you're saying that the CO would have seen the face high boot to the players face on footage other than LIVItv yet it's LIVItv your saying is at fault for Talbots ban (for Talbot nearly kicking the boys face off). Really? |
|
joma
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by joma on Oct 29, 2015 9:53:31 GMT 1
Unfortunately LiviTV didn't help Talbot one bit as it was their footage that was used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Oct 30, 2015 0:25:53 GMT 1
The CO issued the ban based on video footage. No footage = no ban. Would he have seen Sky and/or Hearts footage? Probably. But the LiviTV clip highlighting it definitely didn't help. So you're saying that the CO would have seen the face high boot to the players face on footage other than LIVItv yet it's LIVItv your saying is at fault for Talbots ban (for Talbot nearly kicking the boys face off). Really? No, I thought I made it perfectly clear that I'm saying it didn't help. I don't expect you to agree or to sway you with intellectual argument, you obviously think it was the right thing to do (& while I don't always agree with your view on things I know you believe you are never wrong, you have the courage of your convictions) & as it was your footage you had every right to do what you wanted with it. However, did it take the heat out of a situation or did it pour petrol on the smouldering embers of mockraged Hearts fans whose players have never committed such a heinous full blooded attempt at GBH, if not out and out attempted murder? (I believe the words you used were "nearly removing the guys face" in another post & "nearly kicking the boys face off" above - BTW I don't recall seeing him bandaged for months or hearing about him having his face stitched back on again). I mean, if I didn't know better I'd have thought you had a grudge against Talbot with the phrases you are using never mind deciding to highlight the incident for the world's viewing pleasure. Was LiviTV to blame? No, LiviTV did not make the tackle. Did the LiviTV footage help matters? No it didn't. LiviTV has done a superb job of covering Livi games, I applaud & thank you & the other guys involved for your efforts & I am sad to see it go; but isolating that incident was the one blot in an otherwise exemplary copybook. |
|
|
|
Post by liviman on Oct 30, 2015 7:22:18 GMT 1
There was other footage available from that game, so whatever way you look at it Talbot was gonna be caught by the CO & therefore hardly a blot on LIVItv copybook.
I actually thought the footage showed Talbot getting the ball, but he still caught the guys face that's what's caused the furore!!!
Regardless of LIVItv footage Talbot was getting a ban there was to much social media & media coverage not for anything to happen - not all that coverage was video!
|
|
|
|
Post by bobafett on Oct 30, 2015 17:09:41 GMT 1
It was the somewhat sensationalist multi zoom footage whixh LiviTV fired up very quickly after the match that went somewhat viral and picked up all over the world, and with universal condemnation for the refs choice of card the Compliance Officer had to be seen to be taking action, despite the previous view being that if the referee booked a player then no further action could be taken.
In all honesty I don't think I have ever seen footage from any other source, so I share the opinion that LiviTV rightly or wrongly aided the case against Talbot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Oct 30, 2015 18:51:43 GMT 1
There was other footage available from that game, so whatever way you look at it Talbot was gonna be caught by the CO & therefore hardly a blot on LIVItv copybook. I actually thought the footage showed Talbot getting the ball, but he still caught the guys face that's what's caused the furore!!! Regardless of LIVItv footage Talbot was getting a ban there was to much social media & media coverage not for anything to happen - not all that coverage was video! We are almost in 100% agreement...we differ in that IMO it was unwise for LiviTV to highlight it in isolation. Why draw attention to it? Let the opposition and/or other media have a witch hunt but don't say "here's our witch, burn him!". The stills of the incident wouldn't have resulted in a ban. |
|
|
|
Post by liviman on Nov 2, 2015 9:34:12 GMT 1
There was other footage available from that game, so whatever way you look at it Talbot was gonna be caught by the CO & therefore hardly a blot on LIVItv copybook. I actually thought the footage showed Talbot getting the ball, but he still caught the guys face that's what's caused the furore!!! Regardless of LIVItv footage Talbot was getting a ban there was to much social media & media coverage not for anything to happen - not all that coverage was video! We are almost in 100% agreement...we differ in that IMO it was unwise for LiviTV to highlight it in isolation. Why draw attention to it? Let the opposition and/or other media have a witch hunt but don't say "here's our witch, burn him!". The stills of the incident wouldn't have resulted in a ban. I think you are forgetting that the CO can request a copy of the footage of any game whether it's BBC or club as the actual footage belongs to the league not the club. Given furore around the incident from Hearts and the pictures in the Sunday media then that's what would have happened. To suggest LIVItv had a witch hunt is ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by livilion on Nov 2, 2015 10:37:02 GMT 1
I don't think they're arguing that LiviTV are the reason he got banned. If LiviTV hadn't put the footage up online it wouldn't have been all over the internet/news, and it also wouldn't have brought his high foot in the Dumbarton game back to light. The CO can request a copy, but with what happened I wouldn't be surprised if HeartsTV sent their clip to him soon after the game. LiviTV obviously not to blame for his ban, that was his own fault for trying to do kung-fu in a football game.
Anyway, not sure why or how this has come up on a Myles Hippolyte thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Nov 2, 2015 17:01:55 GMT 1
Hearts tweeted a picture of the players face, from the changing room, during the game. Hearts had a camera crew at the game. Sky had a camera at the game too, so let's not be silly and say that LIVItv got Talbot his ban. Talbot got himself banned for nearly kicking a Hearts players face off. The game wasn't televised, the only footage I saw was that of the one LIVItv put up and it was put up on the same day of the game showing the incident in a short clip. It went viral and was all over the media so imo that was the catalyst for the CO getting involved. Couldn't actually believe LIVItv did that to one of our own players.
Irrespective of him deserving the ban it was an unbelievable own goal by LIVItv and rather naïve to say the least. I've never seen another club hang their own player out to dry like that, usually the opposite happens and they try to protect them, guilty or not, it gets handled in house.
Talbot was getting a lot of pitch fork and torches stuff from a section of our own support, wanting him sacked, I really hope it wasn't put up to try and get rid of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Nov 2, 2015 17:10:27 GMT 1
I don't think they're arguing that LiviTV are the reason he got banned. If LiviTV hadn't put the footage up online it wouldn't have been all over the internet/news, and it also wouldn't have brought his high foot in the Dumbarton game back to light. The CO can request a copy, but with what happened I wouldn't be surprised if HeartsTV sent their clip to him soon after the game. LiviTV obviously not to blame for his ban, that was his own fault for trying to do kung-fu in a football game. Anyway, not sure why or how this has come up on a Myles Hippolyte thread... Our footage was up before the Sunday papers came out and did nothing to help the situation, they could request LIVItv footage but it would be easy to have a wee accident and delete to part showing the incident. He's only got about 3 working days to offer a ban too so it would've been wiser in the first place to keep any highlights showing the incident from being aired till after that 3 working day period. |
|
|
|
Post by liviman on Nov 2, 2015 18:30:50 GMT 1
I don't think they're arguing that LiviTV are the reason he got banned. If LiviTV hadn't put the footage up online it wouldn't have been all over the internet/news, and it also wouldn't have brought his high foot in the Dumbarton game back to light. The CO can request a copy, but with what happened I wouldn't be surprised if HeartsTV sent their clip to him soon after the game. LiviTV obviously not to blame for his ban, that was his own fault for trying to do kung-fu in a football game. Anyway, not sure why or how this has come up on a Myles Hippolyte thread... Our footage was up before the Sunday papers came out and did nothing to help the situation, they could request LIVItv footage but it would be easy to have a wee accident and delete to part showing the incident. He's only got about 3 working days to offer a ban too so it would've been wiser in the first place to keep any highlights showing the incident from being aired till after that 3 working day period. I don't think we will agree. I am content that Hearts had issued pictures that were going into social media overdrive right after the match and that would have been enough for the CO to request the footage regardless when it was shown. |
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Nov 2, 2015 19:43:55 GMT 1
I don't think they're arguing that LiviTV are the reason he got banned. If LiviTV hadn't put the footage up online it wouldn't have been all over the internet/news, and it also wouldn't have brought his high foot in the Dumbarton game back to light. The CO can request a copy, but with what happened I wouldn't be surprised if HeartsTV sent their clip to him soon after the game. LiviTV obviously not to blame for his ban, that was his own fault for trying to do kung-fu in a football game. Anyway, not sure why or how this has come up on a Myles Hippolyte thread... It has appeared on this thread due to the comparison of media coverage of footage. Hippo/Duckrell footage got them into bother; Talbot footage got him into bother. |
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Nov 2, 2015 19:49:56 GMT 1
We are almost in 100% agreement...we differ in that IMO it was unwise for LiviTV to highlight it in isolation. Why draw attention to it? Let the opposition and/or other media have a witch hunt but don't say "here's our witch, burn him!". The stills of the incident wouldn't have resulted in a ban. I think you are forgetting that the CO can request a copy of the footage of any game whether it's BBC or club as the actual footage belongs to the league not the club. Given furore around the incident from Hearts and the pictures in the Sunday media then that's what would have happened. To suggest LIVItv had a witch hunt is ludicrous. Is English your second language? Where have I said that LiviTV had a witch hunt...I said let the other media people have their witch hunt but don't hand them the witch. Try reading what is there. I don't dispute the fact the CO could/would have gotten the footage elsewhere. However the fact remains the LiviTV footage was the footage that got the heaviest coverage & made it easy for the CO. |
|
|
|
Post by liviman on Nov 3, 2015 9:07:30 GMT 1
I think you are forgetting that the CO can request a copy of the footage of any game whether it's BBC or club as the actual footage belongs to the league not the club. Given furore around the incident from Hearts and the pictures in the Sunday media then that's what would have happened. To suggest LIVItv had a witch hunt is ludicrous. Is English your second language? Where have I said that LiviTV had a witch hunt...I said let the other media people have their witch hunt but don't hand them the witch. Try reading what is there. I don't dispute the fact the CO could/would have gotten the footage elsewhere. However the fact remains the LiviTV footage was the footage that got the heaviest coverage & made it easy for the CO. I think it's you that has English problems. The CO would have requested LIVItv footage not someone else's, so the point regarding LIVItv is really a mute one. |
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Nov 3, 2015 23:57:48 GMT 1
Is English your second language? Where have I said that LiviTV had a witch hunt...I said let the other media people have their witch hunt but don't hand them the witch. Try reading what is there. I don't dispute the fact the CO could/would have gotten the footage elsewhere. However the fact remains the LiviTV footage was the footage that got the heaviest coverage & made it easy for the CO. I think it's you that has English problems. The CO would have requested LIVItv footage not someone else's, so the point regarding LIVItv is really a mute one. A mute one? It can't speak? I think the word you are looking for is "moot". Moot (adjective) 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point. 2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. 3.Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical. He may well have done but the point I & Jonsnow have been making (for the hard of understanding) is that he didn't have to ask for it, it was handed to him on a silver platter because it was already out there. LiviTV produce highlights, that means things end up on the "cutting room floor" (no doubt in these digital days that means "deleted"). Had the incident been edited/deleted, then there would have been nothing to hand over on request...but he didn't need to request it, it had been voluntarily put on display. If I remember correctly when these type of club produced highlights were first allowed by the "powers that be" part of the "rules" for producing them was that controversial incidents were not to be shown as it would lead to all sorts of problems. Clearly that must have changed along the way for the CO to be in a position to request such footage. |
|
