Its a stats thing not a b365 thing. Opta won't count it so nor do the bookies.
It's indicative of the lack of nuance in the modern world. Something is obviously wrong, but if there is a way to wriggle out of it people call it right. Reminds me of Sir Keir
How can Santos have been booked for a foul but "To commit a foul" be settled as a loser? Lunacy
I got stung with Jokovic and the Aussie open - the year he wasn't allowed to compete. Bookies cancelled the bet, which to me seemed unsporting as I had laid him for the win and he didn't win...
"The ECU said Croxall's facial expression after she said "pregnant people" had been "variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt or exasperation."
It added that "congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue"."
She committed a thought crime.
Those complaining didn't like what they thought Martine Croxall was thinking (and they thought they could tell what she was thinking from the expression on her face), and the BBC's ECU agreed with them.
Its a stats thing not a b365 thing. Opta won't count it so nor do the bookies.
It's indicative of the lack of nuance in the modern world. Something is obviously wrong, but if there is a way to wriggle out of it people call it right. Reminds me of Sir Keir
How can Santos have been booked for a foul but "To commit a foul" be settled as a loser? Lunacy
The bet is really a foul to be awarded not to commit a foul. Similarly lots of shots on target don't count for betting on shots on target. It is not the bookies being mean, they don't care and would just adjust the odds if it was counted differently. It is that opta find it easier to count fouls awarded, an objective measure, than fouls committed which is subjective. The foul not awarded but recognised by the ref with a yellow is in a grey area, probably opta should bother to count it but they don't.
I agree it is badly worded. I disagree they are being cynical or mean.
"The ECU said Croxall's facial expression after she said "pregnant people" had been "variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt or exasperation."
It added that "congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue"."
She committed a thought crime.
Those complaining didn't like what they thought Martine Croxall was thinking (and they thought they could tell what she was thinking from the expression on her face), and the BBC's ECU agreed with them.
Comments
NEW THREAD
It added that "congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue"."
She committed a thought crime.
Those complaining didn't like what they thought Martine Croxall was thinking (and they thought they could tell what she was thinking from the expression on her face), and the BBC's ECU agreed with them.
I agree it is badly worded. I disagree they are being cynical or mean.