In the 'after match analysis' on Sky Eddy rabbitted on again about the 'controversial video ref decisions' , and had the temerity to assert that it is 'our job' to talk about them ( he didn't add 'endlessly').
This guy is supposedly an experienced commentator, so where does he get this nonsense? Surely the team tactics, the attacking plays, the quality defences, the fitness of the players, the atmosphere in the ground, the quality of the 'uncontroversial' tries, are worthy of much more discussion than video ref decisions that can almost never be conclusively proven either way? Apparently not. The commentators can ignore all the GREAT things about last night's rugby match and simply spend all their time boasting about how much better they are at refereeing decisions than the officials, and what a terrible tragedy it is that the match, the season, the year, the country has been ruined by the video ref.
Get rid of the lot and start again.
