We're often told in today's society that feelings can trump facts and thus those very feelings are so very important and defining. Yet now we have commentators invested in the game and showing some degree of emotion, it appears we don't want that either!
I'm referring to the criticism aimed at Rio Ferdinand and Robbie Savage for their very excitable reaction – conveniently captured by a commentators' cam - to Manchester United's comeback win in Europe.
Clive Tyldesley has led the dissenters, comparing the mainstream broadcaster TNT to a Fans TV channel.
I'm not sure I agree with him. The insight somebody has from playing the game at the highest level, whether it's Ferdinand, Gary Neville or Jamie Carragher, does not equate to some of what constitutes as observations from an array of fan channels; from the type of language used to their incoherent nonsense offered as analysis.
I know who I'd rather listen to and don't see why perceived impartiality is always required just because the event is on traditional television rather than YouTube?
Was anybody offended by boxing commentator Harry Carpenter when he shouted in a moment of spontaneity: 'Get in there Frank' as Bruno hit Mike Tyson with a big right hand.
As excellent a commentator as Clive is, his observations are possibly ceded in some dissatisfaction in being replaced on ITV and the loss of perceived relevance, or maybe that's just cynicism on my part.
His view seems to be that ex-players should be seen rather than heard if they exhibit bias towards the clubs they used to play for.
I don't see it that way. There is enough paralysis by analysis already and football is steeped in emotion.
In an ideal world you get objectivity and balanced opinions, but our sport is tribal and people take exception for the sake of it, even down to Neville not sounding objective as he shouts a goal for Man United.
Don't get me wrong, there are times when Neville becomes tiresome, usually by turning his views on the Glazers into a constant lecture; blaming the United owners for everything from the corner flag not being positioned correctly to the way the team is playing.
I might not want to always listen to that but the dynamic in the studio between players of different affiliations can be fascinating.
Who could forget Graeme Souness sitting there after Liverpool have smashed Man United 7-0 and Neville's trying to suggest it wasn't that bad a performance.
Souness' reaction of 'What the Hell is wrong with you' - people want to see that!
Some people, and not necessarily Lyon fans, will be upset by Ferdinand and Savage's histrionics because they want impartiality and neutrality at all times – even if a team comes back from 4-2 down to win 5-4.
But I think the majority of viewers are fairly ambivalent. If Clive feels it is replicating Fans TV and wants to steer that into a narrative, well, unlike the bulk of his game commentary being well-founded, these observations aren't.
Once upon a time, John Motson or Kenneth Wolstenholme before him would commentate, and that was it. They had no particular first hand expertise beyond telling who was passing to whom and describing watching what was in front of their nose.
Today's co-commentators have qualifications of a different level, gained and garnered by playing the game.
I'm sure most television viewers and radio listeners can see through the weeds and tell what a good commentary is, and what lacks objectivity and steers into the unlistenable.
There may be reasons to feel irritated by Neville and Ferdinand but not necessarily because they are biased and one-dimensional.
If you are going to condemn Rio as foolish, it would be due to statements like 'Ollie's at the wheel' which didn't age well, rather than the roar last week to greet a late United winner.
The one area where Clive has a point is that these excited reactions we see on television have to be authentic. Carpenter's line about Bruno hitting Tyson worked because it wasn't contrived.
We can give Rio and Savage the benefit of the doubt because United's comeback was extraordinary.
We've all seen the cutaways of people such as Ian Wright jumping up and down when England's women team score but in the end if TV companies push it too far, they will be judged by the viewer.
I realise Sky seemingly have sent Neville a memo a long time ago that said everything he said was right, but it isn't and most people won't subscribe to that view even if he does!
Common sense usually prevails in football as it does in life - as we saw in this week's UK Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex.
When it comes to how our sport is broadcast, quality always comes to the surface in the end. If the football 'consumer' decides Robbie Savage - just as an example - is acting his emotion rather than being genuine, it will not pass the test of time and people won't be in their positions for long.
But to try and neuter the on-screen passion in the game for the charade of impartiality is a fool's errand, or maybe secretly we all do really want a Mr Cholmondeley-Warner approach to commentary. Somehow I doubt it.
Beware temptation of permanent Rashford deal
Talking of bias, I'm hoping my FA Cup tip Aston Villa come unstuck this weekend and that Crystal Palace continue to have the evil eye over them, having won three of their last four meetings.
I'm also aware of the irony if, having been a staunch critical observer of Marcus Rashford, he's the one that kills us my boyhood team.
Rashford turned up at Villa Park having let Manchester United down. The least he could have done was run around for them rather than recording podcasts played to soft music with a 'woe is me' mentality.
I predicted Villa would get a fit and firing Rashford. He didn't have any choice if he wanted to show new England manager Thomas Tuchel what he could do with a World Cup on the horizon.
He's had some good games for Unai Emery, including at The Etihad on Tuesday night, and could have another one at Wembley on Saturday. But I'd still be wary turning his loan into a permanent transfer.
Assuming Manchester United want a £40million fee to help ease financial issues and Rashford won't want to drop his £320k-a-week contract, it's an investment too far.
Rashford has been good in the short-term but committing to him for three or four years would leave Villa facing the same challenges United had, despite the change of geography.
Those problems he had in Manchester would manifest themselves eventually in Birmingham – which doesn't mean I don't fear what he can do to Palace in the semi-final!
Trent blow softened
As Liverpool fans wait on Trent Alexander-Arnold's future, I think Liverpool can afford to feel relaxed.
By keeping Virgil van Dijk's influence in the dressing-room next season and Mo Salah on the pitch, losing Trent is a sacrifice they can live with.