What happened when Hugh Keevins and Roger Hannah met a journalist:
http://soundcloud.com/jinkylarsson/alex-thomson-on-clyd
http://soundcloud.com/jinkylarsson/alex-thomson-on-clyd
Scottish Fitba Thread (Part 19)
41 of 163
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“What happened when Hugh Keevins and Roger Hannah met a journalist:
http://soundcloud.com/jinkylarsson/alex-thomson-on-clyd”
“What happened when Hugh Keevins and Roger Hannah met a journalist:
http://soundcloud.com/jinkylarsson/alex-thomson-on-clyd”
He ragdolled Keevins and Hannah but has made a bit of a tit of himself about the Twitter comment.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“What happened when Hugh Keevins and Roger Hannah met a journalist:
http://soundcloud.com/jinkylarsson/alex-thomson-on-clyd”
“What happened when Hugh Keevins and Roger Hannah met a journalist:
http://soundcloud.com/jinkylarsson/alex-thomson-on-clyd”
totally out of there depth!!
More of a reader than a poster here (don't think I have ever posted on this thread before). What I like about this forum is the debate and banter you have without descending into needless insults / disgusting comments as so often happens on other Scottish Football Forums.
As regards the penalty decision in the Celtic v Hearts game. For what its worth as a Celtic fan I was disapointed it was given but had it been at the other end I would have been screaming for a penalty. Also imagine Jo Ledley had been on the goal line when the ball hit him, then had the ref not given a penalty Hearts would be raging.
However, to avoid this sort of debate in future what are your views on the following rule change, namely, scrap the non-deliberate hand ball rule. In other words if the ball hits you on the hand or arm it is a foul irrespective of whether or not it was deliberate.
I realise an argument against this would be that attacking players may just aim the ball at an opponents hand to gain a free kick / penalty but I am not convinced this would be a frequent occurance. I haven't heard anyone else (not just in this forum but also in the media) suggest this rule change which makes me suspect it may not work and I will be laughed at but that's life! However, in other sports such as tennis and badminton if the ball hits you I believe your opponent gets the point i.e. if he hits it at you it is your job to get out the road and hit it back with your racquet. I may be wrong in this though.
Although nothing to do with yesterdays match another possible rule change would be to go back to the days when there was no such things as "not interfering with play" when deciding if you are on or offside i.e. you are either on or you are off, no argument.
Obvisouly these two changes wouldn't stop refs and linesmen making mistakes but at least there wouldn't be the huge debates afterwards about whether the ref was correct or wrong. For example in yesterdays game their would have been no argument it was a penalty.
As regards the penalty decision in the Celtic v Hearts game. For what its worth as a Celtic fan I was disapointed it was given but had it been at the other end I would have been screaming for a penalty. Also imagine Jo Ledley had been on the goal line when the ball hit him, then had the ref not given a penalty Hearts would be raging.
However, to avoid this sort of debate in future what are your views on the following rule change, namely, scrap the non-deliberate hand ball rule. In other words if the ball hits you on the hand or arm it is a foul irrespective of whether or not it was deliberate.
I realise an argument against this would be that attacking players may just aim the ball at an opponents hand to gain a free kick / penalty but I am not convinced this would be a frequent occurance. I haven't heard anyone else (not just in this forum but also in the media) suggest this rule change which makes me suspect it may not work and I will be laughed at but that's life! However, in other sports such as tennis and badminton if the ball hits you I believe your opponent gets the point i.e. if he hits it at you it is your job to get out the road and hit it back with your racquet. I may be wrong in this though.
Although nothing to do with yesterdays match another possible rule change would be to go back to the days when there was no such things as "not interfering with play" when deciding if you are on or offside i.e. you are either on or you are off, no argument.
Obvisouly these two changes wouldn't stop refs and linesmen making mistakes but at least there wouldn't be the huge debates afterwards about whether the ref was correct or wrong. For example in yesterdays game their would have been no argument it was a penalty.
Originally Posted by timboy:
“He ragdolled Keevins and Hannah but has made a bit of a tit of himself about the Twitter comment.”
“He ragdolled Keevins and Hannah but has made a bit of a tit of himself about the Twitter comment.”
In the interview with Tommy in Glasgow, he said had plenty of evidence.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“In the interview with Tommy in Glasgow, he said had plenty of evidence.”
“In the interview with Tommy in Glasgow, he said had plenty of evidence.”
I'm sure he does but in regards to the tweet he mentioned tonight on the radio it was a wind up post on a spoof David Leggat twitter which had a username of LeggoIsBlotto.
Still though, it outs Leggat as the person Thomson is saying threatened him.
Duff and Phelps confirm Blue Knights have walked away, Ticketus now in talks with another of the two bidders, believed to be Ng.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“Duff and Phelps confirm Blue Knights have walked away, Ticketus now in talks with another of the two bidders, believed to be Ng.”
“Duff and Phelps confirm Blue Knights have walked away, Ticketus now in talks with another of the two bidders, believed to be Ng.”
All the while Duff and Phelps are still charging Rangers ~£120k a week for their services.
Some more clarity for the SPL.
In order to play in the SPL you need a Uefa Club License, in order to get one of those you need have been a member club to the SFA for three years.
So as things stand a NewCo Rangers cannot play in the SPL.
In order to play in the SPL you need a Uefa Club License, in order to get one of those you need have been a member club to the SFA for three years.
So as things stand a NewCo Rangers cannot play in the SPL.
Originally Posted by DUNDEEBOY:
“Was that Gary Caldwell's best game in a Wigan shirt.
He will on for about 200 caps now
”
“Was that Gary Caldwell's best game in a Wigan shirt.
He will on for about 200 caps now
”
He has a habit of one of those games a season, then he'll do something like he did against Chelsea.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“Some more clarity for the SPL.
In order to play in the SPL you need a Uefa Club License, in order to get one of those you need have been a member club to the SFA for three years.
So as things stand a NewCo Rangers cannot play in the SPL.”
“Some more clarity for the SPL.
In order to play in the SPL you need a Uefa Club License, in order to get one of those you need have been a member club to the SFA for three years.
So as things stand a NewCo Rangers cannot play in the SPL.”
Unfortunately there will be a way round that, its looking more and more like newco Rangers are on the way
Originally Posted by DUNDEEBOY:
“Unfortunately there will be a way round that, its looking more and more like newco Rangers are on the way”
“Unfortunately there will be a way round that, its looking more and more like newco Rangers are on the way”
I think that is why there is a rush for the new rules. It will kill Scottish Football.
Originally Posted by Cantona07:
“The Celtic manager should not be mouthing off on a Twitter account in the first place.”
“The Celtic manager should not be mouthing off on a Twitter account in the first place.”
In most work places, certainly in mine. Using facebook or other social networking sites to vent anger about a colleague or things in relation to work is a final warning offence or in some cases sackable.
I know this situation is completely different and albeit he is entitled to his opinion but as a manager surely he's not setting the right example to be using twitter to mouth off. At other clubs players have been fined for using twitter.
Originally Posted by TommyNooka:
“Did you see the size of him though? I think the only thing Euan Norris has ever lamped is a garden gnome!
.”
“Did you see the size of him though? I think the only thing Euan Norris has ever lamped is a garden gnome!
.”
It was funny when he was booking Charlie Mulgrew, he was about up to Mulgrew's knees
Originally Posted by bunk_medal:
“Sergio is a buffoon (albeit an entertaining one) as well, but what Lennon has done/said is miles over the line of what's acceptable. Do you genuinely believe that decision was a "personal" one yesterday?”
“Sergio is a buffoon (albeit an entertaining one) as well, but what Lennon has done/said is miles over the line of what's acceptable. Do you genuinely believe that decision was a "personal" one yesterday?”
Sergio praised the match officials yesterday in his post match interview, despite the offside goal.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“Would be ideal for a NewCo Rangers to be parachuted into the top league with new rules - or is that cynical?”
“Would be ideal for a NewCo Rangers to be parachuted into the top league with new rules - or is that cynical?”
It would be convenient timing that's for sure.
Originally Posted by Henke77:
“More of a reader than a poster here (don't think I have ever posted on this thread before). What I like about this forum is the debate and banter you have without descending into needless insults / disgusting comments as so often happens on other Scottish Football Forums.
As regards the penalty decision in the Celtic v Hearts game. For what its worth as a Celtic fan I was disapointed it was given but had it been at the other end I would have been screaming for a penalty. Also imagine Jo Ledley had been on the goal line when the ball hit him, then had the ref not given a penalty Hearts would be raging.
However, to avoid this sort of debate in future what are your views on the following rule change, namely, scrap the non-deliberate hand ball rule. In other words if the ball hits you on the hand or arm it is a foul irrespective of whether or not it was deliberate.
I realise an argument against this would be that attacking players may just aim the ball at an opponents hand to gain a free kick / penalty but I am not convinced this would be a frequent occurance. I haven't heard anyone else (not just in this forum but also in the media) suggest this rule change which makes me suspect it may not work and I will be laughed at but that's life! However, in other sports such as tennis and badminton if the ball hits you I believe your opponent gets the point i.e. if he hits it at you it is your job to get out the road and hit it back with your racquet. I may be wrong in this though.
Although nothing to do with yesterdays match another possible rule change would be to go back to the days when there was no such things as "not interfering with play" when deciding if you are on or offside i.e. you are either on or you are off, no argument.
Obvisouly these two changes wouldn't stop refs and linesmen making mistakes but at least there wouldn't be the huge debates afterwards about whether the ref was correct or wrong. For example in yesterdays game their would have been no argument it was a penalty.”
“More of a reader than a poster here (don't think I have ever posted on this thread before). What I like about this forum is the debate and banter you have without descending into needless insults / disgusting comments as so often happens on other Scottish Football Forums.
As regards the penalty decision in the Celtic v Hearts game. For what its worth as a Celtic fan I was disapointed it was given but had it been at the other end I would have been screaming for a penalty. Also imagine Jo Ledley had been on the goal line when the ball hit him, then had the ref not given a penalty Hearts would be raging.
However, to avoid this sort of debate in future what are your views on the following rule change, namely, scrap the non-deliberate hand ball rule. In other words if the ball hits you on the hand or arm it is a foul irrespective of whether or not it was deliberate.
I realise an argument against this would be that attacking players may just aim the ball at an opponents hand to gain a free kick / penalty but I am not convinced this would be a frequent occurance. I haven't heard anyone else (not just in this forum but also in the media) suggest this rule change which makes me suspect it may not work and I will be laughed at but that's life! However, in other sports such as tennis and badminton if the ball hits you I believe your opponent gets the point i.e. if he hits it at you it is your job to get out the road and hit it back with your racquet. I may be wrong in this though.
Although nothing to do with yesterdays match another possible rule change would be to go back to the days when there was no such things as "not interfering with play" when deciding if you are on or offside i.e. you are either on or you are off, no argument.
Obvisouly these two changes wouldn't stop refs and linesmen making mistakes but at least there wouldn't be the huge debates afterwards about whether the ref was correct or wrong. For example in yesterdays game their would have been no argument it was a penalty.”
When you start giving a penalty for something that is no fault of the defender then things just get silly. Tennis and Badminton matches are decided over 50+ points so that comparison doesn't work.
The offside rule is a good one IMO as it is. Why should you be flagged offside if the ball is not being played to you? I think there as always been an "interfering with play" rule, at leasts as far back as I can recall (1970).
Finally, I don't think it's a good idea to make up rules just to make sure there is "no argument". To me, these things are all part of the great game.
Originally Posted by Henke77:
“
As regards the penalty decision in the Celtic v Hearts game. For what its worth as a Celtic fan I was disapointed it was given but had it been at the other end I would have been screaming for a penalty. Also imagine Jo Ledley had been on the goal line when the ball hit him, then had the ref not given a penalty Hearts would be raging.
.”
“
As regards the penalty decision in the Celtic v Hearts game. For what its worth as a Celtic fan I was disapointed it was given but had it been at the other end I would have been screaming for a penalty. Also imagine Jo Ledley had been on the goal line when the ball hit him, then had the ref not given a penalty Hearts would be raging.
.”
That's a very good point !!
Welcome to the thread btw...
Originally Posted by Henke77:
“More of a reader than a poster here (don't think I have ever posted on this thread before). What I like about this forum is the debate and banter you have without descending into needless insults / disgusting comments as so often happens on other Scottish Football Forums.
As regards the penalty decision in the Celtic v Hearts game. For what its worth as a Celtic fan I was disapointed it was given but had it been at the other end I would have been screaming for a penalty. Also imagine Jo Ledley had been on the goal line when the ball hit him, then had the ref not given a penalty Hearts would be raging.
However, to avoid this sort of debate in future what are your views on the following rule change, namely, scrap the non-deliberate hand ball rule. In other words if the ball hits you on the hand or arm it is a foul irrespective of whether or not it was deliberate.
I realise an argument against this would be that attacking players may just aim the ball at an opponents hand to gain a free kick / penalty but I am not convinced this would be a frequent occurance. I haven't heard anyone else (not just in this forum but also in the media) suggest this rule change which makes me suspect it may not work and I will be laughed at but that's life! However, in other sports such as tennis and badminton if the ball hits you I believe your opponent gets the point i.e. if he hits it at you it is your job to get out the road and hit it back with your racquet. I may be wrong in this though.
Although nothing to do with yesterdays match another possible rule change would be to go back to the days when there was no such things as "not interfering with play" when deciding if you are on or offside i.e. you are either on or you are off, no argument.
Obvisouly these two changes wouldn't stop refs and linesmen making mistakes but at least there wouldn't be the huge debates afterwards about whether the ref was correct or wrong. For example in yesterdays game their would have been no argument it was a penalty.”
“More of a reader than a poster here (don't think I have ever posted on this thread before). What I like about this forum is the debate and banter you have without descending into needless insults / disgusting comments as so often happens on other Scottish Football Forums.
As regards the penalty decision in the Celtic v Hearts game. For what its worth as a Celtic fan I was disapointed it was given but had it been at the other end I would have been screaming for a penalty. Also imagine Jo Ledley had been on the goal line when the ball hit him, then had the ref not given a penalty Hearts would be raging.
However, to avoid this sort of debate in future what are your views on the following rule change, namely, scrap the non-deliberate hand ball rule. In other words if the ball hits you on the hand or arm it is a foul irrespective of whether or not it was deliberate.
I realise an argument against this would be that attacking players may just aim the ball at an opponents hand to gain a free kick / penalty but I am not convinced this would be a frequent occurance. I haven't heard anyone else (not just in this forum but also in the media) suggest this rule change which makes me suspect it may not work and I will be laughed at but that's life! However, in other sports such as tennis and badminton if the ball hits you I believe your opponent gets the point i.e. if he hits it at you it is your job to get out the road and hit it back with your racquet. I may be wrong in this though.
Although nothing to do with yesterdays match another possible rule change would be to go back to the days when there was no such things as "not interfering with play" when deciding if you are on or offside i.e. you are either on or you are off, no argument.
Obvisouly these two changes wouldn't stop refs and linesmen making mistakes but at least there wouldn't be the huge debates afterwards about whether the ref was correct or wrong. For example in yesterdays game their would have been no argument it was a penalty.”
Welcome
Not sure about giving a penalty every time that it hits a defenders hand if it is accidental. I would be more for the other stance, don't give it for these at all. I think the best option though would be to use common sense and discretion (which would be open to interpretation sadly) and give penalties in these instances if it were to interfere with a potential goal scoring opportunity. I.e.the direction of the ball is changed significantly to the disadvantage of the attacking team.
One Ibrox tunnel.
One Neil Lennon
One misconduct charge.
Two SFA officials in Murray and Brines.
Neil Lennon has his version of events
Murray has his version of events in that tunnel but it doesn't match Brines version of events in the same tunnel apparently.
One SFA hearing.
One Neil Lennon
One misconduct charge.
Two SFA officials in Murray and Brines.
Neil Lennon has his version of events
Murray has his version of events in that tunnel but it doesn't match Brines version of events in the same tunnel apparently.
One SFA hearing.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“One Ibrox tunnel.
One Neil Lennon
One misconduct charge.
Two SFA officials in Murray and Brines.
Neil Lennon has his version of events
Murray has his version of events in that tunnel but it doesn't match Brines version of events in the same tunnel apparently.
One SFA hearing.”
“One Ibrox tunnel.
One Neil Lennon
One misconduct charge.
Two SFA officials in Murray and Brines.
Neil Lennon has his version of events
Murray has his version of events in that tunnel but it doesn't match Brines version of events in the same tunnel apparently.
One SFA hearing.”
One serious case of paranoia
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“One Ibrox tunnel.
One Neil Lennon
One misconduct charge.
Two SFA officials in Murray and Brines.
Neil Lennon has his version of events
Murray has his version of events in that tunnel but it doesn't match Brines version of events in the same tunnel apparently.
One SFA hearing.”
“One Ibrox tunnel.
One Neil Lennon
One misconduct charge.
Two SFA officials in Murray and Brines.
Neil Lennon has his version of events
Murray has his version of events in that tunnel but it doesn't match Brines version of events in the same tunnel apparently.
One SFA hearing.”
Lennon should be fine if it's Murray, he's been manhandled by a Rangers player and they got away with it.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“Duff and Phelps confirm Blue Knights have walked away, Ticketus now in talks with another of the two bidders, believed to be Ng.”
“Duff and Phelps confirm Blue Knights have walked away, Ticketus now in talks with another of the two bidders, believed to be Ng.”
Seems that it was actually Ticketus who simply walked sideways.
41 of 163
