aaid
-
Posts
13,230 -
Joined
-
Days Won
47
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by aaid
-
-
I agree.
In instances like this ask yourself 2 questions:
1. Would I expect a penalty for my team in the same scenario
2. Would I expect the opposition to get a penalty for the same
Looking at yesterday's match I'd say yes to both.
I still think that the triple sanction is wrong though.
Would anyone be in favour of a 'penalty goal' being awarded and a yellow card issued?
I think that IFAB are talking about removing the mandatory suspension that follows the red card in these cases and I think that's good. Maybe you could downgrade it to a booking for totting up.
What I would do would be to only have a mandatory red card for offences outside the box, eg if an attacker has a clear run on goal and the defender clears him out. I think in the vast majority of cases that awarding a penalty - and possibly a booking - is enough punishment as the penalty is a better chance of scoring a goal than the "clear goalscoring opportunity" was.
The exception to this of course are cases like yesterday's where the ball is clearly going in the net and in those cases I'd still award the red card.
Might stop a lot of the diving as well.
-
I think you're thinking of offside.
The law is difficult to judge. Do you think Dixon deliberately - or even recklessly - played the ball with his hand yesterday? I would say not but I wouldn't want to wager any of my children's lives on it.
There's no right answer here, short of refs developing ESP.
I think he moves to block the ball and as Griffiths is shooting he brings his arm up - probably to protect his face - and the ball hits his arm. So for me its a stonewall penalty. The clincher for me- and I've had to watch replays to see this - is that its not a case of his arm being static and it hitting him, he brings his arm up to where the ball hits it.
-
Just throwing this out here, but would a Tory lead coalition not have a positive effect on the likely hood of independence?
J
Depends on what that looks like, I don't think it necessarily follows that that would be the case.
Tory/UKIP, in out referendum on EU followed by BRExit - it would depend on how Scotland voted in that referendum, I'm not convinced its a much of a slam dunk as people think that Scotland would vote No.
Tory/Lib Dem, would pretty much depend on what powers are transferred to Holyrood and whether they are perceived to have delivered "the vow".
Tory/Labour grand alliance, if that's to keep the SNP out, then you can light the blue touchpaper.
-
Currency - in my mind its actually the only downside of Independence from where we currently stand and it's actually hard to argue that on that single point that Independence would be a benefit. At least during some short to mid term transitional period until such time as the economy of an independent Scotland settled down. It's no surprise that Better Together concentrated on this and Yes Scotland were on the back foot as far as this was concerned through the whole campaign.
However, if countries having different currencies was such an insurmountable problem then there wouldn't be the hundreds of different currencies that exist in the world today.
That said, had the vote gone the other way an "in principle" currency union would have been announced on September 19th, I'm completely convinced of that.
How to change that, I think you need to accept that it is not an ideal situation and talk about what all the other options are, what the benefits and downsides of each options would be. It needs to be considered as part of the "costs" of Independence and a price worth paying.
-
No, I don't disagree with what you are saying apart from maybe the turnout bit. I think NO voters might be more determined than some folk think. They want to stop the SNP any way they can.
I just don't trust opinion polls and find it hard to believe the SNP can get the size of swings being talked about. I would love to be wrong about this though.
If it were one or two polls then you could be right but this has been pretty consistent across pretty much every poll for months now.
-
Should be a fair few goals as both team's defences are shocking.
Will probably be 0-0 then.
-
It's the wording of the law that leads to confusion.
How do you know if someone did something deliberately ? You don't....you interpret it according to the circumstances in front of you.
It's a really poorly worded law. But the only real alternative is to take away the word 'deliberate' and make all instances of handball a foul. Would that be better ? I don't know...
Don't think that would work either as you would have people just kicking the ball at opponent's arms at point blank range to try and get a penalty.
The problem with the word deliberate is that people understandably interpret that as being "he meant to handle the ball" and of course that's not what the official meaning is supposed to be and what referees apply. When you add in your arm being in an unnatural position, that is just even more confusing.
Was the old wording for these sorts of deliberate or intentional offences not something like "Seeking to gain an advantage" which while not ideal does convey a bit better what the law is trying to do.
I don't think that is a great description but it conveys better than deliberate or intentional what the law is trying to achieve.
I don't actually think that there's too much wrong with the law or the interpretation as it stands, a bit more consistency from referees and fans - and more especially pundits - having a bit more understanding of the law.
-
Celtic penalty was one of those that is not deliberate, but almost always get given. I think it's a rule that could be tidied up, as its not being applied correctly at the moment, and applied differently in different leagues (in Spain all handballs are a yellow).
Perhaps a foul and a caution if deliberate (red if deliberate and stops a goal), and just a foul if it's accidental, but you gain an advantage?
.
In this case it was denying a clear goalscoring opportunity and so has to be a red card. It's either that or the referee sees it as not deliberate and no penalty.
A big harsh as its probably a bit of a natural reaction to protect his face, but the correct decision as the laws currently stand.
-
I generally don't agree with much if anything that David Torrance says but there is one line in his column in today's Herald that is worth sharing - even though the rest of the article is his usual mince.
First, ruling anything out when several polls show Labour and the Conservatives at level pegging in terms of seats would be bad politics, while second, "ruling out" any arrangement with the SNP wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference: all the evidence suggests the Scottish voters Labour needs to lure back simply aren't listening.Which is kind of the point about where Labour will get the support from if they are to claw anything back from the SNP. Of course the nature of FPTP means they don't have to claw back a huge amount in order to lessen the damage but even that looks challenging right now.
Goozay is right that if they are going to do it they need to come up with a better argument than the current mantra about Vote SNP get Tories. I can't see where that's coming from especially as the MSM are starting to call out their duplicity as regards the NHS.
-
I agree with Orraloon, these polls scare me. It was the optimistic polls pre referendum that got all Yes voters excited and No voters motivated. I'd go as far as to say it's a deliberate policy by MSM.
The polls ultimately were pretty close to the final outcome of the referendum and we saw how the polls can have an impact when the single Sunday Times poll that showed Yes to be ahead. However that was the side that had slipped behind reacting to the polls not the polls themselves being skewed to encourage people to vote No.
This is a completely different situation, it's more akin to where No were around six month if so out with a twenty point lead - of course the dynamics of a referendum are totally different from a general election. The Yes campaign though had the grassroots activism to chip away at that lead. Labour don't have that.
Remember that the Scottish electorate were comfortable enough in having the SNP in power in Holyrood to vote them in on a landslide in 2011. We know that there were many No voters that voted for the SNP.
-
Is it possible, worthy of thought even, that Scottish Labour have already given up on GE2015 and have already begun their campaign for Holyrood 2016?
Most if not all of their pronouncements seem to be on devolved issues.
I don't think that's what is going on here.
This is a completely new situation for Labour - actually for everyone.
Labour are used to fighting an election either as the incumbent or as the opposition.
If they are the opposition then it's pretty simple, make lots of promises and attack the incumbent's record in government.
If they are the. Incumbents then they defend their own record in government and attack the record of the opposition when they were in power - which to be fair is pretty much what Nicola does every week at FMQs.
Problem now is that in Scotland they are up against the SNP, not the Tories, and Labour are the opposition but it's a Westminster election and the SNP are not in power there. Even worse, they've never really had any influence at all as far as Westminster is concerned.
Since they can't think in anything other than straight lines, all they can do is to fight on the Holyrood battle ground and hope that the electorate isn't sophisticated to realise the difference and also try and discredit them in general terms. Problem is that for a two term incumbent government in Holyrood, the SNP are actually pretty popular.
-
To be fair the guy in front row doesnt look to amused, but as for grown men and women mocking NS is a new low indeed, this is supposed to be about politics not personal insults. DISGUSTING.
Johann Lamont's face looks like fizz as well, but when didn't it.
-
Love this line from today's Herald about Margaret Curran.
Another Scottish Labour source said: "Margaret has always been out for herself and Jim needs to have a word with her. It will be a blow to Labour if we lose our Scottish Secretary but we can take comfort in the knowledge that the IQ of the Westminster group will rise when Margaret goes."
-
Anyone in any doubt about how close SLab are to the Tories should watch this.
This is John McTernan - Jim Murphy's Chief of Staff - speaking at last year's Tory Party Conference.
-
Labour conference is a hoot. Jim and Kez doing a "This Morning" style sketch now. At least that's what it looks like.
-
I kind of get what you're saying but neither Strachan or Bannan were/are nippy or wingers.
Oh, I don't know. Strachan can be pretty nippy with interviewers.
-
Finally, bringing Ian Black on as a sub against Australia purely as a GIRUY to the media and us, the fans, who rightly pointed out he was never good enough for Scotland. At least that was just Black's one and only cap.
The most pathetic thing that night was Scotland fans booing a guy as he came on to make his debut.
-
the Tories are always going to punish the poor in Society, that's what they are for... why exist otherwise?
Losing the self serving paracites at Westminster is what is required.
Its amazing hoe the Tories hate any dependency policy , or anyone who takes handouts ,but are happy for Scotland to do so..
They expect everyone to stand on their own two feet , make their own way in the world etc etc with no help from anyone else
But they preach that Scotland cant and shouldn't do the same .. they need handouts etc ,.... we need to be helped by others...
That would be more Thatcherism rather than Toryism per-se.
-
So only 6 of the top 100 players in the world play in EPL.? Come on. It's maybe not everyone's cup of tea but there aren't many better leagues. The only plausible better leagues are in Spain and Germany and there can't be much between them.
No, 6 of them play for Chelsea.
-
I don't think your expectations are higher. I just think the EPL is a top class league. If players do well in a top class league, does that not make them top class players?
If it keeps you and <p>arklife happy, we can call the categories: good players, top class players, and world class players.
The EPL may be a top class league, some may disagree but they would be wrong.
However that doesn't mean that by definition all teams in the league are top class or that all the players in the league are top class.
I watch Chelsea and I would say that looking at the 24 man first team squad, I would say that around 15-16 players would meet my earlier definition of top class. Now there's a few young players in there who should get better and a couple who I don't think are good enough to play for Chelsea.
Of those I would only class four as World Class, Courtois, Fabregas, Hazard & Costa with Ivanovic and Matic not that far off that. I'd use a definition of World Class as something like the 100 best players in the World at moment.
-
For arguments sake, I'll attempt a definition.
I'm going to say there are 3 categories of top class players
#1 Regular starts and 1 or 2 man of the match awards per season in a top league
In this category we have:
McArthur, Naismith, Boyd, Hutton, Bardsley, Morrison, McGregor
Fletcher and Robertson are not far away.
#2 Regularly wins man of the match awards in a top league
In this category we have no-one
#3 Winning awards at the end of the season in a top league (league winners medal, POTY, team of the year etc.)
In this category we have no-one
I must have higher expectations than you do.
Be honest, we have some good players, we have some decent players and we have some okay players.
WGS is doing a good job with the players that he has at his disposal and there are good reasons to be hopeful for the future but we don't have any top class players, if we did then we would be doing better than we are.
-
No doubt Murphy has been told if we had voted for SNP and independence in the 70's the Tory party would have been consigned to the history books in the villains and @astards section.If we continue to vote SNP at every opportunity this will happen.Without the SNP (and others) there will always be a good chance of a Tory government in Scotland.Perhaps if someone reminds him of this every day it may eventually sink in before he dies.
I must have missed the vote for independence in the 1970s.
-
You can add Jenny Marra to that list...
Every time I see Jenny Marra, she looks absolutely seething.
-
Your right Neilser he never said were better together just with a Labour party in government .He meant the whole political system which includes a Tory PM.And in the period of better together in the run up to the referendum we had Cameron as Tory PM.A Tory government is actually an essential part of what he believes in.
That's self-evidently nonsense, that anyone in the Labour Party believes that there should be a Tory government. There may be certain people that feel a deal with the SNP would be a step too far - looking solely at the future of SLab - but that's a different argument.
What they can't do on the basis of being Better Together is to try and cast the Scottish electorate and their representatives as being somehow not able to have a say on how the UK should be governed purely because they don't like who they are voting for, and that applies to all the Unionist parties.
Project Stop The Jocks!
in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere
Posted
If Labour form the government, I think they will have a lot of internal issues with Trident renewal anyway.