Jump to content
Big Col

This weekends matches 2018/2019

Recommended Posts

Guest faircity

Man you are almost single handedly killing this place. I suspect that is your aim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fairbairn said:

Now you see, attributing the name "scum bag" to Jimmy Savile is absolutely justified and more than warranted.  Attributing it to a footballer you don't like who plays (played) for a team you don't like who maybe says a few things you don't like is wildly over the top.  Chris Sutton boils my piss and I've I'm sure I've called him a fair few things in the past but he's not a scumbag just because he has some strong opinions.

(I realise it wasn't you who used the term btw).

that's exactly my take on it. in saying that I quite like Sutton and don't really have an opinion on Boyd. In terms of former players/pundits, I hate Billy Dodds with a passion but wouldn't describe him as a scumbag. Maybe there are a few different meanings to scumbag. I wouldn't say Jimmy Saville is a scumbag - there would be much worst descriptions to apply to him.

In thinking who I consider would be accurately described as a scumbag, I would probably suggest Tommy Robinson, UKIP's David Cochrane and perhaps, just perhaps, someone associated with Scottish football, Nacho Novo........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not Boyd's biggest fan with his media stuff but in no way is he a scumbag from my experience of meeting him/hearing from folk at the club etc.

Opposition fans absolute hate him and Aberdeen fans seem to rise to the bait more than any other team when he celebrates etc against them. Funnily enough, Celtic fans don't seem to bother with him that much but he doesn't really score against them.

Scored lots against Rangers though!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Parklife said:

And because he's a prick. I wouldn't go as far as "scum bag" is certainly a bit of a prick though. 

Plenty of football players are. Every team has them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the aforementioned Chris Sutton.

Aye, he can be rather too fond of his own voice sometimes but I'll give him his due, he has a good, positive attitude towards Scottish football. He is never afraid to stand up for it when most of his co-presenters and pundits (some of them Scots) hold lazy, ill informed and snobbish views of our game. So fair play to him.

An ex-neighbour of his told me recently that Sutton was very keen on rearing his own crops, pigs and poultry when he lived in these parts - with mixed results. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

McGregor loses appeal.

 

Having finally seen a good camera angle of the incident I don't have a problem with the red for McGregor. 

It does however make the failure to act on McGinn and Power even more embarrassing. The Compliance Officer is slowly but surely making themselves look utterly more ridiculous with every inconsistent decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Having finally seen a good camera angle of the incident I don't have a problem with the red for McGregor. 

It does however make the failure to act on McGinn and Power even more embarrassing. The Compliance Officer is slowly but surely making themselves look utterly more ridiculous with every inconsistent decision. 

McGregor’s actions were considered vexatious. Power’s actions were not.

I’m comfortable with that. 

Edited by SMcoolJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said:

McGregor’s actions were considered vexatious. Power’s actions were not.

I’m comfortable with that. 

Vexatious - causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry.

Pretty sure Powers challenge was vexatious. 

Intent plays no part in it either. It endangered an opponent and was the epitome of the stupid challenge the rules are trying to stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually feel shagger is hard done by. However the referee who missed this is rewarded with the position in the middle for this weekends top match. 

This is the bit that needs to be concentrated on, out officials are not accountable for any of their ‘mistakes’. How can this be okay??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Vexatious - causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry.

Pretty sure Powers challenge was vexatious. 

Intent plays no part in it either. It endangered an opponent and was the epitome of the stupid challenge the rules are trying to stop. 

Intent has everything to do with it and that is what distinguishes the two incidents. 

McGregor’s incident was considered vexatious hence the citing and subsequent ban. Power’s incident was considered clumsy hence the booking and no further action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, macy37 said:

I actually feel shagger is hard done by. However the referee who missed this is rewarded with the position in the middle for this weekends top match. 

This is the bit that needs to be concentrated on, out officials are not accountable for any of their ‘mistakes’. How can this be okay??

I disagree with your first line, the rest however is 100% spot on. Whilst this happens, things will never change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest faircity
52 minutes ago, macy37 said:

I actually feel shagger is hard done by. However the referee who missed this is rewarded with the position in the middle for this weekends top match. 

This is the bit that needs to be concentrated on, out officials are not accountable for any of their ‘mistakes’. How can this be okay??

So basically you are saying the ref needs downgraded for being right? 

Or was the ref wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said:

Intent has everything to do with it and that is what distinguishes the two incidents. 

McGregor’s incident was considered vexatious hence the citing and subsequent ban. Power’s incident was considered clumsy hence the booking and no further action.

Intent is not included in the rule, apparently, therefore it has nothing to do with it. 

I wasn't aware of the wording either until earlier this week and an ex-ref read it out on a radio show I was listening to. 

As far as the rules are concerned it doesn't matter if you meant to endanger the opponent or not. The offence is the same. 

Unless you're the Compliance officer of the SFA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, faircity said:

So basically you are saying the ref needs downgraded for being right? 

Or was the ref wrong? 

The ref needs downgraded for saying he didnt see it... when he is 20 yards away and looking directly at the incident.

So, either (i) he is a liar, or (ii) incompetent, either of which should result in a downgrade.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sevco have called for the Scottish FA to review their disciplinary system "as a matter of extreme urgency" after Allan McGregor failed in an appeal against a two-match ban. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest faircity
25 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

The ref needs downgraded for saying he didnt see it... when he is 20 yards away and looking directly at the incident.

So, either (i) he is a liar, or (ii) incompetent, either of which should result in a downgrade.

 

My take is that he seen it, he couldn't have failed to see it, he just deemed it not to be a red card. There has been evidence of, let's be honest, rank favouritism shown towards Rangers by match officials but in this case I just think he judged incorrectly, nothing sinister. 

What's worse is why on earth would you appeal the award? It was a shocking challenge, clearly there was zero chance of it being overturned, double the ban then you will cut out all their ridiculous appeals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SMcoolJ said:

McGregor’s actions were considered vexatious. Power’s actions were not.

I’m comfortable with that. 

Me too.

I have no belief that Power had any intention other than winning the ball (his foot was at a dangerous height granted)

McGregor went to do Ferguson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Sevco have called for the Scottish FA to review their disciplinary system "as a matter of extreme urgency" after Allan McGregor failed in an appeal against a two-match ban. 

Funny that, the cunts had no issues when Clarke brought up the inconsistencies the other week.

In fact, Slippy even mocked it and said Ref's should be left to referee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...