The Official Scottish Football Thread
Discussion
If the Defoe and Davis deals get over the line, I can see them both being very effective players. Defoe always was light years ahead of Kenny Miller who is scoring goals this season, for example. Davis has been limited at Southampton, but I’ve watched him for NI and he still looks the part. Very assured in position and possession.
We’ve seen in Arfield how good EPL players can be when they come up here. The quality of touch and movement is a cut above. I think Celtic really miss Armstrong for that reason as he was effectively EPL quality under Rodgers. Of course it might turn out that D&D over the hill all the same.
We’ve seen in Arfield how good EPL players can be when they come up here. The quality of touch and movement is a cut above. I think Celtic really miss Armstrong for that reason as he was effectively EPL quality under Rodgers. Of course it might turn out that D&D over the hill all the same.
Driver101 said:
It's nowhere near as bad as what Gerrard said after game one of the season.
The only difference is Sutton has a bit more substance to his point.
We don’t need to go over the rightful/wrongful red cards from months ago as it’s tedious, but Sutton has fThe only difference is Sutton has a bit more substance to his point.
k all substance to his point. The SFA literally can do nothing in retrospect if the referee saw the incidents and decided at the time they weren’t cardworthy.There were decisions on both sides that were lenient, and referees use that discretion in games. Claiming it’s all Rangers biased is really not taking an objective view of the evidence.
simoid said:
Driver101 said:
It's nowhere near as bad as what Gerrard said after game one of the season.
The only difference is Sutton has a bit more substance to his point.
We don’t need to go over the rightful/wrongful red cards from months ago as it’s tedious, but Sutton has fThe only difference is Sutton has a bit more substance to his point.
k all substance to his point. The SFA literally can do nothing in retrospect if the referee saw the incidents and decided at the time they weren’t cardworthy.There were decisions on both sides that were lenient, and referees use that discretion in games. Claiming it’s all Rangers biased is really not taking an objective view of the evidence.
Yeah, let's not pretend there has been a chain of unjustifiable rulings this season.
To say he seen them all, and do nothing, makes Beaton look really bad. Mistakes happen and we accept that. That's what the panel is for sometimes. To say he seen each of these incidents and did absolutely nothing is bizarre. He never once even said a word to Morelos for any of the flashpoints.
The question has to be asked that if he clearly seen each incident, why did he do nothing? Kicking was already ruled acceptable earlier in the season, but in a fresh new rule stamping is ok too?
He either seen the incidents and should have taken action, or he didn't see them clearly to make a decision. I don't see what ground is inbetween.
To say he seen them and didn't think there was anything wrong kills Beaton's integrity. The compliance panel should have taken the case out of his hand's at this point.
When a ref gives a penalty, and it turns out the player dived, retrospective action is taken. The ref seen the incident enough to have the opinion it was a foul, but their wrong opinion is overruled.
If the ref misses the violent conduct within an incident, why does his wrong opinion trump the retrospective action? Or has the ref said the violent conduct was acceptable?
Driver101 said:
Brilliant. You've got a big brush.
Yeah, let's not pretend there has been a chain of unjustifiable rulings this season.
To say he seen them all, and do nothing, makes Beaton look really bad. Mistakes happen and we accept that. That's what the panel is for sometimes. To say he seen each of these incidents and did absolutely nothing is bizarre. He never once even said a word to Morelos for any of the flashpoints.
The question has to be asked that if he clearly seen each incident, why did he do nothing? Kicking was already ruled acceptable earlier in the season, but in a fresh new rule stamping is ok too?
He either seen the incidents and should have taken action, or he didn't see them clearly to make a decision. I don't see what ground is inbetween.
To say he seen them and didn't think there was anything wrong kills Beaton's integrity. The compliance panel should have taken the case out of his hand's at this point.
When a ref gives a penalty, and it turns out the player dived, retrospective action is taken. The ref seen the incident enough to have the opinion it was a foul, but their wrong opinion is overruled.
If the ref misses the violent conduct within an incident, why does his wrong opinion trump the retrospective action? Or has the ref said the violent conduct was acceptable?
I believe it has to be an “obvious error”. So if a penalty turns out to be a non-contact dive that will be obvious. The ref was conned. If it’s not obvious that a player should’ve had a straight red card, then the referees decision stands.Yeah, let's not pretend there has been a chain of unjustifiable rulings this season.
To say he seen them all, and do nothing, makes Beaton look really bad. Mistakes happen and we accept that. That's what the panel is for sometimes. To say he seen each of these incidents and did absolutely nothing is bizarre. He never once even said a word to Morelos for any of the flashpoints.
The question has to be asked that if he clearly seen each incident, why did he do nothing? Kicking was already ruled acceptable earlier in the season, but in a fresh new rule stamping is ok too?
He either seen the incidents and should have taken action, or he didn't see them clearly to make a decision. I don't see what ground is inbetween.
To say he seen them and didn't think there was anything wrong kills Beaton's integrity. The compliance panel should have taken the case out of his hand's at this point.
When a ref gives a penalty, and it turns out the player dived, retrospective action is taken. The ref seen the incident enough to have the opinion it was a foul, but their wrong opinion is overruled.
If the ref misses the violent conduct within an incident, why does his wrong opinion trump the retrospective action? Or has the ref said the violent conduct was acceptable?
Like if this is deemed a fair challenge and not a dangerous use of excessive force:
Or an innocent elbow to the puss:
I think Beaton refereed the match well. He allowed it to flow, and perhaps consciously decided he would let players have a bit of a nibble if it didn’t go over the top, or give them the benefit of the doubt in decisions. This was refreshing as a Rangers fan because, as you can see from the red cards we’ve had dishes out and rescinded, it’s better to err on the side of caution with cards.
You're good at getting these still shots. They don't really show an incident in any light to judge. How can you see any contact or movement, let alone intent, from a picture? Got videos to help judge?
It was only the Morelos incidents that were cited for consideration. Someone else obviously thought they required consideration.
The SFA either have to come out and admit that Beaton made mistakes, or they have to confirm kicking and stamping is allowed.
Either way they are looking rather stupid again.
It was only the Morelos incidents that were cited for consideration. Someone else obviously thought they required consideration.
The SFA either have to come out and admit that Beaton made mistakes, or they have to confirm kicking and stamping is allowed.
Either way they are looking rather stupid again.
Driver101 said:
You're good at getting these still shots. They don't really show an incident in any light to judge. How can you see any contact or movement, let alone intent, from a picture? Got videos to help judge?
It was only the Morelos incidents that were cited for consideration. Someone else obviously thought they required consideration.
The SFA either have to come out and admit that Beaton made mistakes, or they have to confirm kicking and stamping is allowed.
Either way they are looking rather stupid again.
To be honest, the incidents did not look good and for Beaton to say he saw them is a weird one.It was only the Morelos incidents that were cited for consideration. Someone else obviously thought they required consideration.
The SFA either have to come out and admit that Beaton made mistakes, or they have to confirm kicking and stamping is allowed.
Either way they are looking rather stupid again.
As you say, he either made mistakes or kicking and stamping now allowed.
This hasn't just been an old firm problem this season though, the standard of refereeing has been grim.
Can we have VAR but run by a team from outwith Scotland?
technodup said:
If I didn't know better I'd suggest a bit of panic is setting in.
Of course I do know better, and know that we'll get long and tedious responses 'proving' it not to be the case.
Not sure Celtic welcome the chase.
Of course I do know better, and know that we'll get long and tedious responses 'proving' it not to be the case.
Not sure Celtic welcome the chase.
no chase, nothing to see here. Celtic are lightyears ahead and will turn it on at Ibrox for the new year derby. Did we have that game yet, actually? Maybe I missed Celtic walking it...
Driver101 said:
You're good at getting these still shots. They don't really show an incident in any light to judge. How can you see any contact or movement, let alone intent, from a picture? Got videos to help judge?
It was only the Morelos incidents that were cited for consideration. Someone else obviously thought they required consideration.
The SFA either have to come out and admit that Beaton made mistakes, or they have to confirm kicking and stamping is allowed.
Either way they are looking rather stupid again.
The still shots are to remind you of incidents that Celtic players were treated leniently, too. Refs have discretion. Old firm games would be over sanitised or regularly abandoned if it was refereed to the letter of the law.It was only the Morelos incidents that were cited for consideration. Someone else obviously thought they required consideration.
The SFA either have to come out and admit that Beaton made mistakes, or they have to confirm kicking and stamping is allowed.
Either way they are looking rather stupid again.
The bold isn’t how it works. It’s not black and white, it’s grey. If the ref says it’s grey, but it’s actually white or black, the decision stands. If the ref calls white and it’s black, the decision is overturned.
DocJock said:
Scotland v Eire in the Star Sixes is getting feisty...
I always wonder if it would be feasible to get the best players in the world to these sorts of things. Set up Wembley like a boxing arena and have 3 vs 3. Messi, Ronaldo, Morelos, et al. Pay the players a few £m each and sell tickets 
simoid said:
The still shots are to remind you of incidents that Celtic players were treated leniently, too. Refs have discretion. Old firm games would be over sanitised or regularly abandoned if it was refereed to the letter of the law.
The bold isn’t how it works. It’s not black and white, it’s grey. If the ref says it’s grey, but it’s actually white or black, the decision stands. If the ref calls white and it’s black, the decision is overturned.
I know mistakes happen. They happen a lot. There's also mistakes and there is mistakes. The bold isn’t how it works. It’s not black and white, it’s grey. If the ref says it’s grey, but it’s actually white or black, the decision stands. If the ref calls white and it’s black, the decision is overturned.
There is not running to the letter of the law and totally disregarding them. Under no circumstances is intentionally stamping on someone ever in a grey area.
Every week people moan about inconsistency. Now as it doesn't suit your making excuses and justifying why a referee can suddenly now give odd decisions.
Edited by Driver101 on Friday 4th January 21:09
simoid said:
The still shots are to remind you of incidents that Celtic players were treated leniently, too. Refs have discretion. Old firm games would be over sanitised or regularly abandoned if it was refereed to the letter of the law.
The bold isn’t how it works. It’s not black and white, it’s grey. If the ref says it’s grey, but it’s actually white or black, the decision stands. If the ref calls white and it’s black, the decision is overturned.
I know mistakes happen. They happen a lot. There's also mistakes and there is mistakes. The bold isn’t how it works. It’s not black and white, it’s grey. If the ref says it’s grey, but it’s actually white or black, the decision stands. If the ref calls white and it’s black, the decision is overturned.
There is not running to the letter of the law and totally disregarding them. Under no circumstances is intentionally stamping on someone ever in a grey area.
Every week people moan about inconsistency. Now as it doesn't suit you're making excuses and justifying why a referee can suddenly now give odd decisions.
Edited by Driver101 on Friday 4th January 21:16
Driver101 said:
I know mistakes happen. They happen a lot. There's also mistakes and there is mistakes.
There is not running to the letter of the law and totally disregarding them. Under no circumstances is intentionally stamping on someone ever in a grey area.
Yep, even in OF games no player should get away with 3 offences that could easily have been red cards on their own.There is not running to the letter of the law and totally disregarding them. Under no circumstances is intentionally stamping on someone ever in a grey area.
abzmike said:
Yep, even in OF games no player should get away with 3 offences that could easily have been red cards on their own.
They weren’t red card offences. Dermot Gallagher says only 1 was worthy of a yellow. The match ref has said they weren’t worthy of cards. The compliance officer has decided they weren’t clear and obvious errors. The campaign against Morelos is quite ridiculous.PS here’s another Celtic (actual real world!) straight red from the game that was missed. Anyone counting?
The poor lad Morelos is one of the brightest young players we’ve had in our game and there’s a frothing-at-the-mouth campaign to get him suspended retrospectively for things that are barely yellow cards.
Watching as a neutral, I was surprised that Morelos wasn't punished more severely. Two of the incidents were definitely deliberate foul play to my eyes.
That said, the gross over-reaction from opponents certainly doesn't make it any easier for the referees, introducing an element of doubt in a 'crying wolf' fashion.
That said, the gross over-reaction from opponents certainly doesn't make it any easier for the referees, introducing an element of doubt in a 'crying wolf' fashion.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff