comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Wait !! 10M for Abada ?!?!
What the actual fck ?!?! That's robbery on our part .
A winger that can't dae winger things for £10M ...dafties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite
Win win
Except we won’t see any of it of course
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange player really. He had a knack of being in the right place at the right time to score goals, which is a massive attribute ... and I'm guessing why the reported fee is what it is. Other than that though, he was a fairly limited footballer. Not great technically, or particularly quick. Wish him all the best anyway. As I said the other day, his goal return has actually been a pretty big miss for us this season, on the back of Jota's departure on the other wing. Haven't replaced their goals in any way, shape or form ... just another of the many things we've fooked up post-Ange.
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Wait !! 10M for Abada ?!?!
What the actual fck ?!?! That's robbery on our part .
A winger that can't dae winger things for £10M ...dafties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite
Win win
Except we won’t see any of it of course
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you own shares 😜
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do. But more as just joining in as an investor.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted about 2 hours ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Wait !! 10M for Abada ?!?!
What the actual fck ?!?! That's robbery on our part .
A winger that can't dae winger things for £10M ...dafties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite
Win win
Except we won’t see any of it of course
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you own shares 😜
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do. But more as just joining in as an investor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotional investment really
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted about 3 hours ago
10 million big ones towards their targets.
Bonus galore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
$10m - £8m - still decent - load of baws being spouted by some of the (funda)mentalist believing the club held all the power - whit? Let him rot watching his value plummet further with everyone knowing we have damaged goods we can't / won't play. TBH we've done the best we can for him and us in the circumstances.
Of course it will be drawn out 10-14 days until he gets his work visa.
Two penalties and a red card were wrongly awarded as Heart of Midlothian defeated Celtic 2-0 on Sunday, former Scotland winger Neil McCann tells BBC Scotland's Sportscene.
A former diet and bear - says it all
Couple of mental takes on this
Truth of the matter is, things became untenable recently, long after Palestinian flags were flown.
He was given abuse, I’d imagine from a very small minority on social media who most likely never go to games
But the biggest disgrace about this whole saga
Is that Borna has made you 10m
Abada has something but he’s miles off that valuation.
Those stats while impressive are very much down to Ange tactics in a successful team.
You’ve won a watch at that price, I can only hope you (once again) won’t bother investing it.
comment by MaHeed'sNippin aka I’m the competent Wullie Collum (U3633)
posted about 2 hours ago
Two penalties and a red card were wrongly awarded as Heart of Midlothian defeated Celtic 2-0 on Sunday, former Scotland winger Neil McCann tells BBC Scotland's Sportscene.
A former diet and bear - says it all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you thought the first pen was a pen
And the former “diet and bear” (are you twelve?) was also a Celtic fan.
There’s a decent argument to make around some of the decisions in the hearts Celtic game. This idiot doesn’t help the rest of you.
I don’t think either were pens. I think the red is probably a red now, although I don’t think it should be.
I think Celtic are pash and it’s annoying that they’ll probably stumble to another title.
But I’ll sleep easy cause the above is one of yours,
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
comment by lauders (U9757)
posted 9 hours, 3 minutes ago
Couple of mental takes on this
Truth of the matter is, things became untenable recently, long after Palestinian flags were flown.
He was given abuse, I’d imagine from a very small minority on social media who most likely never go to games
But the biggest disgrace about this whole saga
Is that Borna has made you 10m
Abada has something but he’s miles off that valuation.
Those stats while impressive are very much down to Ange tactics in a successful team.
You’ve won a watch at that price, I can only hope you (once again) won’t bother investing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% agree and I've said it several times on here.
He has built his Celtic career on a few blunders by Barasic. The guy has never had 3 good games in a row for Celtic. Maybe not even 2.
He's a £3m player at most and if we've really punted him for £8m (which I doubt) then it's an amazing piece of business.
comment by Humble Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That goal was correctly ruled out. Surely you're not going for another chernobyl today.
comment by Humble Hamish (U21959)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When you watch that back though, the ref never actually awards the goal. It’s a small point, but he never signals a goal was awarded. Something that never gets commented on.
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Humble Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That goal was correctly ruled out. Surely you're not going for another chernobyl today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed the point as usual.
Expect nothing less though.
It's amazing what daft coonts will pay these days
Khun 3.5M ?? He wouldn't look out of place in a Call Sign select
But Abada for 10M ....guess someone scouted him over transfermarket
just make the ref audio publicly available , in real time as it happens.
Until then we are criticising something with very little evidence of what is actually happening.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
just make the ref audio publicly available , in real time as it happens.
Until then we are criticising something with very little evidence of what is actually happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just pointless chaff in these ref / var controversies.
What do you think you're gonna learn other than the verbal conformation of the controversy being played out in font of your eyes and more fuel for your angst about it all. Remember one side of the conversation is already piped into the studio so there's hardly gonna be deliberate unprofessionalism, just the usual run of the mill ineptitude. What we gonna do then, promote the even worse grade 2 guys and so on until we have no refs?
comment by Humble Hamish (U21959)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad you’ve stuck to my point
ffs
Audio has no “fact” revealing properties.
What it does is explain why a decision is made. Bottom line is that pretty much all of these contentious decisions are the referees interpretation, “ably” assisted by the VAR panel.
The criticism depending upon which set of glasses are being worn will imo just bring more howling about corruptness or downright cheating because inevitably some on all sides just won’t agree.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 6 minutes ago
Audio has no “fact” revealing properties.
What it does is explain why a decision is made. Bottom line is that pretty much all of these contentious decisions are the referees interpretation, “ably” assisted by the VAR panel.
The criticism depending upon which set of glasses are being worn will imo just bring more howling about corruptness or downright cheating because inevitably some on all sides just won’t agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of course it has. you can say for a fact that the ref said this the VAR rom said that, who requested what, and their reasoning for awarding something.
rather than just guessing what discussions where had and how they came to whatever decision and their process behind it.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
just make the ref audio publicly available , in real time as it happens.
Until then we are criticising something with very little evidence of what is actually happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just pointless chaff in these ref / var controversies.
What do you think you're gonna learn other than the verbal conformation of the controversy being played out in font of your eyes and more fuel for your angst about it all. Remember one side of the conversation is already piped into the studio so there's hardly gonna be deliberate unprofessionalism, just the usual run of the mill ineptitude. What we gonna do then, promote the even worse grade 2 guys and so on until we have no refs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we learn who is accountable, why certain decision were reached, makes the viewers feel like they understand what is going on. who requested what.
otherwise we are just throwing out blame without any evidence or clue where the blame lies.
means that refs and VAR cant just sweep things under the rug again with us none the wiser as to why.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 6 minutes ago
Audio has no “fact” revealing properties.
What it does is explain why a decision is made. Bottom line is that pretty much all of these contentious decisions are the referees interpretation, “ably” assisted by the VAR panel.
The criticism depending upon which set of glasses are being worn will imo just bring more howling about corruptness or downright cheating because inevitably some on all sides just won’t agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of course it has. you can say for a fact that the ref said this the VAR rom said that, who requested what, and their reasoning for awarding something.
rather than just guessing what discussions where had and how they came to whatever decision and their process behind it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s what’s meant there. Reads more that it will reveal the opinion of how a decision was made. That doesn’t mean the reason is factual.
Could be wrong.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 6 minutes ago
Audio has no “fact” revealing properties.
What it does is explain why a decision is made. Bottom line is that pretty much all of these contentious decisions are the referees interpretation, “ably” assisted by the VAR panel.
The criticism depending upon which set of glasses are being worn will imo just bring more howling about corruptness or downright cheating because inevitably some on all sides just won’t agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of course it has. you can say for a fact that the ref said this the VAR rom said that, who requested what, and their reasoning for awarding something.
rather than just guessing what discussions where had and how they came to whatever decision and their process behind it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s what’s meant there. Reads more that it will reveal the opinion of how a decision was made. That doesn’t mean the reason is factual.
Could be wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it means we can say that Beaton said this or beaton requested this... cos we know he did or the ref requested this.
right now there is blame being thrown at Beaton and his intervention with VAR, we dont even know if it was him that instigated the VAR checks, its assumption and guesswork for all we know the ref asked for the review and Beaton was saying I think its the right call but the ref wants to be sure. we blaming someone for something they did or said to the ref without knowing if he did anything or said something to the ref.
why wouldnt you ant the audio available , for what reason? I dont see how it hurts, can only be a benefit.
Sign in if you want to comment
Hearts v Celtic - LIVE!
Page 22 of 29
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
posted on 4/3/24
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Wait !! 10M for Abada ?!?!
What the actual fck ?!?! That's robbery on our part .
A winger that can't dae winger things for £10M ...dafties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite
Win win
Except we won’t see any of it of course
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange player really. He had a knack of being in the right place at the right time to score goals, which is a massive attribute ... and I'm guessing why the reported fee is what it is. Other than that though, he was a fairly limited footballer. Not great technically, or particularly quick. Wish him all the best anyway. As I said the other day, his goal return has actually been a pretty big miss for us this season, on the back of Jota's departure on the other wing. Haven't replaced their goals in any way, shape or form ... just another of the many things we've fooked up post-Ange.
posted on 4/3/24
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Wait !! 10M for Abada ?!?!
What the actual fck ?!?! That's robbery on our part .
A winger that can't dae winger things for £10M ...dafties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite
Win win
Except we won’t see any of it of course
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you own shares 😜
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do. But more as just joining in as an investor.
posted on 4/3/24
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted about 2 hours ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Wait !! 10M for Abada ?!?!
What the actual fck ?!?! That's robbery on our part .
A winger that can't dae winger things for £10M ...dafties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite
Win win
Except we won’t see any of it of course
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you own shares 😜
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do. But more as just joining in as an investor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotional investment really
posted on 4/3/24
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted about 3 hours ago
10 million big ones towards their targets.
Bonus galore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
$10m - £8m - still decent - load of baws being spouted by some of the (funda)mentalist believing the club held all the power - whit? Let him rot watching his value plummet further with everyone knowing we have damaged goods we can't / won't play. TBH we've done the best we can for him and us in the circumstances.
Of course it will be drawn out 10-14 days until he gets his work visa.
posted on 4/3/24
*mentalist bloggers
posted on 4/3/24
Two penalties and a red card were wrongly awarded as Heart of Midlothian defeated Celtic 2-0 on Sunday, former Scotland winger Neil McCann tells BBC Scotland's Sportscene.
A former diet and bear - says it all
posted on 4/3/24
Couple of mental takes on this
Truth of the matter is, things became untenable recently, long after Palestinian flags were flown.
He was given abuse, I’d imagine from a very small minority on social media who most likely never go to games
But the biggest disgrace about this whole saga
Is that Borna has made you 10m
Abada has something but he’s miles off that valuation.
Those stats while impressive are very much down to Ange tactics in a successful team.
You’ve won a watch at that price, I can only hope you (once again) won’t bother investing it.
posted on 4/3/24
comment by MaHeed'sNippin aka I’m the competent Wullie Collum (U3633)
posted about 2 hours ago
Two penalties and a red card were wrongly awarded as Heart of Midlothian defeated Celtic 2-0 on Sunday, former Scotland winger Neil McCann tells BBC Scotland's Sportscene.
A former diet and bear - says it all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you thought the first pen was a pen
And the former “diet and bear” (are you twelve?) was also a Celtic fan.
There’s a decent argument to make around some of the decisions in the hearts Celtic game. This idiot doesn’t help the rest of you.
I don’t think either were pens. I think the red is probably a red now, although I don’t think it should be.
I think Celtic are pash and it’s annoying that they’ll probably stumble to another title.
But I’ll sleep easy cause the above is one of yours,
posted on 5/3/24
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
posted on 5/3/24
comment by lauders (U9757)
posted 9 hours, 3 minutes ago
Couple of mental takes on this
Truth of the matter is, things became untenable recently, long after Palestinian flags were flown.
He was given abuse, I’d imagine from a very small minority on social media who most likely never go to games
But the biggest disgrace about this whole saga
Is that Borna has made you 10m
Abada has something but he’s miles off that valuation.
Those stats while impressive are very much down to Ange tactics in a successful team.
You’ve won a watch at that price, I can only hope you (once again) won’t bother investing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% agree and I've said it several times on here.
He has built his Celtic career on a few blunders by Barasic. The guy has never had 3 good games in a row for Celtic. Maybe not even 2.
He's a £3m player at most and if we've really punted him for £8m (which I doubt) then it's an amazing piece of business.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Humble Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That goal was correctly ruled out. Surely you're not going for another chernobyl today.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Humble Hamish (U21959)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When you watch that back though, the ref never actually awards the goal. It’s a small point, but he never signals a goal was awarded. Something that never gets commented on.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Humble Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That goal was correctly ruled out. Surely you're not going for another chernobyl today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed the point as usual.
Expect nothing less though.
posted on 5/3/24
It's amazing what daft coonts will pay these days
Khun 3.5M ?? He wouldn't look out of place in a Call Sign select
But Abada for 10M ....guess someone scouted him over transfermarket
posted on 5/3/24
just make the ref audio publicly available , in real time as it happens.
Until then we are criticising something with very little evidence of what is actually happening.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
just make the ref audio publicly available , in real time as it happens.
Until then we are criticising something with very little evidence of what is actually happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just pointless chaff in these ref / var controversies.
What do you think you're gonna learn other than the verbal conformation of the controversy being played out in font of your eyes and more fuel for your angst about it all. Remember one side of the conversation is already piped into the studio so there's hardly gonna be deliberate unprofessionalism, just the usual run of the mill ineptitude. What we gonna do then, promote the even worse grade 2 guys and so on until we have no refs?
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Humble Hamish (U21959)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 35 minutes ago
By the current handball law and the way it's been enforced throughout the season, the Hearts one was a penalty. Whether it should be or not is an entirely different question.
I've said before a couple of times I've got problems with penalties in general. So often we see an infringement that turns a 1% chance of goal scenario into a ~80% chance of goal penalty. There's no justice in that. IMO they should replace the penalty box with a smaller D around the goal within which a penalty can be awarded. Everything else is a direct free kick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They should just do what they are meant to do. Award it as they see it. If they feel they can’t judge it properly maybe being side blinded or something, they can still make an award and ask the panel for a review.
Alternatively, IF it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. I cannot stress that enough; THEN the panel can request he looks at it again. He then makes a footballing judgement.
So it’s either he is concerned enough about his own decision or the panel are very confident he’s made a clear and obvious error.
This almost automatic review and searching through footage to find something is ridiculous, time consuming and ruining the game as a spectacle. Somehow they just don’t seem willing or able to learn from the process.
Watch down south as to how it is far better used. Yes they’ve had a few more years of getting it right; but why do we seem to have to start from the very beginning and learn nothing from the way it is implemented by those with more experience?
Inept clowns is why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the celtic fans taking views like this when we had a goal disallowed in the OF game at the start of the season because a celtic defender kicked Dessers.
Oh no...wait.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad you’ve stuck to my point
ffs
posted on 5/3/24
Audio has no “fact” revealing properties.
What it does is explain why a decision is made. Bottom line is that pretty much all of these contentious decisions are the referees interpretation, “ably” assisted by the VAR panel.
The criticism depending upon which set of glasses are being worn will imo just bring more howling about corruptness or downright cheating because inevitably some on all sides just won’t agree.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 6 minutes ago
Audio has no “fact” revealing properties.
What it does is explain why a decision is made. Bottom line is that pretty much all of these contentious decisions are the referees interpretation, “ably” assisted by the VAR panel.
The criticism depending upon which set of glasses are being worn will imo just bring more howling about corruptness or downright cheating because inevitably some on all sides just won’t agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of course it has. you can say for a fact that the ref said this the VAR rom said that, who requested what, and their reasoning for awarding something.
rather than just guessing what discussions where had and how they came to whatever decision and their process behind it.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
just make the ref audio publicly available , in real time as it happens.
Until then we are criticising something with very little evidence of what is actually happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just pointless chaff in these ref / var controversies.
What do you think you're gonna learn other than the verbal conformation of the controversy being played out in font of your eyes and more fuel for your angst about it all. Remember one side of the conversation is already piped into the studio so there's hardly gonna be deliberate unprofessionalism, just the usual run of the mill ineptitude. What we gonna do then, promote the even worse grade 2 guys and so on until we have no refs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we learn who is accountable, why certain decision were reached, makes the viewers feel like they understand what is going on. who requested what.
otherwise we are just throwing out blame without any evidence or clue where the blame lies.
means that refs and VAR cant just sweep things under the rug again with us none the wiser as to why.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 6 minutes ago
Audio has no “fact” revealing properties.
What it does is explain why a decision is made. Bottom line is that pretty much all of these contentious decisions are the referees interpretation, “ably” assisted by the VAR panel.
The criticism depending upon which set of glasses are being worn will imo just bring more howling about corruptness or downright cheating because inevitably some on all sides just won’t agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of course it has. you can say for a fact that the ref said this the VAR rom said that, who requested what, and their reasoning for awarding something.
rather than just guessing what discussions where had and how they came to whatever decision and their process behind it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s what’s meant there. Reads more that it will reveal the opinion of how a decision was made. That doesn’t mean the reason is factual.
Could be wrong.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 6 minutes ago
Audio has no “fact” revealing properties.
What it does is explain why a decision is made. Bottom line is that pretty much all of these contentious decisions are the referees interpretation, “ably” assisted by the VAR panel.
The criticism depending upon which set of glasses are being worn will imo just bring more howling about corruptness or downright cheating because inevitably some on all sides just won’t agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of course it has. you can say for a fact that the ref said this the VAR rom said that, who requested what, and their reasoning for awarding something.
rather than just guessing what discussions where had and how they came to whatever decision and their process behind it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s what’s meant there. Reads more that it will reveal the opinion of how a decision was made. That doesn’t mean the reason is factual.
Could be wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it means we can say that Beaton said this or beaton requested this... cos we know he did or the ref requested this.
right now there is blame being thrown at Beaton and his intervention with VAR, we dont even know if it was him that instigated the VAR checks, its assumption and guesswork for all we know the ref asked for the review and Beaton was saying I think its the right call but the ref wants to be sure. we blaming someone for something they did or said to the ref without knowing if he did anything or said something to the ref.
posted on 5/3/24
why wouldnt you ant the audio available , for what reason? I dont see how it hurts, can only be a benefit.
Page 22 of 29
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27