comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know-it tells us his opinion why a decision should be reached. It doesn’t make it factual.
I think we all understand your point, but maybe I’ve picked ginger up wrong with the way he’s used ‘facts’.
You’re saying we will be aware of the facts that led to a decision, ginger is saying that doesn’t make it factual.
Use Yang as an example. Assume that Beaton advises Robertson to go and view VAR. Robertson must have assumed the challenge to be reckless because he gave a yellow. Beaton believes it’s endangering an opponent.
That’s Beaton’s opinion. It doesn’t mean it’s a fact that he was endangering the Hearts player.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know-it tells us his opinion why a decision should be reached. It doesn’t make it factual.
I think we all understand your point, but maybe I’ve picked ginger up wrong with the way he’s used ‘facts’.
You’re saying we will be aware of the facts that led to a decision, ginger is saying that doesn’t make it factual.
Use Yang as an example. Assume that Beaton advises Robertson to go and view VAR. Robertson must have assumed the challenge to be reckless because he gave a yellow. Beaton believes it’s endangering an opponent.
That’s Beaton’s opinion. It doesn’t mean it’s a fact that he was endangering the Hearts player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it makes it factual in the sense of you know who said what. for eg in this weekend Rodgers blamed Beaton for ruining the game.... he has no clue what Beaton said, what Beaton awarded, who asked for what. but blamed him anyway.
Celtic fans are blaming someone without even knowing if he was the one making decisions or requestng anything.
in your example, you say "assume" and there is the reason for having it we dont need to assume anything.
We dont know if thats what happened but thats the narrative being put forward. for all we know the conversation was Ref "gave a yellow for high feet it was about chest level" , Beaton "it looked to be more head height" , ref " ok, well let me see it again then so I can make a better informed decision"
Im not saying that is what happened here, but it gives us the basis for seeing who said what. rather than just guessing which is what people are doing just now.
again what are the negatives for making these discussions public and in real time, just like they do in rugby so we know what is being discussed and who said what?
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
I didn’t say I wouldn’t want it available. You can point out where I did.
I said ‘assume’ clearly to give an example of why someone’s opinion doesn’t make it a ‘fact’.
You’re arguing over a completely different point that’s being made.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
I didn’t say I wouldn’t want it available. You can point out where I did.
I said ‘assume’ clearly to give an example of why someone’s opinion doesn’t make it a ‘fact’.
You’re arguing over a completely different point that’s being made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
na celtic fans are blaming Beaton for either interfering too much or for swaying the refs decisions, without knowing if it was him, what he said, what he did.
Just blindly blaming him, make the audios public so that this sort of thing doesnt happen. At least we then know who said what rather than guessing which is what every single celtic fan on here is doing .... basing their opinion on guesses with zero information to go on.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get all the arguments above but I agree that it would be better if there was a public record of all these discussions.
On balance, that clarity has to be a benefit.
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get all the arguments above but I agree that it would be better if there was a public record of all these discussions.
On balance, that clarity has to be a benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
shall we predict if it will happen or not .... what the worst that can happen !!
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You got schooled at Ibrox off a poor Motherwell team and booed off the pitch. Behave.
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You got schooled at Ibrox off a poor Motherwell team and booed off the pitch. Behave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And increased our gap over Celtic by 1 goal
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You got schooled at Ibrox off a poor Motherwell team and booed off the pitch. Behave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And increased our gap over Celtic by 1 goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
561 comments tells me that the SFA cost celtic another game
To be fair, i've watched the Motherwell games v Rangers and Celtic. Could be argued the deserve to win both, I would say they were worthy of a point in each.
I think they look decent, the young boy in midfield will be a star. That Bair has a shout at being the 3rd best striker in the league after Shankland and Miovski.
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get all the arguments above but I agree that it would be better if there was a public record of all these discussions.
On balance, that clarity has to be a benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-game clarity has marginal benefit. The moonhowlers calling Beaton a hvn are not to be reasoned with and most reasonable fans are, well, reasonable and move on, some might be more informed, but it changes nothing - interpretation, soft awards, marginal decisions and errors will still happen and they will all still be controversial.
It is the equivalent of players surrounding the ref after he's made a decision - it helps them vent frustration but pointless, distracting even - and why Ange demanded his players didn't do it. Sure, it would give the moonhowler phone ins more material but TBH it will add very little imho.
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 24 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first wum sentence aside I agree with this.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No; you are Correct.
Sadly, we just have yet another version of why anything mentioned is just wrong.
I believe I was pretty clear on what was meant.
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 42 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great to see we are moving on......
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No; you are Correct.
Sadly, we just have yet another version of why anything mentioned is just wrong.
I believe I was pretty clear on what was meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i think its very clear that your opinion is based on 100% guesswork and zero evidence.
It would be better to take as much guesswork out of the situation as possible. in addition to this I think they fans are also entitled to know what decisions are taking place whilst either paying for a ticket for said game or paying subscription. I think we are entitled to know what decisions are being made by who since we are paying for the product.
All i can say is Rodgers is lucky you have Livi at home in the cup this weekend.
If that was a potentially troubling fixture he could be in big bother, he can't afford to be exiting the Scottish cup in the current climate.
Even with Beaton as the ref and Donald Finlay QC as the VAR assistant Livi don't stand a chance.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No; you are Correct.
Sadly, we just have yet another version of why anything mentioned is just wrong.
I believe I was pretty clear on what was meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i think its very clear that your opinion is based on 100% guesswork and zero evidence.
It would be better to take as much guesswork out of the situation as possible. in addition to this I think they fans are also entitled to know what decisions are taking place whilst either paying for a ticket for said game or paying subscription. I think we are entitled to know what decisions are being made by who since we are paying for the product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See if you look up, you’ll see the point being made flying right over the top of you.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted less than a minute ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
see if you had audio files available at the time people wouldnt need to guess what happens.
Ginger wouldnt need to guess who said or decided what and base his opinion on that.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get all the arguments above but I agree that it would be better if there was a public record of all these discussions.
On balance, that clarity has to be a benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-game clarity has marginal benefit. The moonhowlers calling Beaton a hvn are not to be reasoned with and most reasonable fans are, well, reasonable and move on, some might be more informed, but it changes nothing - interpretation, soft awards, marginal decisions and errors will still happen and they will all still be controversial.
It is the equivalent of players surrounding the ref after he's made a decision - it helps them vent frustration but pointless, distracting even - and why Ange demanded his players didn't do it. Sure, it would give the moonhowler phone ins more material but TBH it will add very little imho.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal for the red is a joke. His foot is about 6ft high.
This is deflection, it was the refs that done us, not the manager, not the board, its all the refs, lets get them.
While the braindead bastirts in our support give it "aye hvn refs" while running in circles, tongues hanging out.
Pathetic, and should be obvious, but its not to some
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
The appeal for the red is a joke. His foot is about 6ft high.
This is deflection, it was the refs that done us, not the manager, not the board, its all the refs, lets get them.
While the braindead bastirts in our support give it "aye hvn refs" while running in circles, tongues hanging out.
Pathetic, and should be obvious, but its not to some
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it worked though, the topic of discussion for most seems to be about the refs and VAR when it should be about Rodgers faltering again.
fair play to those who are seeing it for what it is.
The longer the spotlight is on the refs the better.
It's no the manager, it's the refs, look over here.
Get through in the cup, give him some relief. Then when your not looking bang. Livi 1-0 Celtic away in the league.
Boooft maybe it was the manager.
Too late, title decider at Ibrox next week, can't sack him yet he's got a great record against Rangers.
Boot in the balls from Big Phil.
Then all the dafty KTF timmies will be like, it's fooking Rodgers, I always hated the rat bastirt.
Do what you want by that then, you would need to win every game from there and still might not be able to stop us.
Sign in if you want to comment
Hearts v Celtic - LIVE!
Page 23 of 29
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28
posted on 5/3/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know-it tells us his opinion why a decision should be reached. It doesn’t make it factual.
I think we all understand your point, but maybe I’ve picked ginger up wrong with the way he’s used ‘facts’.
You’re saying we will be aware of the facts that led to a decision, ginger is saying that doesn’t make it factual.
Use Yang as an example. Assume that Beaton advises Robertson to go and view VAR. Robertson must have assumed the challenge to be reckless because he gave a yellow. Beaton believes it’s endangering an opponent.
That’s Beaton’s opinion. It doesn’t mean it’s a fact that he was endangering the Hearts player.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know-it tells us his opinion why a decision should be reached. It doesn’t make it factual.
I think we all understand your point, but maybe I’ve picked ginger up wrong with the way he’s used ‘facts’.
You’re saying we will be aware of the facts that led to a decision, ginger is saying that doesn’t make it factual.
Use Yang as an example. Assume that Beaton advises Robertson to go and view VAR. Robertson must have assumed the challenge to be reckless because he gave a yellow. Beaton believes it’s endangering an opponent.
That’s Beaton’s opinion. It doesn’t mean it’s a fact that he was endangering the Hearts player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it makes it factual in the sense of you know who said what. for eg in this weekend Rodgers blamed Beaton for ruining the game.... he has no clue what Beaton said, what Beaton awarded, who asked for what. but blamed him anyway.
Celtic fans are blaming someone without even knowing if he was the one making decisions or requestng anything.
in your example, you say "assume" and there is the reason for having it we dont need to assume anything.
We dont know if thats what happened but thats the narrative being put forward. for all we know the conversation was Ref "gave a yellow for high feet it was about chest level" , Beaton "it looked to be more head height" , ref " ok, well let me see it again then so I can make a better informed decision"
Im not saying that is what happened here, but it gives us the basis for seeing who said what. rather than just guessing which is what people are doing just now.
again what are the negatives for making these discussions public and in real time, just like they do in rugby so we know what is being discussed and who said what?
posted on 5/3/24
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
posted on 5/3/24
I didn’t say I wouldn’t want it available. You can point out where I did.
I said ‘assume’ clearly to give an example of why someone’s opinion doesn’t make it a ‘fact’.
You’re arguing over a completely different point that’s being made.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
I didn’t say I wouldn’t want it available. You can point out where I did.
I said ‘assume’ clearly to give an example of why someone’s opinion doesn’t make it a ‘fact’.
You’re arguing over a completely different point that’s being made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
na celtic fans are blaming Beaton for either interfering too much or for swaying the refs decisions, without knowing if it was him, what he said, what he did.
Just blindly blaming him, make the audios public so that this sort of thing doesnt happen. At least we then know who said what rather than guessing which is what every single celtic fan on here is doing .... basing their opinion on guesses with zero information to go on.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get all the arguments above but I agree that it would be better if there was a public record of all these discussions.
On balance, that clarity has to be a benefit.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get all the arguments above but I agree that it would be better if there was a public record of all these discussions.
On balance, that clarity has to be a benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
shall we predict if it will happen or not .... what the worst that can happen !!
posted on 5/3/24
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
posted on 5/3/24
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You got schooled at Ibrox off a poor Motherwell team and booed off the pitch. Behave.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You got schooled at Ibrox off a poor Motherwell team and booed off the pitch. Behave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And increased our gap over Celtic by 1 goal
posted on 5/3/24
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You got schooled at Ibrox off a poor Motherwell team and booed off the pitch. Behave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And increased our gap over Celtic by 1 goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
561 comments tells me that the SFA cost celtic another game
posted on 5/3/24
To be fair, i've watched the Motherwell games v Rangers and Celtic. Could be argued the deserve to win both, I would say they were worthy of a point in each.
I think they look decent, the young boy in midfield will be a star. That Bair has a shout at being the 3rd best striker in the league after Shankland and Miovski.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get all the arguments above but I agree that it would be better if there was a public record of all these discussions.
On balance, that clarity has to be a benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-game clarity has marginal benefit. The moonhowlers calling Beaton a hvn are not to be reasoned with and most reasonable fans are, well, reasonable and move on, some might be more informed, but it changes nothing - interpretation, soft awards, marginal decisions and errors will still happen and they will all still be controversial.
It is the equivalent of players surrounding the ref after he's made a decision - it helps them vent frustration but pointless, distracting even - and why Ange demanded his players didn't do it. Sure, it would give the moonhowler phone ins more material but TBH it will add very little imho.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 24 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first wum sentence aside I agree with this.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No; you are Correct.
Sadly, we just have yet another version of why anything mentioned is just wrong.
I believe I was pretty clear on what was meant.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 42 minutes ago
Celtic schat it. That's the bottom line, they had the chance to take top spot and they couldn't.
They are crying about the refs in a game when they got a penalty for their guy falling over. A red card for their player studding another guy in the face because he wasn't brave enough to use his head.
The penalty against them is nonsense but they've been given most of the season, same as the Lundstram one the other week, never a penalty but given.
Thank fook they can give the Scottish refs a day off and concentrate on their European game this week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great to see we are moving on......
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No; you are Correct.
Sadly, we just have yet another version of why anything mentioned is just wrong.
I believe I was pretty clear on what was meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i think its very clear that your opinion is based on 100% guesswork and zero evidence.
It would be better to take as much guesswork out of the situation as possible. in addition to this I think they fans are also entitled to know what decisions are taking place whilst either paying for a ticket for said game or paying subscription. I think we are entitled to know what decisions are being made by who since we are paying for the product.
posted on 5/3/24
All i can say is Rodgers is lucky you have Livi at home in the cup this weekend.
If that was a potentially troubling fixture he could be in big bother, he can't afford to be exiting the Scottish cup in the current climate.
Even with Beaton as the ref and Donald Finlay QC as the VAR assistant Livi don't stand a chance.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No; you are Correct.
Sadly, we just have yet another version of why anything mentioned is just wrong.
I believe I was pretty clear on what was meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i think its very clear that your opinion is based on 100% guesswork and zero evidence.
It would be better to take as much guesswork out of the situation as possible. in addition to this I think they fans are also entitled to know what decisions are taking place whilst either paying for a ticket for said game or paying subscription. I think we are entitled to know what decisions are being made by who since we are paying for the product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See if you look up, you’ll see the point being made flying right over the top of you.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted less than a minute ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
see if you had audio files available at the time people wouldnt need to guess what happens.
Ginger wouldnt need to guess who said or decided what and base his opinion on that.
posted on 5/3/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
You’re arguing over semantics, and ignoring why I gave the example I did without acknowledging why it’s there.
I’ll leave you be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your making up scenarios .... it would be better if we didnt have to guess, we know who instigated what, who asked what and who decided what.
once again I ask why you wouldnt this available?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get all the arguments above but I agree that it would be better if there was a public record of all these discussions.
On balance, that clarity has to be a benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-game clarity has marginal benefit. The moonhowlers calling Beaton a hvn are not to be reasoned with and most reasonable fans are, well, reasonable and move on, some might be more informed, but it changes nothing - interpretation, soft awards, marginal decisions and errors will still happen and they will all still be controversial.
It is the equivalent of players surrounding the ref after he's made a decision - it helps them vent frustration but pointless, distracting even - and why Ange demanded his players didn't do it. Sure, it would give the moonhowler phone ins more material but TBH it will add very little imho.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 5/3/24
The appeal for the red is a joke. His foot is about 6ft high.
This is deflection, it was the refs that done us, not the manager, not the board, its all the refs, lets get them.
While the braindead bastirts in our support give it "aye hvn refs" while running in circles, tongues hanging out.
Pathetic, and should be obvious, but its not to some
posted on 5/3/24
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
The appeal for the red is a joke. His foot is about 6ft high.
This is deflection, it was the refs that done us, not the manager, not the board, its all the refs, lets get them.
While the braindead bastirts in our support give it "aye hvn refs" while running in circles, tongues hanging out.
Pathetic, and should be obvious, but its not to some
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it worked though, the topic of discussion for most seems to be about the refs and VAR when it should be about Rodgers faltering again.
fair play to those who are seeing it for what it is.
posted on 5/3/24
The longer the spotlight is on the refs the better.
It's no the manager, it's the refs, look over here.
Get through in the cup, give him some relief. Then when your not looking bang. Livi 1-0 Celtic away in the league.
Boooft maybe it was the manager.
Too late, title decider at Ibrox next week, can't sack him yet he's got a great record against Rangers.
Boot in the balls from Big Phil.
Then all the dafty KTF timmies will be like, it's fooking Rodgers, I always hated the rat bastirt.
Do what you want by that then, you would need to win every game from there and still might not be able to stop us.
Page 23 of 29
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28