Rector
-
Posts
42 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Rector
-
-
36 minutes ago, Jaggy Snake said:
I can understand your thinking but in this situation the Cove striker didn't even have possession of the ball, let alone control, when he was fouled so awarding a penalty for it would be a bit of a jump.
The red card has to be given in goalscoring situations as a disincentive to the defending team against fouling. What if a keeper was away from his goal for whatever reason, a striker is about to roll the ball into an empty net, is fouled and awarded a penalty but the defender isn't sent off. That penalty is now a much worse goalscoring opportunity as he has a keeper to beat, and the defending team hasn't been punished at all. If you say that situation would be a red card, but some others aren't, you're then asking referees to make very fine judgements on how good a goalscoring opportunity is.
The current rules here aren't perfect but there's no real need for them to be changed either.
That's an interesting (but I suspect rare) scenario. And of course, the rule could be simply that a denial of a goalscoring opportunity *outside* the box is a pen, a foul (or hb) in the box is a pen, and a foul that denies a gs opportunity in the box is a pen *and* a red card. SO the judgement the ref is called upon to make is the same.
Re Saturday, Elsdon wouldn't have made the foul and McAllister would have been flagged offside, of course.0 -
1 hour ago, BullyWeeStonehouse said:
It’s ridiculous that you want a penalty given for a foul outside the box. It’s part of the game and the player receives his punishment in the form of a red card and then a suspension for the next match.
If the roles were reveresed, aye I’d be pissed off about it, but the Cove player would’ve been sent off and we’d have the numerical advantage, albeit only for a few minutes on this occasion.
Again, *why* is it ridiculous? Simply stating that it is, as you've now done twice, doesn't move the argument forward. The red card for denial of a goal scoring opportunity is a very recent innovation - it's not 'part and parcel of the game'. So why is that innovation a better solution to the problem of cheating? It makes the game worse. It doesn't recompense the attacking side appropriately. So *why* is it a ridiculous suggestion to say that, for a foul outside box that is the denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity, a penalty is a better sanction than an automatic red?
0 -
3 hours ago, BullyWeeStonehouse said:
An absolutely ridiculous suggestion.
Aye, it’s frustrating as f*ck when you’re on the wrong end of it but it’s part of the game and Eldson has taken his punishment for it. Sometimes it works out for you - like it did for us yesterday— and on other occasions it comes back to bite you on the arse.Oh, and if you'd read my previous post you'd have seen I was there as a neutral (sat among the home support as it happens). So I wasn't 'frustrated' because it happened to 'us'.
0 -
2 hours ago, BullyWeeStonehouse said:
An absolutely ridiculous suggestion.
Aye, it’s frustrating as f*ck when you’re on the wrong end of it but it’s part of the game and Eldson has taken his punishment for it. Sometimes it works out for you - like it did for us yesterday— and on other occasions it comes back to bite you on the arse.Why is it a ridiculous suggestion?
'Professional' fouls are cheating - first and foremost - exactly like diving. Both are using unfair means to gain an advantage. You can use the same argument - sometimes it works out for you, sometimes it doesn't.
By awarding a red card, the entire dynamic of the game changes, most often to the detriment of the spectators, and invariably to the detriment of the team with the numerical advantage. This is especially true when the red happens earlier in the game - all of a sudden a game where both sides are going for it becomes 'attack v defence'. So many games have been ruined by this.
Secondly, the 'punishment' fits the 'crime' much more accurately. A goalscoring opportunity is denied by unfair play. It is punished with another goalscoring opportunity. The chance to score is not lost and cheating play has been nullified - and crucially the only balance that is at risk in the game is the score, rather than the personnel on the pitch. Football is *always* better when it is 11 v 11. The decision for the referee is the same - is it a clear goalscoring opportunity, with all the controversy and argument that that entails. The difference is the penalty for the offence.
You appear to be objecting solely because, on this occasion, it would likely have cost Clyde the win. But if the rule had been in play yesterday, it's much more likely that Elsdon would not have made the foul and donkey McAllister would have been flagged offside. So I say again, what is ridiculous about it? Shibboleths in the rules are long since gone - here's a change that would make a real, positive difference.0 -
Went as a neutral, (Broadwood is just 10 mins up the road from me) as the Ayr game was off. Random thoughts:
- if Cove score in the first couple of minutes as they should it's a totally different game;- McAllister looks an absolute shadow of his old self and was surprised to see him stay on the pitch;
- Liked Blair Yule (though he had absolutely no support). Suspect he may be destined for higher things come January;
- Thought the Cove pen was harsh, especially compared to a couple of other shouts;- Red card was a pet bugbear of mine. Those sort of fouls are just as much cheating as diving, yet are considered 'good' play. Plus a red card is the wrong punishment. I'd change the law and give an automatic penalty *instead* of the card, even if it's outside the box. That way, you are replacing the denial of a goalscoring opportunity with another goalscoring opportunity, but the balance and flow of the game aren't disrupted by the red;
- Suspect both teams nearer the bottom than the top of the league come May.0 -
Celtic
Aberdeen
HibsRangers
Motherwell
St Johnstone
Dundee Utd
St MirrenRoss County
Hamilton
LiviKillie
0 -
17 minutes ago, Lurkst said:
Yep, Austria qualified for the 1938 World Cup but had to withdraw after the Anchsluss. Some of their players joined the German squad but star man and guid guy Matthias Sindelar refused.
And was subsequently murdered (poison?) I believe.
0 -
- What you need is an old school ground and atmosphere; a sense of faded glory and old-world lustre; a proper football club,; baggy and a bit loose at the seams; and the best nickname. Forget the Prem glory boys. There can only be one club for you: Ayr United - the Honest Men.
1 -
54 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:
Have you took a wee step back and listened to yourself what the feck are you protecting?
All you are saying is "keep off the grass" Celtic will always put young talent out on loan they will always try to get the best they can get that will never change.
If you take the best young talent in the country between the ages of 18 to 21 and put them in league 2 and call them anything you want, fecking glasga colts,perth colts,auld reekie colts it doesn't matter, the idea is to give them the best chance in the game the problem with you lot is you can't see passed the entrenched view.
No-one's denying there aren't serious structural problems in the game, particularly with regard to youth development and competitiveness. The idea that somehow chucking colts teams into League 2 will make a difference, just because some other countries do it is nonsensical - a cursory glance at the number of FIFA A coaches and the quality of the coaching at U8 level and beyond will show where the main source of the problem is. And no entrenched views here - I want revolutionary change in Scottish football as much as anyone starting, as I said before, with an end to 11-1, at least an 18-team Prem, revenue sharing and limits on youth squad sizes to prevent stockpiling.
You want to screw up the League "for the good of the game". What sacrifices are you prepared to make for it?
1 -
49 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:
Again it's doesn't matter if it's Motherwell Hamilton or St Mirren colt teams that get the chance to play in league 2.
Would the cost be a problem?I see it's time to get the 'Why Colts and B teams are Anathema 101" notes out again. Oh joy.
If you put colts teams in the league, you *inevitably* destroy the integrity of the league. This is because, as several of your previous posts state, the *purpose* of them being in the league is *different* from every other club's. Consequently, decisions about tactics, team selection etc are made not with the same ends in mind as everyone else, you are not competing on an equal footing. If these teams work as planned, some of the colts might graduate to the senior side during the season, making the side considerably weaker at the end of the season than at the beginning - not for normal footballing competitive reasons but for a completely separate agenda.
There's no guarantee that the colts played would be Scotland-qualified. So you are asking the league to ruin itself for the benefit of producing better players for your club. That's it. Furthermore, on the slippery-slope principle, it wouldn't be long before the criteria and minimum/maximum age requirements were relaxed and clubs started playing their reserves and not-quite-match-fit recovering injured in the teams.
This situation has come about largely because of the ridiculous stockpiling and hoarding of young talent by a couple of clubs. Now the proposal is to f**k up League 2 in order to fix a problem that these two clubs created - at *no* extra cost and considerable benefit to themselves. Why's it the job of League 2 to provide practice matches for your kids/hasbeens?
Above all, having established finally a pyramid that rewards sporting achievement (after a fashion) on the pitch, two clubs, or however many you think, suddenly get to have an extra team in the league, violating a basic principle of the league - one club, one team.
And before you start off on 'for the good of the national team/national game' nonsense a) there's no guarantee these colts would be Scotland qualified and b) lets see the sacrifices you're prepared to make for it. How about, an equitable distribution of prize money, gate sharing and TV money, an end to the 11-1 rule and an expansion of the Prem to 18 clubs.
If you want your kids to develop, loan 'em out. Even better, stop hoarding them like their loo roll.17 -
St mirren statement from last night makes it clear its not just sky that is the deal breaker. SG said that some sponsors will terminate, some will.renegotiate and some will carry on regardless. Clubs not allowed to name individual sponsors.
It seems crazy to me that even when.clubs are coming out and saying that their future is in very real danger still the fans won't listen.
"Sporting integrity" will mean f**k all when your response to rangers' cheating puts your club out of business while rangers still exist.
There has to be a balance between punishment and personal survival.
It's not about punishment. It's about wanting to play in a league that isn't fixed. If the same rules don;t apply to every club then the game is as real as wrestling. If clubs go bust, they go bust. But if the league's bent, what on earth is the point of playing in it or paying to watch it?
0 -
So, is evryone going to carry out their promise, never to return to a football match in this country after this stitch-up ?
It was all only going to end one way with the length of time it's taken to come to a decision.
If Rangers Newconare playing anywhere else other than the 3rd Division next season I, for one, will never attend another football match in this country, it's pointless, the league is corrupt and the rules are only there for teams outwith the Old Firm.
f**k the SFA, SPL and the SFL if they vote this in, it's an insult to the clubs who live within their means and to the long suffering fans of non-Old Firm clubs that have to put up with being treated one step below dog shite by not only the governing bodies but also, it would seem, by their own clubs who have chased the dream, being paying over the top wages for crap players in a bid to keep up with a club that cheated for decades by bringing in players they couldn't afford.
Sorry, sporting integrity does matter, the rules are the rules, Newco must start in Division 3, no ifs, buts or excuses.
If other clubs who have got themselves into financial bother by buying into the SPL monopoly, tough, they should place themselves into administration with immediate effect and as for Sky, just where do they feature in the rule book ?, cheats are cheats, end of.
Yep. If they vote Sevco in and then promote them to the 1st, I'll be at East of Scotland league matches - mainly Peebles Rovers.
0 -
For every SFL club that stands firm against this outrageous SPL bullying, I'm gonna buy a bit of their merchandise. Won't be much - a hat, a mug, a scarf - but if everyone who is opposed to this nonsense does the same, it might make a bit of difference.
Plus of course I'll take in a game at their ground. Kind of like a reverse boycott. Groundhopping with honour. Could be fun.
0 -
If the suits are getting together to do a deal, why can't we? Why can't the chairs of the Supporters' Trusts of every club that has one get together (with one obvious exception) and agree a course of action should Doncaster, Regan and Longmuir press ahead with their machinations - and then release a statement. That would leave everyone in no doubt where the fans stand and what will happen to the game if RFC are punted straight to SFL1.
0 -
Might be worth mentioning that now, more than ever, we need to put pressure on the rest of the SPL to ensure that any thoughts of a newco in the SPL are consigned to the dustbin. The last thing we want is chairmen buckling to the inevitable propaganda campaign about how Scottish football needs Rangers in the SPL come what may. We need to bombard them with emails etc letting them know that under NO circumstances will we accept newco Rangers in the SPL.
0 -
Wouldn't you have to increase the other debts in order to decrease the percentage of the HMRC debt ?
Unless you cost cut and paid off some of it.
Sorry - yes, that's what happened. There was a firesale of players, all staff, playing and non-playing had to sign wage deferrals (i.e. were paid nothing) for almost a year and the money saved was spent on paying off HMRC. It was pretty brutal, especially for the non-playing staff, some of whom lost their homes, and as a result PAFC fans raised nearly £100K for the staff.
0 -
Precisely. Tax revenue is all about Deterrance since realistically the revenue can't have full visibility on what every individual and entity does. Losing money in one instance to provide an example to others makes perfect sense - its why HMRC or the IRS will spend disproportionate resources chasing, say a minicab firm or a restaurant and drive them over the edge if caught - the money involved in the individual case is trivial but the sector or aggregate has a lot of tax cheating, so take the occasional scalp to scare others even if in isolation a deal would raise more.
When there are exceptions, it's usually where rules are murky, the company is huge and the accused can credibly and justifiably point out that if they get hammered on a grey area they will do less business in the jurisdiction and net revenue will fall in the sector as a whole - see Goldman and Vodaphone for cases that may fall under this rationale. Rangers wasn't in a grey area really here, it can't move operations to Geneva and its future revenue is peanuts compared to clubs down south, let alone the real economy.
It surprises me Rangers supporters don't seem to get this point and to the contrary seem morally outraged that HMRC might even consider not taking pence in the pound.
It is in facte ven more serious for Rangers than that. HMRC have been raging about (mainly English( clubs getting away with CVAs for years, but because of the 25% rule have been unable to do anything about it. I was involved with the Fans Trust at Plymouth for a short time and in meetings during the early stages of our administration the club explained that HMRC had made it crystal clear that they didn't care about the money, they were *desperate* to take a club down, pour encourager les autres. The whole strategy at Plymouth - and ultimately what saved the club - was frantic levels of cost-cutting to reduce the debt to HMRC to below 25%. In fact, I think it's true that HMRC have NEVER voted in support of a CVA, not in recent times, anyway.
I have no doubt that the tax are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of taking a club the size of Rangers down, given the paradigm shift that would then inevitably occur in football financing. They are remaining tight-lipped in public - for obvious reasons - but the idea that they will cut a deal with Rangers is out of the question. And explains why, by the by, there has been (unwise IMHO) political pressure applied from Holyrood.
0 -
See post 9090, i feel it's relevant to your point.
Yes it is - thanks.
So presumably the answer is, "stuffed".
Out of interest, anyone know how many ST holders they have? And what that might drop to?
0 -
Just wondering....
Where would Ticketus be if Rangers fans decided en bloc not to buy STs at all, but instead pay on the day, ensuring the cash went into the club and not to pay off Ticketus? Unlikely I know but when Plymouth were in admin and looked like they were going to be bought by Kevin Heaney, fans did just that.
0
The Brechin City Thread
in North Pyramid
Posted
Hmmmmm. Should have been out of sight by half-time. Some encouraging performances (Patrick, Macleod, Scott); some very worrying ones (McGrath, all the defence). Rothes looked well off the pace, which makes City’s failure to convert more than one of the dozen chances they had even more concerning.