Jump to content

AJF

Gold Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,142

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AJF

  1. AJF
    Interesting thread so far. Regarding the match, pretty drab affair. Thought Cortes looked sharp though, but it was just a bit pedestrian really.
  2. AJF
    I’d say it was poorly timed, at pace and cleaned McKenzie out. I don’t have any complaints it was upheld, but assault is hyperbole.
  3. AJF
    Assault
  4. AJF
    There’s also some fields a few hundred yards north of Ibrox between Columba Street and Brighton Street that is ideal but usually fills up relatively quick so it depends how early you are going.
  5. AJF
    Lawrence out, Jack back, Balogun back next week with Cortes and Diomande looking likely to get their first starts since joining. Don't envisage Clement making drastic changes, although I imagine we will see the likes of Wright, Raskin and Barisic start the match.
  6. AJF
    Stenhousemuir now having their say: Not sure how this is all going to end but doesn’t look like it’ll be pretty.
  7. AJF
    Aye, you'd have expected there to be an official release of the letter from the clubs, rather than through media and twitter.
  8. AJF
    The story has been covered by pretty much every major news/sports news outlet. Sky Sports, BBC, Daily Record, STV, The Scotsman, The Sun, Glasgow Times, The Herald. They all have features and articles regarding it.
  9. AJF
    They were both pretty clear penalties, IMO. Additionally in regards to the Boyle incident, while there may have been contact, it's nowhere near enough to have impeded him. The contact had absolutely no bearing on the way Boyle threw himself down.
  10. AJF
    Don't worry, we will make sure he is reprimanded for his error in judgement.
  11. AJF
    Agreed. When I first read the letter of concern I assumed the one club that had input was not one of the 6 that had attached their name to it based on the tone of the letter.
  12. AJF
    Yeah, I'm not sure regarding both questions to be fair. The stakeholders were described as "executive team members, non-executive directors, and other senior figures in the game". Who that may be, I've no idea I am assuming more details will come out in the wash. Additionally, looking at the wording in the letter of concern, it states: "Of the 42 member clubs, only one had the opportunity to input into the report's investigation, outside of current or previous SPFL board members". Maybe suggests that club representatives who are/have been on the SPFL board got to have a say, but in their capacity as board members rather than representing their club. Just guesswork at this stage, though. ETA: STV are reporting that it is Aberdeen that is the only club that has been part of the audit process Six Scottish Premiership football clubs demand answers from SPFL in unprecedented attack | STV News
  13. AJF
    Here is McLennan's statement that is referenced in the letter of concern: SPFL press release: 22/01/24 | SPFL
  14. AJF
    Exactly. Never mind L coming before M, The Rangers should've been at the end of the list!
  15. AJF
    Wasn’t sure where was best to post this so I suppose this thread might be appropriate:
  16. AJF
    No way
  17. AJF
    Why does having a discussion about something that interests me always need to be something more than just… a discussion?
  18. AJF
    No, I am saying there are only two ways that the laws dictate when a penalty can be given for handball which I explained. That argument is not flawed, it is factual. The IFAB laws are clear to see. If referees are giving penalties for handball for reasons that are not covered in those laws (I'm not exactly sure what instances or examples you are referring to), then the problem is with them.
  19. AJF
    That’s not a flaw in my argument, that would be a flaw in referees applying the laws incorrectly if they are giving a penalty for something that is outside the rules for awarding a penalty. With handball, you can only concede a penalty if you handle it deliberately or you have made your body unnaturally bigger. That’s the only criteria that will allow a penalty to be awarded for handball.
  20. AJF
    See my previous post. Just a bit hypocritical. I don’t have an issue with time wasting.
  21. AJF
    Aye, that’s another reason I found Warnock’s time wasting complaints a bit hypocritical. I think there were three(?) occasions last night when the scores were level and an Aberdeen player went down requiring a prolonged stoppage or treatment, only to then rush back on as soon as play was restarted. I’ve no real issues with time wasting as every team does it, it’s just hypocritical from Warnock.
  22. AJF
    Of course I do, but I already addressed that in a previous post. If it’s not deliberate, then the only other way a penalty can be given is if the player is deemed to have touched the ball with their hand/arm when it is in a position that makes their body unnaturally bigger and when that position is not the result of their body moving fairly as part of play (that’s the exact wording from IFAB). Goldson didn’t do that, IMO. Hence why I don’t believe his, nor the Hearts penalty on Saturday should’ve been given as I believe neither were deliberate (which you’ve already agreed with) nor was their arms in an unnatural position that is not the result of their body moving fairly as part of play (this must be the only contention you have).
  23. AJF
    Touché
  24. AJF
    Your first post I’ve quoted here explains exactly why it shouldn’t be a handball - it wasn’t deliberate. You’ve just admitted as much.
  25. AJF
    I said as much on the Dundee v Hearts thread (or maybe it was the VAR thread) that I thought it was a scandalous decision to award a penalty against Dundee for that. The current law states for it to be a handball offence a player needs to handle it deliberately or they handled it as a result of making their body unnaturally bigger. Neither of these criteria have been met for the Hearts penalty nor Goldson last night, IMO.
×
×
  • Create New...