Quitongo's Left Peg Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 I'm not saying we hand coaching roles to everyone!! I'd only give it to Boyd and Eremenko as they are good at their roles and Boyd had previously stated he was interested in coaching so why not try it!! Could mean one man less that we need to pay... This just seems to be the go to idea these days. I'd rather have a dedicated coach who can help our players improve their game, rather than employ someone who has their own footballing issues to deal with. If both are to join next season, we need Eremenko and Boyd to be doing extra training to get and stay fit. Does Eremenko have a fitness level? If Eremenko is fat, then I wish I was fat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deefiant Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 This just seems to be the go to idea these days. I'd rather have a dedicated coach who can help our players improve their game, rather than employ someone who has their own footballing issues to deal with. If both are to join next season, we need Eremenko and Boyd to be doing extra training to get and stay fit. If Eremenko is fat, then I wish I was fat. Is that Jackson Irvine in the pic? He not playing with Ross County now? This an old picture? Theres a difference between fitness and not being obese btw...... To prove it here is a fat Gary Harkins sporting a six pack and looking fat in a leather waistcoat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_K_97 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) This just seems to be the go to idea these days. I'd rather have a dedicated coach who can help our players improve their game, rather than employ someone who has their own footballing issues to deal with. If both are to join next season, we need Eremenko and Boyd to be doing extra training to get and stay fit. If Eremenko is fat, then I wish I was fat. My pal who I was standing beside at ER has Losa's tap from that day. I was convinced I'd be in with a chance of catching it as a taller gentleman, but as an even taller gentleman my pal caught it and refused to take it off until the next day. Edited because I cannot spell to save myself sometimes Edited May 18, 2015 by Andy_K_97 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slacker Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 He's booked his son a leaving party at the Powerleague... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theProdigy Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 He's booked his son a leaving party at the Powerleague... Has he?? Think that says it all then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cass316 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Josh Magennis offered two-game ban for Jamie Hamill headbutt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killienick Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Josh Magennis offered two-game ban for Jamie Hamill headbutt. But Beaton saw it. He was looking right bloody at it and chose to do nothing. I'd appeal on that basis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFAANW Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Josh Magennis offered two-game ban for Jamie Hamill headbutt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theProdigy Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 But Beaton saw it. He was looking right bloody at it and chose to do nothing. I'd appeal on that basis. Problem is he could get 3, 4 or 5 for it if he appeals... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killienick Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Problem is he could get 3, 4 or 5 for it if he appeals... Yes. If it's deemed to be an erroneous appeal. However, the rules are that you aren't allowed retrospective action on something that has already been refereed. People assume that this means a booking or a red card but in fact, no action on something you saw is also deemed to have been refereed. He saw it and he chose to do nothing. This could only mean that Beaton said he didn't see it which is a blatant lie. (covering his arse IMO). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estragon Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Problem is he could get 3, 4 or 5 for it if he appeals... And this is a bad thing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killienick Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 And this is a bad thing? From the POV that it sets a dangerous precedent. Refs will eventually chose not to card at all in the knowledge that the game will be refereed afterwards. He bloody saw it the wee sh*tebag. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theProdigy Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Yes. If it's deemed to be an erroneous appeal. However, the rules are that you aren't allowed retrospective action on something that has already been refereed. People assume that this means a booking or a red card but in fact, no action on something you saw is also deemed to have been refereed. He saw it and he chose to do nothing. This could only mean that Beaton said he didn't see it which is a blatant lie. (covering his arse IMO). The compliance officer can't give a ban unless all the officials have left it out of their match reports!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theProdigy Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 And this is a bad thing? Could be... For all we know that could mean the difference between safety and relegation... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killienick Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 The compliance officer can't give a ban unless all the officials have left it out of their match reports!! That's not strictly true. They don't have to write down every single incident where they chose not to give a foul or a card do they? Can you imagine how long that match report would be? The ruling is generally vague but in this instance is fairly straightforward, the referee saw the incident and made a decision. He chose not to do anything about something which he was looking directly at which means two things; 1) He decided no action was required, 2) It doesn't need to go into his match report because it wasn't an incident, (in his opinion). If the compliance officer believes that the referee missed something i.e. didn't see it at all, then there can be action. This system isn't supposed to re-referee incidents that the referee saw and actioned, (even through omission). There is a separate process to appeal wrong referee decisions i.e. red cards given incorrectly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armand 2 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 What punishment does Beaton get for completely ignoring an offence that he blatantly observed? Never mind relegating him to a lower division where he can continue to officiate poorly, hit these guys in the pocket. They get away scot-free and they know fine well that there is little punitive measures that can be taken against them. They roll out the "oh, we're only human" line and have sycophants like Pat Nevin defend patently incorrect decisions whilst their bosses reserve the right to hammer guys like Magennis retrospectively in spite of their referees' ineptitude. I've no complaints about getting beaten on Saturday but what rankles is the fact that the referee's decisions have had such a bearing on the result. The absolutely concerning thing though is that characters like Beaton and Collum appear to be receiving recognition as top referees, being sent to officiate games internationally. It's astounding. Being a Scottish referee must be one of the cushiest jobs going - rewarded for sheer mediocrity, not held to account for your mistakes and reimbursed handsomely irrelevant of your performance. But they've got a hard job, remember. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Problem is he could get 3, 4 or 5 for it if he appeals... No he couldn't. He will either get a 2 match ban or no ban. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrestersKTID Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) If Magennis is to be banned for an internal beef then why are they not banning Hasselbaink for the headbutt against us a few weeks ago? Edited May 19, 2015 by PrestersKTID 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killienick Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 What punishment does Beaton get for completely ignoring an offence that he blatantly observed? Never mind relegating him to a lower division where he can continue to officiate poorly, hit these guys in the pocket. They get away scot-free and they know fine well that there is little punitive measures that can be taken against them. They roll out the "oh, we're only human" line and have sycophants like Pat Nevin defend patently incorrect decisions whilst their bosses reserve the right to hammer guys like Magennis retrospectively in spite of their referees' ineptitude. I've no complaints about getting beaten on Saturday but what rankles is the fact that the referee's decisions have had such a bearing on the result. The absolutely concerning thing though is that characters like Beaton and Collum appear to be receiving recognition as top referees, being sent to officiate games internationally. It's astounding. Being a Scottish referee must be one of the cushiest jobs going - rewarded for sheer mediocrity, not held to account for your mistakes and reimbursed handsomely irrelevant of your performance. But they've got a hard job, remember. Sssh! They'll go on strike again if we don't appreciate them. (Remember that weekend where we got good officiating and absolutely no controversy - seriously is that the kind of thing we want???). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie95 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I agree that the ban is a bit strict on Josh, when Beaton chose not to card him. Yet again, if Josh is stupid enough to do this during the game, he deserves a match ban or at least a warning. Hopefully the women behide me at the Partick game isn't involved in the hearing as she was shouting for the death penalty and a years wage docked from him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.