Beano 3d

...but correct

I disagree. I thought Kenny Clark's intervention was interesting. Everyone (apart from Scott McDonald) understands that deliberate handball must be deliberate. Kenny's view was that McHugh was deliberately making himself big like a goalkeeper would, so the handball was intentional. Michael thought that in the act of throwing himself to the ground McHugh's arm would naturally be thrown upward, therefore no intent. Both perfectly plausible explanations for the action , and the referee on the day went with Kenny's interpretation - fair enough. I would have gone with Michael's though because I don't think McHugh would have wanted to risk conceding a penalty in that situation. He's still got the goalkeeper behind him - why risk a sending-off? Separate point - the real star of the match itself was Morelos. Managing to pick himself up and play on after a career-threatening assault and still having the thoughtfulness to give the referee a wee round of applause where it's due. What a gentleman.

Just watched the Patrick Kielty programme "My Dad, the peace deal and me". Should be made essential viewing for all bigots.

My first thought was that none of our current ringers would have got anywhere near that team on ability never mind nationality. But largely the same team (Gray and Henderson in, Cooke and McLean out) went on to get beat 4-1 against England at Hampden, so maybe they weren't that good after all! (Dismal draw with N Ireland in between). That England game was my first ever live on TV game; had to walk to a house with a telly to watch it ...

Can't get my head round this. Snodgrass plays against internationalists week in week out in the EPL. Including the ones in that England team...

As I recall (and I will have to rely on memory as there's no way I'm going back to read all that shite again) there was only the one poster majoring on the case of Coral v the Tollcross Chancer being decisive in the Rangers dead or alive debate. And he/she (or one of the 62 in between) was just plain wrong. The question of whether Rangers died or not cannot be conclusively answered. But the important thing is that the pomposity and bigotry that define Rangers did continue. Of that there can be no argument.

I must echo the comments re Sugna - excellent posts. There is a thing currently in existence called Rangers. I find the arguments over whether it's a continuation of a previous thing called Rangers or not completely irrelevant. Some people choose to believe it is and it has won 54 titles. Others choose to believe it isn't. There is no way of conclusively "proving" this one way or another because there is no agreed frame of reference within which to do so. The one thing I do find hard to understand is why supporters (however you want to define that word!) of the Rangers thing want to lay claim to the titles within the 54 that the Rangers thing cheated to win.

I don't understand the inconsistency argument regarding Burke. He played against Malta and against Lithuania, both games for which we were favourites. He was omitted for an away game against ostensibly tougher opposition in Slovakia. Isn't that the way most managers would handle a precocious but as yet uncooked talent? Give them a run-out in the shootie-ins but go back to the tried and tested when the going gets tough? And if he's not going to play under any circumstances, why get stripped?

It was a good post anyway - the spelling of currant lifts it to a higher level.

Was it to unfairly handicap them? I thought it was to unfairly benefit them by avoiding the legal sanction of throwing them out.