Various club name issues

[Salvo Montalbano]

Craigmark to my knowledge are the only team to have a player  red carded and had eleven players still on the park. It is in their history book. I was at the game and could not believe how the ref handled the situation

You'll have to expand on that one!

[Guest]

Craigmark to my knowledge are the only team to have a player  red carded and had eleven players still on the park. It is in their history book. I was at the game and could not believe how the ref handled the situation

Ref must’ve been a local ????

[Kennie]

1 hour ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

6 hours ago, sweep said:

Craigmark to my knowledge are the only team to have a player  red carded and had eleven players still on the park. It is in their history book. I was at the game and could not believe how the ref handled the situation

You'll have to expand on that one!

If I remember it correctly,  Craigmark were making a substitution and whilst the ref was getting his name, he was waiting for the substituted player to come off. Unknown to him the subbed player was already off and in the dugout, he booked him for leaving the field of play and as it was his second yellow he was red-carded and sent to the clubhouse. The substitution had been made so Craigmark still had 11 players on the park.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

Sounds like the ref was correct?

[sweep]

2 hours ago, Kennie said:

If I remember it correctly,  Craigmark were making a substitution and whilst the ref was getting his name, he was waiting for the substituted player to come off. Unknown to him the subbed player was already off and in the dugout, he booked him for leaving the field of play and as it was his second yellow he was red-carded and sent to the clubhouse. The substitution had been made so Craigmark still had 11 players on the park.

There were only a  minute to go and Craigmark were up three nil when a Craigmark player got injured. When the player was being treated Craigmark brought on a sub. When the ref was about to restart the game he saw a sub had come onto the park  without his permission. He summoned the subbed player back onto the park and booked him for leaving the field of play without his authority. It was then he realised the player had already been booked and red carded him. The sub was brought over and yellow carded for entering field of play without consent.

As the first offence was a red card should Craigmark have been allowed to bring a sub on for the player that had been red carded?

[santheman]

20 hours ago, cmontheloknow said:

There's already the Bothwellhaugh facility there - I wonder if it could be upgraded in some way?

My mole in NLC planning dept says not a hope in hell

Edited June 24, 2018 by santheman

[Ranaldo Bairn]

3 hours ago, sweep said:

There were only a  minute to go and Craigmark were up three nil when a Craigmark player got injured. When the player was being treated Craigmark brought on a sub. When the ref was about to restart the game he saw a sub had come onto the park  without his permission. He summoned the subbed player back onto the park and booked him for leaving the field of play without his authority. It was then he realised the player had already been booked and red carded him. The sub was brought over and yellow carded for entering field of play without consent.

As the first offence was a red card should Craigmark have been allowed to bring a sub on for the player that had been red carded?

So the substitution did not involve the injured player?

I don't know if a substitution can be undone after the fact but as it was done without the ref's permission, it surely doesn't actually count as a subs. at all - rather just an informal 'swap' of players which the ref could surely undo. This would leave them down to 10 men in this instance.

[Kennie]

1 hour ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

So the substitution did not involve the injured player?

I don't know if a substitution can be undone after the fact but as it was done without the ref's permission, it surely doesn't actually count as a subs. at all - rather just an informal 'swap' of players which the ref could surely undo. This would leave them down to 10 men in this instance.

Not quite, the ref was over with the injured player whilst he was getting treatment. He then noticed that Craigmark wanted to make a sub.  He came over to the touchline and assumed that the injured player was the one to be subbed, so he allowed the substitution, I don't recollect the sub getting booked as he was allowed on by the ref. When the injured player got to his feet and walked to the touchline where he asked to get back on the ref then realised that it was not the injured player that was being subbed, He came back to the Craigmark dugout and asked who was being subbed. That player was by then already in the dugout. The ref booked him for leaving the field of play without permission. 2nd yellow, red card, clubhouse.

[sweep]

8 hours ago, Kennie said:

Not quite, the ref was over with the injured player whilst he was getting treatment. He then noticed that Craigmark wanted to make a sub.  He came over to the touchline and assumed that the injured player was the one to be subbed, so he allowed the substitution, I don't recollect the sub getting booked as he was allowed on by the ref. When the injured player got to his feet and walked to the touchline where he asked to get back on the ref then realised that it was not the injured player that was being subbed, He came back to the Craigmark dugout and asked who was being subbed. That player was by then already in the dugout. The ref booked him for leaving the field of play without permission. 2nd yellow, red card, clubhouse.

It is in the history of Craigmark Burntonians.  The big question is should Craigmark have finished with eleven? As the ref summoned the subbed player back on to the park and red carded him. He was dealing with the first offence. The ref had taken the game back. Was he correct to allow a sub for a player who was red carded? . The ref never saw the sub coming on . If it was the injured player who was being subbed the injured player must leave the field of play before the sub enters it. The injured player was still on the park when the sub came on

Edited June 25, 2018 by sweep
forgot to add

[AsimButtHitsASix]

Going back to the flowers in club names I heard an explanation a few years back.

Most the clubs with a flower as a suffix come from mining communities and flowers would grow on top of slag heaps and mounds of earth that had been moved by the  mining process so there was a connection between a certain type of flower, the local mine and, by extension, the town and community.

As I neither a miner not botanist I can't verify how true this is although I would like to think any new clubs follow this idea and name themselves after stuff they find around the place and we can have "Paisley Used Johnnies", "Clydebank Buckie Bottle" and "Irvine Needles XI"

Edited June 25, 2018 by AsimButtHitsASix

[LongTimeLurker]

18 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

...on top of slag heaps...

Usually called a bing if you are Scottish. Given Thistle was already being used in senior football from the very beginning, I am not sure there really needs to be an explanation on this beyond the flower in question matching the colour of the jerseys and the names sounding less boring than Crossgates FC or Dundonald FC.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Usually called a bing if you are Scottish. Given Thistle was already being used in senior football from the very beginning, I am not sure there really needs to be an explanation on this beyond the flower in question matching the colour of the jerseys and the names sounding less boring than Crossgates FC or Dundonald FC.

According to the John Watt folk song in Kelty they are called Pyramids.

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Zen Archer
Spelling.

[Hedgecutter]

On 21/06/2018 at 18:02, Cyclizine said:

• Islavale: River Isla runs through Keith (Strathisla is the Malt) - in fact it splits Keith into Keith and Fife Keith: Islavale are the Fife Keith side, whereas Keith are the Keith team. Or something like that anyway

One hell of pedantic bump I know, but I can't let this one go.  Islavale has nothing to do with Fife Keith, just Keith which happens to have an alternative in the junior ranks. 

Islavale seem to be getting a better support than their senior neighbours, probably largely because they're more involved with the community with players from the local area.  To many locals, Keith FC are now largely perceived as being a group of Aberdeen-based mercenaries, especially since the (aptly named) Keith brothers retired.  If you go to the various Mid Street pubs, you're more likely to find raffles etc raising money for Islavale.   No surprise that Keith have gone from being HL winners to HL fodder over the past decade.

[Cyclizine]

On 22/10/2021 at 17:05, Hedgecutter said:

One hell of pedantic bump I know, but I can't let this one go.  Islavale has nothing to do with Fife Keith, just Keith which happens to have an alternative in the junior ranks. 

Fair enough, happy to be corrected (even three years later). Just something I was told years ago and had no reason to disbelieve. They used to play out of Fife Park, so it made sense to me.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Cyclizine

[Hedgecutter]

24 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

Fair enough, happy to be corrected (even three years later). Just something I was told years ago and had no reason to disbelieve. They used to play out of Fife Park, so it made sense to me.

Aye, Fife Park just happens to be one of the very few parks around Keith, which just happens to be on the Fife Keith side.

Fife Keithers make out that they're fiercely independent, but consistently contradictively say things that strongly infer they're part of Keith.  A faux rivalry if ever there was one (pray my other half doesn't read this).