Jump to content

Celtic v Hearts


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, AJF said:

For anyone, really. I could list many examples of fan behaviour not involving Rangers fans that could potentially fall foul of any strict liability measures.

We could just tally it up over a season, create a league table and pro rate points deductions, 40 for the biggest offenders, 2 for the least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

We could just tally it up over a season, create a league table and pro rate points deductions, 40 for the biggest offenders, 2 for the least. 

Regardless of how it would be applied, I still don't think it would be a fair or reasonable way to potentially punish clubs and fans for the actions of others that, for the most part, they have minimal control over.

It would also be open to abuse, I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

We could just tally it up over a season, create a league table and pro rate points deductions, 40 for the biggest offenders, 2 for the least. 

That would never work. You'd simply have fans infiltrating the support of a rival club and lobbing a bottle or whatever. It would happen, particularly if things were really tight at the top or the bottom. You could even pay someone with nothing to lose to do it if needs be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

We could just tally it up over a season, create a league table and pro rate points deductions, 40 for the biggest offenders, 2 for the least. 

I have a better solution, strict liability with the maximum point deduction equivalent to how many titles you claim your club has won?

Ryan Gosling Lol GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AJF said:

Regardless of how it would be applied, I still don't think it would be a fair or reasonable way to potentially punish clubs and fans for the actions of others that, for the most part, they have minimal control over.

It would also be open to abuse, I feel.

If the stark choice is between doing nothing and suffering another hundred years or so of mass sectarian singing along with other assorted offensive behaviour, or closing stands/grounds and deducting points, I know which option I'd choose if I was an impartial football administrator.

Strict liability would have little or no impact on 40 of our 42 senior clubs. It is only because the two clubs with the largest support are against strict liability that its implementation is constantly stymied. It would be like turkeys voting for christmas.

I'd suggest it is only because you are a supporter of one of those two clubs that you demonstrate the same self-interest as your club.

Ligue 1 in France recently deducted points from Marseille and Nice for events similar to last night's bottle throwing incidents. Where there's a will, there's a way. 

 

Edited by Squonk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

celtic pressurising the SFA over referees (including Madden) is obviously paying off for them. 

 

CELTIC chairman Ian Bankier has said that the performance of certain referees in Celtic matches is a concern to him as he addressed questions from shareholders at the club’s AGM.

Bankier was quizzed upon incidents involving officials Nick Walsh and Bobby Madden, with a flashpoint cited in Celtic's match against St Johnstone – which Walsh refereed – in which Cameron Carter-Vickers and Saints forward Chris Kane tangled and both received cautions, despite Kane seeming to be the aggressor.

"That is a source of deep concern,” Bankier said.

Bankier was then asked if the performance of referee Madden in Celtic’s visit to Pittodrie last month, where he awarded 27 fouls against Celtic despite Ange Postecoglou’s side having 61 percent possession, was also a worry.

"Yes,” he replied.

“You are always concerned about the referees' performance. We make representations on a regular basis to the chief executive of the SFA on refereeing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bennett said:

celtic pressurising the SFA over referees (including Madden) is obviously paying off for them. 

 

CELTIC chairman Ian Bankier has said that the performance of certain referees in Celtic matches is a concern to him as he addressed questions from shareholders at the club’s AGM.

Bankier was quizzed upon incidents involving officials Nick Walsh and Bobby Madden, with a flashpoint cited in Celtic's match against St Johnstone – which Walsh refereed – in which Cameron Carter-Vickers and Saints forward Chris Kane tangled and both received cautions, despite Kane seeming to be the aggressor.

"That is a source of deep concern,” Bankier said.

Bankier was then asked if the performance of referee Madden in Celtic’s visit to Pittodrie last month, where he awarded 27 fouls against Celtic despite Ange Postecoglou’s side having 61 percent possession, was also a worry.

"Yes,” he replied.

“You are always concerned about the referees' performance. We make representations on a regular basis to the chief executive of the SFA on refereeing

About a dozen of those twenty seven fouls were committed by the Dod Michael lookalike alone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Squonk said:

If the stark choice is between doing nothing and suffering another hundred years or so of mass sectarian singing along with other assorted offensive behaviour, or closing stands/grounds and deducting points, I know which option I'd choose if I was a football administrator.

Strict liability would have little or no impact on 40 of our 42 senior clubs. It is only because the two clubs with the largest support are against strict liability that its implementation is constantly stymied. It would be like turkeys voting for christmas.

I'd suggest it is only because you are a supporter of one of those two clubs that you demonstrate the same self-interest as your club.

Ligue 1 in France recently deducted points from Marseille and Nice for events similar to last night's bottle throwing incidents. Where there's a will, there's a way. 

 

But it's not a stark choice between doing nothing or strict liability. Clubs need to improve how they deal with these situations, none more so than my own. They have the power to take action against fans themselves (in conjunction with the police), they just need to get better at doing it.

Your claim that strict liability would have little or no impact on 40 of our senior clubs I find a bit of an empty claim given some of the incidents we've seen over the years (one as recently as a fortnight ago):

All of those incidents would likely be punishable under strict liability measures, regardless if the club take action or not. Would you seriously feel it is reasonable that you are punished for the actions of an idiot who is either short of a few braincells, steaming drunk or both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Drew Brees said:

 The comparison was made after diddies were crying and moaning about how the cheeks always get the decisions. 

To give the diddies there due 

they haven’t once actually allowed and backed documentaries to be made about bias and corruption of officials in their own stadium 

that would be a proper minter 

Edited by Forever_blueco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Forever_blueco said:

To give the diddies there due 

they haven’t once actually allowed and backed documentaries to be made about bias and corruption of officials 

that would be a proper minter 

Not sure any Celtic fans on here have tbh. 
 

(you are aware I was referring to the diddy comments within this thread in that post you quoted???)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, WeeMentalDavie said:

24 year old arrested for throwing the bottle.

Good, can’t have that, it’s shite behaviour.

If you had to throw a bottle at someone in the street it’s assault, shouldn’t be any different in a stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chonky said:

Ok, your right, the ref was technically wrong. I was meaning morally. If ref had played on, hearts players should have stopped/kicked it out then (maybe they would have anyway). Regardless, you can't go up and score against a team when you win possession when a player pulls up injured like that - even though it would have been funny to watch the meltdown from Celtic fans!

Have you watched the 1st goal in Man Utd / Arsenal game last night ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, AJF said:

I'm not disputing the merits of Boyd behaving like a spoilt brat, but in what way can his comments be seen to be bigoted?

1. Berra tried to explain why it might be so difficult to call the decision in real time as the margins were so tight but was shouted down by Boyd.

2. Boyd tried as best as he could to get a reaction out of Petrov on quite a few occasions but failed. 

3. At the end of the half time round up  he demanded to know why the presenter didn't go back to him for his opinion on the goal , despite spending most of the time shouting down everyone who was trying to debate sensibly ..........................then smirked at the camera in that smug way he does. 

4. There was very little chat on the game itself because Boyd kept wanting to go back to that incident . There were chances aplenty from both sides that they could have talked about . 

5.He kept making sarcastic remarks about all the decisions Celtic get . Again glancing smugly at the camera.   

 

Basically He didn't have much positivity to take from what was an exciting , free flowing game. 

His main aim was to try to find a way why Celtic shoudn't have won without trying to hide his alliegience.

When you try to force your opinion on others trying to debate sensibly, without even recognising the other opinion  that is classed as bigotry . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said:

1. Berra tried to explain why it might be so difficult to call the decision in real time as the margins were so tight but was shouted down by Boyd.

2. Boyd tried as best as he could to get a reaction out of Petrov on quite a few occasions but failed. 

3. At the end of the half time round up  he demanded to know why the presenter didn't go back to him for his opinion on the goal , despite spending most of the time shouting down everyone who was trying to debate sensibly ..........................then smirked at the camera in that smug way he does. 

4. There was very little chat on the game itself because Boyd kept wanting to go back to that incident . There were chances aplenty from both sides that they could have talked about . 

5.He kept making sarcastic remarks about all the decisions Celtic get . Again glancing smugly at the camera.   

 

Basically He didn't have much positivity to take from what was an exciting , free flowing game. 

His main aim was to try to find a way why Celtic shoudn't have won without trying to hide his alliegience.

When you try to force your opinion on others trying to debate sensibly, without even recognising the other opinion  that is classed as bigotry . 

 

Sorry, but all of that just comes across as someone who is biased, not bigoted.

Surely to be bigoted he would need to display prejudice against a group of people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...