Another honest mistake

Tarzan Trump said:
i also dont think that was a penalty

For me the defender has stood his ground, no barge from defender, if anything gg barges into defender. had sevco got one for that id be calling it a dive.

no foul for me on that occasion
Click to expand...
Wow! Just wow, TET. I really don't know what to say to that comment. That is maybe acceptable in UFC but it would be a red card if you tried that at Murrayfield. If that isn't a penalty then the Scottish Football should be rebranded as Scottish Rollerball.
 
Bridie Bhoy said:
Wow! Just wow, TET. I really don't know what to say to that comment. That is maybe acceptable in UFC but it would be a red card if you tried that at Murrayfield. If that isn't a penalty then the Scottish Football should be rebranded as Scottish Rollerball.
Click to expand...
had it een given i wouldnt have complained

i suspect that if i had an iron bar and smacked gg with it it would not have much effect

the defender has right to hold his ground

gg runs into him and falls like he been shot

i doubt had he been punch square in chops e would go down in pub

the bloke who missed the play on makes it worse imo

had that been ccv holding ground against striker of opps i would not have wanted that as penalty

i suspect ref would have given it as penalty if it had been ragers

but despite being more apenalty than most opf actuial penalties given at ibro this season

none of those weak claims were penalties imo

and that 1 against gg for me was defender trying to hold his ground with momentum against him and striker coming through him

i seen ragers get apenalty against aberdeen for less this season

but still imo neither are penalties
 
Tarzan Trump said:
had it een given i wouldnt have complained

i suspect that if i had an iron bar and smacked gg with it it would not have much effect

the defender has right to hold his ground

gg runs into him and falls like he been shot

i doubt had he been punch square in chops e would go down in pub

the bloke who missed the play on makes it worse imo

had that been ccv holding ground against striker of opps i would not have wanted that as penalty

i suspect ref would have given it as penalty if it had been ragers

but despite being more apenalty than most opf actuial penalties given at ibro this season

none of those weak claims were penalties imo

and that 1 against gg for me was defender trying to hold his ground with momentum against him and striker coming through him

i seen ragers get apenalty against aberdeen for less this season

but still imo neither are penalties
Click to expand...
It is not about the defender holding his ground - he very clearly throws a flailing arm/elbow into GG's head. That is seriously dangerous play and is a penalty 10 times out of 10!
 
Bridie Bhoy said:
It is not about the defender holding his ground - he very clearly throws a flailing arm/elbow into GG's head. That is seriously dangerous play and is a penalty 10 times out of 10!
Click to expand...
not for me

i see gg charging into him then falling backwards

gg if he was trying to get that ball woulda bust defenders back and given away foul

but he bounced backwards

its the same kinda scam strikers over world try pull

either that defender is he man and should be signed or gg is soft fairy who bounces backwards with momentum on his side

ive seen gg pull off his top and he built like arnie and he often bounces people flying with short dunt

i suspect he knew he wasnt reaching the header so went for a penalty

on that occasion i wouldnt have given penalty but if i was ref i couldnt give foul againsat either coz it was just coming together imo

no dive but clever forward play a bit like sutton could do at will

again sutton i dont think you could knock him on ground in fist fight very easily but in a pitch he got some amount of clever freekicks by falling down

GG is bulldozer

but he bounced backwards with momentum on his side

i seen him carrying 2 players who jumped on him no problems

had he wanted to hit that ball with his head that defenderwas not stopping him

i suspect he knew he couldnt make that header and tried next best trick
 
Bridie Bhoy said:
I guess we will agree to disagree because I cannot match up with your description of the events with what I am seeing with my own eyes.
Click to expand...
if that was morelos

it would no be a penalty but i suspect it woulda been given

but for me its no a penalty

main reason i dont think its a penalty is the way he went down and if it had been deliberate i think the reaction of gg would been to bloater the dude next chance he got
 
Bridie Bhoy said:
It appears most of us have been wrong all along! The FIBs (not MIBs) have been cruelly cheating sevco as they favoured their beloved Sellick!

videocelts.com

Ibrox Researcher reveals that Celtic have benefitted by 25 points this season due to honest mistakes!

Close research by an Ibrox Twitter account has revealed how Celtic have benefitted by 25 points due to honest mistakes this season.
videocelts.com videocelts.com
Click to expand...
aye the 75/25 bias in their favour is a 25 point swing in celtic favour, since it should be 100/0 bias forra masonic secrets ltd
 
Bridie Bhoy said:
It is not about the defender holding his ground - he very clearly throws a flailing arm/elbow into GG's head. That is seriously dangerous play and is a penalty 10 times out of 10!
Click to expand...
The defender made absolutely no attempt to play the ball, just wanted to stop GG from getting to the ball
At the very least it's obstruction, in the box, a foul, so it's a penalty
It's actually an assault, which should have merited a red card
And please refer to my comment on my previous post, if you still don't think it's a penalty
A penalty, all day, every day, except when it's us and the Masons won't give it
 
Last edited:
kelly said:
That's some force he used to keep his balance ,never seen anyone throw the arm up with force to ,,,keep their balance
Click to expand...
GG is a bulldozer and he was supposedly looking at the ball and coming through back of defender

but he bounced backwards and down

i dont believe you could knock that guy to ground if you tried

i suspect he would run right through you even if you tried to block him from static position with the momentum on his side

But he crumbled backwards as if he anticipatedcontact

ive seen penalties given for less especially for them

But to me that was not a penalty

1 shot still took place
2 gg was not in control of the ball
3 gg went down like a sack like he was shot but he had no marks on his face or needed treatment that i can remember

4 im all for fiing the ref problems

But i dont think that is a penalty had the dude at back post buried it it was mute

I think gg on that occasion tried to con ref, just my opinion

i see other players atother teams get penalties and freekick they bought by conning ref

on original play and even having watched it several times

the mechanics and personael involved in that collition make me think it was morelosesque faint

morelos is a mule

you cant get him on ground very easily but he spends half hisd life falling over

on tat occassion i think gg didnt think he could make the ball so tried a best man fall competition

had penalty been given i wouldnt have complained
But for me its too dubious a call to be clear cut ref cheating

i wouldnt have given penalty fo0r that despite my inherrent unconscious bias


for me its not a penalty
 
Tarzan Trump said:
GG is a bulldozer and he was supposedly looking at the ball and coming through back of defender

but he bounced backwards and down

i dont believe you could knock that guy to ground if you tried

i suspect he would run right through you even if you tried to block him from static position with the momentum on his side

But he crumbled backwards as if he anticipatedcontact

ive seen penalties given for less especially for them

But to me that was not a penalty

1 shot still took place
2 gg was not in control of the ball
3 gg went down like a sack like he was shot but he had no marks on his face or needed treatment that i can remember

4 im all for fiing the ref problems

But i dont think that is a penalty had the dude at back post buried it it was mute

I think gg on that occasion tried to con ref, just my opinion

i see other players atother teams get penalties and freekick they bought by conning ref

on original play and even having watched it several times

the mechanics and personael involved in that collition make me think it was morelosesque faint

morelos is a mule

you cant get him on ground very easily but he spends half hisd life falling over

on tat occassion i think gg didnt think he could make the ball so tried a best man fall competition

had penalty been given i wouldnt have complained
But for me its too dubious a call to be clear cut ref cheating

i wouldnt have given penalty fo0r that despite my inherrent unconscious bias


for me its not a penalty
Click to expand...
Sorry Tet, but reading over your opinions upon the Jack off and GG incidents, I can only conclude that you never actually played the game that much, if at all.
The Jack off tackle, back in the day, was known as a "cowards tackle" as you never had any intention of playing the ball whatsoever, when your foot is that high and you know you are only looking to injure the player in a manner that was unacceptable.
You had crossed the line and made a target for yourself and had to accept the consequences as your own team mates would mind your back.
But times are meant to have changed, but not so within Scottish football still, when rules will only be applied according to the situation still.
Conclusion
As the leg breaker occurred in the 97 minute and never actually affected the outcome of the game, then it was deemed as OK, so no intention of wanting to clean the Scottish game still.

As for the GG incident, nowadays when a foul is committed within the area, players would be instructed to highlight it, in an attempt to gain the right decision.
Make of it, weather its right or not? but that's the way it is today.
The defender had no intention of actually trying to play the ball, only GG. It was a very clear foul and as it was in the area, then the only decision was a penalty, so size has no place within your opinion.
If you are fouled, your fouled and players these days highlight even more so, that it borders on cheating and kunt is becoming a master at it also, along with many others also nowadays.
Conclusion
Cause meada missed the header, I believe he should have scored from, the 1st offence gets overlooked still.
Does it suit the agenda still in play? Of course it does.
Yet I will leave you with this Tet? The pen awarded against us at the ewe camp, was hand ball, twice in fact, yet the foul beforehand was overlooked as usual.
So mibs will only act upon what they want to see but still haven't the ability to apply the modern day rules, and so called honest mistakes has nothing to do with matters either imo.
 
John nó said:
Sorry Tet, but reading over your opinions upon the Jack off and GG incidents, I can only conclude that you never actually played the game that much, if at all.
The Jack off tackle, back in the day, was known as a "cowards tackle" as you never had any intention of playing the ball whatsoever, when your foot is that high and you know you are only looking to injure the player in a manner that was unacceptable.
You had crossed the line and made a target for yourself and had to accept the consequences as your own team mates would mind your back.
But times are meant to have changed, but not so within Scottish football still, when rules will only be applied according to the situation still.
Conclusion
As the leg breaker occurred in the 97 minute and never actually affected the outcome of the game, then it was deemed as OK, so no intention of wanting to clean the Scottish game still.

As for the GG incident, nowadays when a foul is committed within the area, players would be instructed to highlight it, in an attempt to gain the right decision.
Make of it, weather its right or not? but that's the way it is today.
The defender had no intention of actually trying to play the ball, only GG. It was a very clear foul and as it was in the area, then the only decision was a penalty, so size has no place within your opinion.
If you are fouled, your fouled and players these days highlight even more so, that it borders on cheating and kunt is becoming a master at it also, along with many others also nowadays.
Conclusion
Cause meada missed the header, I believe he should have scored from, the 1st offence gets overlooked still.
Does it suit the agenda still in play? Of course it does.
Yet I will leave you with this Tet? The pen awarded against us at the ewe camp, was hand ball, twice in fact, yet the foul beforehand was overlooked as usual.
So mibs will only act upon what they want to see but still haven't the ability to apply the modern day rules, and so called honest mistakes has nothing to do with matters either imo.
Click to expand...
jack off tackle?

I never said once that tackle was allowed

I said isolated still photographs of any incident is not proof in itself

No idea where you get i am defending such tackles

itseasy to frame a picture to suit a particular agenda and without proper context its easy to cast blame. its exactly what sevco have done with anything they want, perpective is needed. A framed single photo is not enough.

As for gg

incedent i dont think it was a penalty i think gg played for penalty and it didnt get awarded

that said it is given quite often at other grounds for other teams.


The whatabout this then is a hun diversion tactic


Im telling you straight, refs are inherrently bent against Celtic
It needs sorted, selection process is clandestine and tigged imo


highlighting genuine mib bentness might help solve problem
highlighting not so clear cut incedents or contrived still (if they are not contextual photos) is not evidense, in fact it muddies the water. And it helps with conclusion of unproven and does not help fix the clandestine nature of referee selections or fairly leveling any inherrent bias
 
Tarzan Trump said:
jack off tackle?

I never said once that tackle was allowed

I said isolated still photographs of any incident is not proof in itself

No idea where you get i am defending such tackles

itseasy to frame a picture to suit a particular agenda and without proper context its easy to cast blame. its exactly what sevco have done with anything they want, perpective is needed. A framed single photo is not enough.

As for gg

incedent i dont think it was a penalty i think gg played for penalty and it didnt get awarded

that said it is given quite often at other grounds for other teams.


The whatabout this then is a hun diversion tactic


Im telling you straight, refs are inherrently bent against Celtic
It needs sorted, selection process is clandestine and tigged imo


highlighting genuine mib bentness might help solve problem
highlighting not so clear cut incedents or contrived still (if they are not contextual photos) is not evidense, in fact it muddies the water. And it helps with conclusion of unproven and does not help fix the clandestine nature of referee selections or fairly leveling any inherrent bias
Click to expand...
I think we all understand that individual frames or pictures can give a distorted view of what really happened. But these incidents were also backed up by videos/tv which show exactly Jack's intention. I don't believe many of of us are basing our opinions solely on these individual photos - I posted them as reminders of the incidents as that is the topic of the thread. When you have a serial offender such as Jack has been throughout his whole career (including pre-sevco days) then there is only so often you can say it is a single frame that is being taken out of context.

I respect your opinion about the non-award of the GG penalty, but like most people on here and even in the media I cannot understand how you can come to your conclusion based on watching the incident. But we have discussed this enough and will agree to disagree on this. HH
 
Bridie Bhoy said:
I think we all understand that individual frames or pictures can give a distorted view of what really happened. But these incidents were also backed up by videos/tv which show exactly Jack's intention. I don't believe many of of us are basing our opinions solely on these individual photos - I posted them as reminders of the incidents as that is the topic of the thread. When you have a serial offender such as Jack has been throughout his whole career (including pre-sevco days) then there is only so often you can say it is a single frame that is being taken out of context.

I respect your opinion about the non-award of the GG penalty, but like most people on here and even in the media I cannot understand how you can come to your conclusion based on watching the incident. But we have discussed this enough and will agree to disagree on this. HH
Click to expand...
why no put up these videos with the still

ive tried finding them but cant

which means its possible the video doesnt fit the photo

try spot the ball competition and the ball is never where it looks like it shouldbe in the frame

still photos with context of video can be used to build a narrative

I have no idea if Jack is deliberately trying to break anyones legs

All ive ever seen are still photos

And hard simunovic style tackle that more often than not win the ball

it is possible that without the context of fair tackle and ball to create a photo graph that paints a false picture of the actual tackle

Jack is a centralmid who bites the ball, we have had many over the years

im pretty sure if you take still photos of our hard tackling players you can create photos that look like dude was tryiong to break legs

All im saying is still photos are not proof on their own and are self defeating against actual greivances
 
If you watch videos of the Jack incidents I cannot understand how you come to the conclusion that he is not guilty of trying to "do" his opponents. Get away from using only still images - in conjunction with the videos they highlight exactly what his intentions were to anyone who has played football at any level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 111 (members: 9, guests: 102)

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top