0
    0

    Comment on One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All by Jingso.Jimsie.

    'Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 17:10

     

     

    Jingso.Jimsie2nd April 2019 at 16:46    

     

    All of that is utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour.

     

    Why take the ball of the spot? '

    ##################################

    I don't know why Brown picked the ball up when the game was effectively stopped. You'd need to ask him that. While you're at it, ask him if it was 'unprofessional' and 'unnecessarily provocative' for him to do so.

     

    However, you clearly stated that Brown picking up the ball prevented the game restarting. I outlined in my reply at 1646hrs that Brown didn't prevent a restart as neither team nor the referee was in position for that event to take place prior to Kent's lash-out under the Laws of the game. You claim that the points I made are irrelevant. I fail to see how they are.

     

    Perhaps it's better if I just leave it there & I'll discuss the matter no further.

    Jingso.Jimsie Also Commented

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    A little bit of speculation on my part:

     

    TRFC will appeal Kent's notice of Complaint today.

     

    Tomorrow, they will represent their defence at a hearing. The word 'provocation' will be used unsparingly. The Judicial Panel, having read all the Level Sinko froth over the last few days, will refer to the JPP Section 11.4 & particularly 11.4.2.2:

     

    11.4.2.2 The existence of provocation and whether the Party acted in retaliation and/or self defence. 

     

    The Notice of Complaint will be rescinded. Level Sinko will get a bonus. TRFC will rejoice Real football fans will shake their heads, both at the injustice of the findings, but also in embarrassment.


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    'Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 15:33

     

    In the Kent incident he withholds the ball to prevent the restart of the game…'

    ##################################

     

    The game couldn't have restarted immediately before the Kent incident occurred.

     

    Law 8 states the following:

     

    For every kick-off: • all players, except the player taking the kick-off, must be in their own half of the field of play • the opponents of the team taking the kick-off must be at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in play • the ball must be stationary on the centre mark • the referee gives a signal • the ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves.

     

    Neither the referee, TRFC players or their opponents were in position for the kick-off. I accept that Brown lifted the ball from the centre-mark, but the ball wasn't 'live'. The referee hadn't blown his whistle. The referee (apparently) wasn't  even looking in the vicinity of the centre-spot or he'd have seen what transpired. Brown clearly doesn't prevent the game restarting at that moment because nobody except Kent was ready for the kick-off. Bain & Brown were (I think) the only two CFC players in their own half.

     

     


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    'Big Pink 1st April 2019 at 11:29

     

    I think Bobby Madden had a fairly good game yesterday. Lots for him to do. He missed what I thought was a clear penalty to Rangers and the now-infamous left hook from Kent, but overall I though he was professional and honest…'

    #########################################

     

    I won’t mention any specific incidents, but I think that Mr. Madden had a 4/10 performance at best yesterday. That's simply not good enough for a FIFA referee in the highest-profile domestic fixture in Scotland.

     

     


    Recent Comments by Jingso.Jimsie

    In Whose Interests
    Watching the game from Ibrox last night on BT Sport, I was rather astonished to hear Rob McLean state that a certain player had added a couple of zeros to his potential transfer fee with his performance.

    As I thought that the player in question was already valued at £25m (according to the media), that would make his potential transfer fee £2500,000,000, or a quarter of a billion pounds! That would certainly sort out the cash crisis in Govan & be one in the eye for CFC! 

    (BTW, I note the same KK* 'couple of zeros' comment is in one of the Record's articles this morning. Shirley knot a Level Sinko briefing point?)

    *A favourite abbreviation of my teachers in the early 1970s when marking my work – 'Kanny Koont!'


    In Whose Interests
    'easyJambo 5th November 2019 at 11:35

    How other sports deal with financial doping.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50300756'

    #####################################

    I've just had a look at today's Guardian Online where there's an article by Robert Kitson, the paper's rugby correspondent:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/05/saracens-salary-cap-breach-asterisk-great-rugby-club

    In the article, he writes that: 'It is a significant story, if not a massive surprise. For months it has been an open secret that some jealous individuals within Premiership Rugby had plans for Wray.' 

    That's a nasty piece of 'succulent lamb-ism' in my book.

    Kitson implies that certain individuals brought the matter to the attention of the authorities, not because of altruism or a desire for sporting integrity, or for a fair & equitable application of the rules, but because of simple jealousy of Saracens' (or Wray's) achievements. A fine piece of deflection, indeed.

    I'd have expected pash like that from lazy, frightened Scottish journalists, but from the Guardian?


    In Whose Interests
    StevieBC 5th November 2019 at 12:33

    And yet again, since the release of RIFC financials 4 days ago, and the questions / risks they pose to Scottish football…

    there's not a peep from either Maxwell or Doncaster.

    No leadership.

    No concern.

    #######################################

    You know how these things work by now.

    There'll have been a convivial, off-the-record conversation involving representatives of RIFC/TRFC & Maxwell & Doncaster on Sunday at Hampden.

    Assurances will have been sought & received by both sides.

    Positions of plausible deniability will have been established.

    So it continues…


    In Whose Interests
    easyJambo 4th November 2019 at 14:40

    It was a horrible injury suffered by Gomes, but a ridiculous decision to send Son off.

    The ref correctly decided the foul was was worthy of a yellow card, but once he saw the injury he changed it to red. The VAR official appears to have backed up the decision by saying something along the lines that the challenge endangered the safety of an opponent.

    That is nonsense. If that was the case, then every foul that results in a player being injured and having to be substituted should also be a red card offence.

    ###################################

    A few points about the Gomes incident:

    Firstly, Son had already attempted to professionally foul Iwobe, intending to bring him down (he missed), before Iwobe passed the ball to Gomes. Son kept running & had a swipe at him, fouling him. Son had run approx. 40m & attempted to foul two players, succeeding once. It wasn't a heavy contact & the consequences could not have been foreseen. IFAB Law 12 indicates that 'excessive force' is required to 'endanger the safety of an opponent', which is a red card offence. If Son was 'reckless & acted with disregard to the danger to, and consequences for, an opponent', as per Law 12, then that's a caution.

    Secondly, I think the actions of Aurier in this sequence of play require further technical analysis. Had Son missed again, I think he was going to take out Gomes. From photographs, he makes contact with the sole of his boot on Gomes’ right ankle (Gomes is, by this time, already falling due to the contact from Son).

    Thirdly, the referee's apparent lack of response to the injury which occurred very close to him should be questioned. He has a duty of care to the players, yet seemed to display none.

    Fourthly, the reported statement by the EPL (which I can't find on premierleague.com) is confusing & confused. They may as well have issued the following: 'Look, a guy got a broken leg. That's got to be a sending-off, hasn't it?'

    Fifthly, I hope THFC appeal the red card. It was a knee-jerk response by panicked officials. 

    BTW, does anyone know when Sky's coverage of the (non-contact) Netball Super League commences? 


    In Whose Interests
    @ StevieBC & ClusterOne:

    It was a terrible 'miss' by the referee. Inexplicable, in fact.

    'Honest mistakes' indeed!