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

    Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 18:51

    So despite my previous posts condemning the violent conduct of Morelos, Kent etc you can still ask me that question. Poor show on your part but for the avoidance of doubt, of course it's not sufficient provocation.


    All good, but why then did you post "……………….. we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour. Why take the ball of the spot?" 

    My interpretation of what you posted was that you considered Brown was being provocative throughout the game and you linked his taking the ball off the spot as being an example of that.

    If that is all you meant then I agree with you. However if you view that Brown's antics justified some sort of a response from Rangers players, then I disagree.  If any of the officials saw Brown's "provocation" as anything other than minor, then I would expect them to take action. 

    All I pointed out was that the action of delaying a restart is common-place throughout a game.  Celtic had just scored late in the game. It's hardly a surprise that they would do anything thereafter to slow down the game. The reaction was completely disproportionate to Brown's "provocation".

    Some players do seek to wind up their opponents and provoke a reaction. It is part of the game, sometimes physical like  an "accidental" elbow in the ribs or standing on a player's foot at a set piece, or it can be verbal like slagging off a wife/girlfriend.

    There are a couple ways to get even. You can do it physically by perhaps leaving a foot in at the next tackle, or much more effectively by demonstrating that you are a better footballer than them. What you don't do is to retaliate at the time. More often than not you will be one that gets done for it.

    easyJambo Also Commented

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    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'm certainly no lover of Scott Brown, but are you suggesting that taking the ball of the spot was in some way sufficient provocation for being punched in the face?

    Taking the ball off the spot is simply a means of delaying the restart of the game, just as happens multiple times during every game, either kicking the ball away (even a few yards), picking the ball up – retreating into a defensive position – then releasing it, or standing over the ball to prevent a quick free kick.

    I'd guarantee that both sides demonstrated similar behaviour many times during the game, but only one resulted in a punch being thrown.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    A motion in a court case that we haven't been following too closely will be heard by Lady Wolffe next week.

    Thursday 4th April Starred Motion Between 9.00am and 10.00am

    CA31/17 The Football Co (Scotland) Ltd v Glasgow City Council – MacRoberts LLP – Glasgow City Council (Corporate Services)

    This case relates to the damage done to the electronic advertising hoardings at the 2016 cup final. The last hearing that I attended saw GCC apparently agree a settlement figure of £300k. I don't know what this hearing is about, but it could just be a dispute about apportioning legal costs rather than a complaint about non payment.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    JC and I attended a hearing of the Inner House of the Court of Session this morning in the cases of Whitehouse and Clark against Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate, in front of Lord Carloway, the Lord President, and two other judges.

    The hearing was ostensibly a procedural one in advance of an appeal by Whitehouse and Clark against Lord Malcolm's ruling from the autumn that the Lord Advocate had immunity in common law from any claims against him for any actions taken or sanctioned by him.  The basis of that decision was the precedent set in the case of Hester v MacDonald in 1961.

    I would have thought that the prospect of overturning such a decision would be a difficult one, but we found out today that Whitehouse's team had obtained a Crown Office email which dates from before their arrest/indictment, but the contents allegedly suggest that the the Crown knew that there was no evidential basis for the arrest of Whitehouse and Clark. However, just four days later the pair were detained.

    Lord Carloway accepted that the document could be used in the appeal hearing. He granted the Lord Advocate six weeks to respond to the disclosure of the "new" email. He went on to confirm that the appeal would be heard on 9 September by five judges, following a submission by Heriot Currie, QC for Whitehouse. Both parties were set a limit of using 10 authorities for the appeal. I understand that precedents from previous UK, US and Canadian cases will be referenced.

    The fact that it will be heard by as many as five judges suggests to me that the Court views the matter very seriously in what could be a landmark case, if the precedent set in Hester is to be overturned or set aside.

    It was also revealed in court that Whitehouse has initiated a complaint of criminality against unnamed individuals, in addition to his damages claim. I could probably guess that certain police officers will be be identified in the complaint.

    The 100,000 documents / emails acquired from Craig Whyte's server were also mentioned, so I guess some may surface in the appeal.

    The further these cases run and get into legal arguments and principles they are probably getting less relevant to SFM, but the link to the demise of the Oldco during the administration period and what happened thereafter still remains. 


    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    In Whose Interests
    LUGOSI 16th September 2019 at 22:31

    John Clark and EasyJambo can only dream of being supplied with background papers like this.


    I've already read it. The submissions seem to jump from the Inner House decision and its validity to a fairly substantial discussion on Scotland's constitutional history and back again to the current case. 

    However you are right, it would be great if we could see all the papers in advance of a hearing. That way we would at least have an idea about what the QCs are talking about.

    In Whose Interests
    There's a decent article by Gordon Waddell in today's Sunday Mail which relates to the subject of this blog.


    I agree with some parts of the article and disagree with others, but there is certainly a debate to be had.

    In Whose Interests
    nawlite 12th September 2019 at 21:58


    I think the Belgian model was based on a 4-3-3 which was adapted to a 4-5-1 when a more defensive shape was required. I believe that all clubs and national sides agreed to play that way. It may have changed to cope with individual circumstances, but I believe that the basic model has been maintained.

    Players based outside Belgium (most of their squad) will obviously play in the style of their home clubs, but they know what formation they will be asked to play if selected for their national team.

    Obviously not all teams will play identically on a player v player basis. Each team will have its own more or less skilful players, those with and without pace, dominant defenders etc., so each game will play out and look different, but the basic system will be maintained, e.g. a dominant 4-3-3 formation may find its opposition adopting a more defensive 4-5-1 shape.

    The benefit is viewed as having their home developed players always knowing what is expected of them when they play a particular role and also what they can expect from their team mates, no matter what age group they play in, or on progression to their first team or into the international sphere.  

    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 12th September 2019 at 20:52

    Am I being received? If my machine continues to behave itself  I'll try to get my Court report done tomorrow.

    There was a nice little jest from Lord Carloway today. When Mr Dunlop QC was discussing 'malicious prosecution' he referred to to a situation in which someone might be bringing a prosecution against someone out of a deep loathing for that person.

    Lord Carloway suggested that it would be all right to prosecute someone for whom one felt a deep loathing as long as it wasn't done out of malice. [Chuckles all round]

    Hope this post gets 'posted'


    He also made a quip about a "minister of state lying" as an example of breaching Article 8 when Fairlie was taking about the Georgian case.

    I was pretty sure that he was thinking of someone nearer to home with his example.

    In Whose Interests
    BP – A very topical blog and valid questions about the ability of the SFA to govern the development of the game.

    As someone who watches pro-youth football from U11 upwards almost every weekend, I don't believe that there are any significant problems with the coaching and development of kids up to U16 as Scotland is pretty competitive with other countries in those age groups given the size of our gene pool. 

    We used to play 7 a side at U11 and U12 then jump straight to 11 a side. Now it progresses through 7, 8 and 9 before going to 11 a side, each step with commensurate increases in goal and pitch dimensions.  I think that is the right approach in adapting to the youngsters' physical and mental development.

    I don't believe that the SFA's performance schools or indeed the bigger clubs' own performance schools really add much to the outcomes (preparing players for first team football) though.

    The biggest problem is translating success at the younger age groups into comparable success at the top tier clubs and international football. I therefore believe that the problem lies more in the coaching and development of players in the 16-19 age brackets

    We are all aware of strategies developed in other countries, e.g. Netherlands, Germany and most recently Belgium.  The common element in the strategies of those countries is the willingness of all  clubs and the national team to adopt the same systems and styles of play.

    Scotland has a multitude of approaches, mainly as a result of the disparity in the wealth between clubs and access to recruitment and other resources. I can't see either Celtic or Rangers agreeing to adopt a common strategy for the common good anytime soon. That is illustrated by the recent decisions of some of the bigger clubs to withdraw from the Development and Reserve Leagues. There is far too much self interest.  There is also evidence of the bigger clubs stockpiling youth players to the detriment of other clubs.  

    Going back to the coaching aspects, I recently spoke to a former Hearts youth coach who had attended sessions with one of the Belgian coaches who had helped implement their new strategy. The Belgian had watched a number of pro youth games in preparation for the event.  His main point was on the need to adopt common systems of play at all levels. However, and perhaps more pointedly, he was critical of the in game communication between coaches and players, sometimes with two coaches giving different messages. He thought that all it did was confuse players and stop them playing their natural game and using their own intelligence, press, squeeze, first ball, second ball, hold, time, turn, one-on-one et al ……… and that's before the parents offered their advice. 

    That said, I know that Hearts youth coaches are encouraged not to coach excessively during play, to enable the players to think and learn for themselves. The coaching is done during the week and adjustments during games are only made at natural breaks and at half time.  That is most definitely not the case with most of the other pro youth clubs.

    I don't have a ready made solution to Scotland's ills but, based on the experience of other countries, we ware unlikely to progress as a small country without a common strategy across all clubs.