0
    0

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

    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    The Notice of Complaint will be rescinded.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.

    Jingso.Jimsie 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 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.


    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

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Rather long piece by Martin Williams in the Herald about RIFC challenging Mr. Justice Persey's findings:

     

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17723301.rangers-challenge-after-losing-latest-round-of-court-fight-with-mike-ashley/


    Accountability via Transparency.
    I think VAR has been implemented too quickly, with too many grey areas. Rugby Union has utilised 'video referees/television match officials' since 2001 & it's still a work in progress with changes to their responsibilities every year! My particular bugbear with VAR at the moment is the 'offside window'.

    For example, in last night's game, an Argentinian player was clearly offside (I think even the commentators called it immediately), yet she was allowed to continue & cross the ball which was cleared by a defender to an unmarked Scottish player about 35m from goal. The whistle blew to stop the game (presumably because the AR had flagged/beeped the ref) & this removed a clear advantage to Scotland.

    I've noticed this happening time & time again in different games where VAR is in use. Play on, for goodness sake, or change the Laws to make offside the same as the ball going out of play, requiring a mandatory restart of the game.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    'easyJambo 18th June 2019 at 17:54

     

    Chris McLaughlin‏Verified account @BBCchrismclaug 

    Scottish government has asked SPFL to release secret data on unacceptable conduct at football matches. Figures have been collated since 2017. The league have so far refused but will discuss again at next board meeting.

    Now what could the SPFL have to hide?

    Is there such a thing as a reverse FOI facility that the government can use? blush'

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

    Just to clarify: the Scottish Government has the data in its possession, which has been supplied by the SPFL. The Scottish Government Minister, Humza Yousaf, claims that the information must remain confidential because the data 'belongs' to the SPFL & they (the SPFL) have not granted permission for its dissemination. Yousaf was on TV stating that he had again asked Doncaster today for permission to release the data & the CEO had refused.

    This suggests a couple of things to me.

    1. There is considerably more instances of 'unacceptable conduct' recorded than the SPFL would like to have revealed.
    2. The data indicates that there are a few stadia/clubs where the 'unacceptable conduct' is centred. 

     


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Martin Williams running an 'exclusive' in the Herald about the Crown Office settling David Whitehouse's claim over a 'wrongful' restraint order. I posted a few moments ago, but it seems to have gone to the Spam Box.

     

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17710013.crown-pays-over-80k-to-ex-rangers-administrator-david-whitehouse-over-wrongful-restraint-


    Accountability via Transparency.
    It's worth remembering that the press release from the football authorities confirming that the Brechin v. Sevco Scotland t/a The Rangers Football Club would take place on 29.07.12 was put out in the early evening of Friday 27.07.12…

     

    …almost at the same time as the London 2012 Olympics opening ceremony commenced.

    Done to avoid scrutiny or due to time pressure? Make your own mind up indecisionmailcool