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    The Notice of Complaint will be rescinded.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

    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 20th September 2019 at 21:04

    …King may be able to thumb his nose and hide in Sth Africa but others particularly Andrew Dickson and Stewart Robertson as Directors of TRFC would be most vulnerable…

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

    Working from my (probably faulty) memory, but didn't two 'office bearers' at TRFC give personal guarantees re the Elite/Hummel deal?

    I'm not sure it was both the names mentioned above, though.


    In Whose Interests
    Thanks John, that was my understanding.

     

    The series of posts above mine seemed to widen the field to include RIFC, hence my confusion.

     


    In Whose Interests
    Forgive me for asking, but in the discussion in the posts above is it TRFC or RIFC being referenced re potential administration events?

     
    The football club & its holding company parent seem to grow more intertwined by the day…


    In Whose Interests
    @ Cluster One 15th September 2019 at 20:43:

    I'm struggling to think of a RRM (ex-player or manager of RFC/TRFC, as it may be time for the Boards of RIFC & TRFC to 'circle the wagons') who would be qualified to be (or would want the position of) DoF at Ibrox.

    Level Sinko may also be scratching its singular head over that conundrum, hence the lack of speculation in the media.

    Possibly this will be another example of how the Group Chairman is not an asset, but a liability…

     

     


    In Whose Interests
    I've just been told that Mark Allan 'Warburtoned' himself as he's expected to be announced as Manchester United's Sporting Director (Edwin Van Der Saar having declined the post) sometime next week.

    Watch this space, I think, on that one!