*** Other Scottish football match thread, for anyone who gives a ****

[HMFC 86]

34 minutes ago, Thomaso said:

Yes exactly it is because it’s Hibs! The Club supported by a bunch of low life shits that tried to kill our Club with bogus offers and protests to the Lithuanians! The Club that Budge was seemingly developing a close working relationship who shit on us at the first opportunity and voted us down despite the fact it cost them £100k in prize money!

So yes it is because it’s Hibs so feck them all, their Club, their fans and their players!

Nailed it. 

[kingantti1874]

25 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

If its a Red every single day of the week. Then a Sevco player would be sent off for commiting the same offence. If they are not does that mean the referee is incompetent or corrupt?

Yes

 

by the laws of the game that is a red card all day long and rightly so. 
 

Do I think a rangers player would have been sent off for the same offence.. No I do not, Scottish football has been utterly bent for decades.. you will get no argument from me. 
 

but that is a different debate.. it was a red card but yes Scottish football is rotten and we will likely suffer also
 

 

[The Apprentice]

Twitter full of Hibs and Rangers fans trying to point score with each other over the tackle. Porteous has had this coming for a while after being let off with a few previously.

 

Still… it’s hard to believe that was a red and yet Scott Allan only got a booking for this a few seasons ago!
 

 

[Rick Sanchez]

8 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Law 12.

 

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

 

Kind of ends the argument that you'd think...

 

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

11 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez said:

 

Kind of ends the argument that you'd think...

 

Do you KNOW the internet?

[Nookie Bear]

2 hours ago, Robbies Tackle said:

 

It's dangerous and a lunge on a young player.  Feet are off the ground too.  

 

Not even a foul. 

What relevance is his age?

[Naisys Tackle]

1 minute ago, Nookie Bear said:

What relevance is his age?

 

It's an experienced, English Premier League experienced player lunging into a wee laddie. 

[Nookie Bear]

Just now, Robbies Tackle said:

 

It's an experienced, English Premier League experienced player lunging into a wee laddie. 

Not sure of the relevance. Would it be better if a wee laddie (hibs ****, to be accurate) dived in on an experienced English player?

[Naisys Tackle]

2 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Not sure of the relevance. Would it be better if a wee laddie (hibs ****, to be accurate) dived in on an experienced English player?

 

No, but the older player should know better.  And got off for it in the second minute.  It's because the laddie is a hibs ***** then it's being blinkered. 

[Rick Sanchez]

15 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

Do you KNOW the internet?

 

I know it's a silly thought

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Robbies Tackle said:

 

It's dangerous and a lunge on a young player.  Feet are off the ground too.  

 

Not even a foul. 

 

Completely different level. The tackle goes in front of the runner, who then trips on his legs (which hurts, I'm sure) rather than the full force of his momentum going into the ankles of the runner. His feet are along the ground until after he goes through the tackle and is well past the player.

 

I'm one of those traitorous types who hate Rangers more than Hibs in general but Porteus is an angry little thug and that tackle was horrific, much closer (though not as bad) to Scott Allan's vicious one just above.

[Kiwidoug]

Hibs have appealed the red card.

 

Good luck with that.

[JackLadd]

Wee Ron getting a proper introduction to Scottish fitba. Should give Vlad a call on the corrupt cabal that runs it up here. 

[Nookie Bear]

1 hour ago, Robbies Tackle said:

 

No, but the older player should know better.  And got off for it in the second minute.  It's because the laddie is a hibs ***** then it's being blinkered. 

 

Perhaps the experienced player should know better but we all know that footballers rarely grow up and even someone as experienced as James Milner will make silly tackles when he's on a yellow (as seen on Sunday).

 

Who is the rangers player in the video anyway?

[Naisys Tackle]

Just now, Nookie Bear said:

 

Perhaps the experienced player should know better but we all know that footballers rarely grow up and even someone as experienced as James Milner will make silly tackles when he's on a yellow (as seen on Sunday).

 

Who is the rangers player in the video anyway?

 

The boy who played in the EPL last season, Lunstrom.  Both are sending offs.  Would rangers ever get a man sent off after 2 minutes let alone at Ibrox?  Not a chance.

[Nookie Bear]

9 minutes ago, Robbies Tackle said:

 

The boy who played in the EPL last season, Lunstrom.  Both are sending offs.  Would rangers ever get a man sent off after 2 minutes let alone at Ibrox?  Not a chance.

 

Ah right, never really heard of him.

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, Cruyff said:

Law 12.

 

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

 

 

...... 

4 hours ago, Robbies Tackle said:

 

 

 

 

 

Not even a booking. 

 

That's the issue. 

Porteous is a thug but then Rangers get away with that. 

 

[Riccarton3]

A lunge is a lunge. Our officials are a ****ing joke when it comes to celtic and rangers. Its not bottling it. It just comes naturally.

[Pasquale for King]

14 hours ago, Riccarton3 said:

A lunge is a lunge. Our officials are a ****ing joke when it comes to celtic and rangers. Its not bottling it. It just comes naturally.

Helps if the ref is neutral though. 
 

Why is this guy allowed to referee a Rangers game ? When he trains Rangers youth players during his day job as a PE teacher so he is more or less a Rangers coach . Last 5 Rangers games 3 red cards to opposition ???? 
 

[Harry Potter]

16 hours ago, Kiwidoug said:

Hibs have appealed the red card.

 

Good luck with that.

back page of the evening hobo, cant see that being turned over.

[wentworth jambo]

3 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Helps if the ref is neutral though. 
 

Why is this guy allowed to referee a Rangers game ? When he trains Rangers youth players during his day job as a PE teacher so he is more or less a Rangers coach . Last 5 Rangers games 3 red cards to opposition ???? 
 

You're buying that picture ?? FFS thy might have removed his ref's mike before superimposing on that picture....

[John Findlay]

11 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

back page of the evening hobo, cant see that being turned over.

Doesn't matter if it does get rescinded.

It doesn't alter the result. Ian Brines 01/01/06, immediately springs to mind.

[GinRummy]

12 minutes ago, wentworth jambo said:

You're buying that picture ?? FFS thy might have removed his ref's mike before superimposing on that picture....

All that’s missing is the bowler hat and sash. 

[Pasquale for King]

32 minutes ago, wentworth jambo said:

You're buying that picture ?? FFS thy might have removed his ref's mike before superimposing on that picture....

Stephane Adam posted it so I’m going with it 😆. They could’ve photoshopped his earpiece etc 🤪. 
Huns hate him too apparently 🤔😂. 
 

Found this that gives a bit more info, biased of course but easily proved. 
https://videocelts.com/2021/10/blogs/latest-news/heavily-conflicted-nick-walsh-and-his-ibrox-connections/

Edited October 5, 2021 by Pasquale for King

[Pasquale for King]

21 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Doesn't matter if it does get rescinded.

It doesn't alter the result. Ian Brines 01/01/06, immediately springs to mind.

It should be extended for the cheek of it. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Pasquale for King

[John Findlay]

25 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Stephane Adam posted it so I’m going with it 😆. They could’ve photoshopped his earpiece etc 🤪. 
Huns hate him too apparently 🤔😂. 
 

Found this that gives a bit more info, biased of course but easily proved. 
https://videocelts.com/2021/10/blogs/latest-news/heavily-conflicted-nick-walsh-and-his-ibrox-connections/

When they do one on Willie Collum then I will regard them as even handed. Until then I will take the link with a large pinch of salt.

[SuperstarSteve]

Clear corruption going on but what else is new. Rangers boy makes a tackle no card. Boy makes same tackle but doesn’t have a rangers top on… Red card. Similar will Happen when we visit if we make them struggle for a result.

[Pasquale for King]

4 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

When they do one on Willie Collum then I will regard them as even handed. Until then I will take the link with a large pinch of salt.

I’m sure the other side have one on him, the link has quotes that are easily checked. 
 

[Rudolf]

26 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

Clear corruption going on but what else is new. Rangers boy makes a tackle no card. Boy makes same tackle but doesn’t have a rangers top on… Red card. Similar will Happen when we visit if we make them struggle for a result.

Porteous dived in straight leg and over the ball that he didn't make contact with until it hit the underside of his thigh. Mistimed tackle at best but he certainly endangered his opponent so straight red without a doubt.

 

The tackle on Doig, the ball was won cleanly, don't really see the comparison.

[SuperstarSteve]

1 minute ago, Rudolf said:

Porteous dived in straight leg and over the ball that he didn't make contact with until it hit the underside of his thigh. Mistimed tackle at best but he certainly endangered his opponent so straight red without a doubt.

 

The tackle on Doig, the ball was won cleanly, don't really see the comparison.

The hibs boy won the ball didn’t touch the player. The rangers player clearly dives in both feet off the ground and  catches Doig. Both are wreckless and both are lunges and according to the rules both should see red. 
The non OF player seen red and the OF player doesn’t see a card. 
They are reffed to a different standard and always will be. Just my opinion. 

[Mikey1874]

So many supporters of Porteous and Hibs. 

[Rudolf]

7 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

The hibs boy won the ball didn’t touch the player. The rangers player clearly dives in both feet off the ground and  catches Doig. Both are wreckless and both are lunges and according to the rules both should see red. 
The non OF player seen red and the OF player doesn’t see a card. 
They are reffed to a different standard and always will be. Just my opinion. 

Porteous dived in, out of control with his foot over the ball. He only won the ball because it caught the underside of his thigh. He clearly endangered his opponent and it was a straight red all day long.

 

I agree our referees are not fit for purpose though.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Rudolf

[sadj]

6 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

The hibs boy won the ball didn’t touch the player. The rangers player clearly dives in both feet off the ground and  catches Doig. Both are wreckless and both are lunges and according to the rules both should see red. 
The non OF player seen red and the OF player doesn’t see a card. 
They are reffed to a different standard and always will be. Just my opinion. 

He really didn’t. The tackle on Doig was fair imo and as anyone who reads this knows i cant stand Rangers but this argument is ridiculous imo. There is no comparison in the two challenges. If id been on the end of the Lundstrum one id have thought fair play hard challenge but you got me. Porteous id have tried to take his head off for trying to injure me. The two are so different when being objective. 
 

You can argue if Lundstrum had done what Porteous did he might not get a red card and thats a fair argument but cloudying the waters with stuff like likening the challenges does that argument no favours

 

10 minutes ago, Rudolf said:

Porteous dived in straight leg and over the ball that he didn't make contact with until it hit the underside of his thigh. Mistimed tackle at best but he certainly endangered his opponent so straight red without a doubt.

 

The tackle on Doig, the ball was won cleanly, don't really see the comparison.

Indeed. Lunged but was on the ground by time he got there toes pointing down infront of the ball , got the ball fairly no risk to the opponent. 

 

Porteous , lunge doesnt describe it. It was a sliding tackle off the ground , straight leg , studs up , excessive force , excessive pace , endangering the opponent , shin high leg breaker , over the top of the ball and won it with his thigh.  
 

They are in no way comparable. 

[Riccarton3]

16 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

So many supporters of Porteous and Hibs. 

Aye that'll be it.

[Riccarton3]

13 minutes ago, sadj said:

He really didn’t. The tackle on Doig was fair imo and as anyone who reads this knows i cant stand Rangers but this argument is ridiculous imo. There is no comparison in the two challenges. If id been on the end of the Lundstrum one id have thought fair play hard challenge but you got me. Porteous id have tried to take his head off for trying to injure me. The two are so different when being objective. 
 

You can argue if Lundstrum had done what Porteous did he might not get a red card and thats a fair argument but cloudying the waters with stuff like likening the challenges does that argument no favours

 

Indeed. Lunged but was on the ground by time he got there toes pointing down infront of the ball , got the ball fairly no risk to the opponent. 

 

Porteous , lunge doesnt describe it. It was a sliding tackle off the ground , straight leg , studs up , excessive force , excessive pace , endangering the opponent , shin high leg breaker , over the top of the ball and won it with his thigh.  
 

They are in no way comparable. 

What do you think of the Rangers boy's lunge,  having two feet off the ground. Is that not dangerous play, endangering an opponent? Are we now saying players can be in control with both feet off the ground at speed? Is this a new interpretation of the rules?

 

Both sending off offences. No need for comparison of brutality. Doesn't matter if you win the ball or not. You've launched in either straight legged studs raised or with both feet off the ground.

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Riccarton3

[Rick Sanchez]

If you want real cheating and real bias then look no further than MikoGate, where we received no sympathy from anyone. Infact, we were being attacked from all directions...fans, pundits, broadcasters.

 

If you want a basic red card with correct rules applied then look no further than the Porteous tackle.

 

No idea why this is even a thing.

[JWL]

Overturned?

[GinRummy]

35 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

What do you think of the Rangers boy's lunge,  having two feet off the ground. Is that not dangerous play, endangering an opponent? Are we now saying players can be in control with both feet off the ground at speed? Is this a new interpretation of the rules?

 

Both sending off offences. No need for comparison of brutality. Doesn't matter if you win the ball or not. You've launched in either straight legged studs raised or with both feet off the ground.

 

That’s the thing about here and England/Europe. You go over the ball with studs up there and it’s a red most of the time. Here, it’s just pot luck if it’s a red, a yellow or just a foul.  That inconsistency is always there but is heightened when you play the old firm. The argument is often if it’s bias or just poor refereeing. It’s both imo. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, SuperstarSteve said:

The hibs boy won the ball didn’t touch the player. T

 

Ffs if count getting the ball as the ball only hit his calf because his leg was so high then yes he got the ball. 

[SuperstarSteve]

2 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Ffs if count getting the ball as the ball only hit his calf because his leg was so high then yes he got the ball. 

It’s a fact he touched the ball and didn’t touch the man. It was a red card I’m not disputing that. I just personally believe the rangers challenge was also a red. Both feet off the floor, zero control and he actually caught and hurt the player unlike the hibs player. Both red cards but it’s clear in my eyes why no card was given to the rangers player.

[sadj]

1 hour ago, Riccarton3 said:

What do you think of the Rangers boy's lunge,  having two feet off the ground. Is that not dangerous play, endangering an opponent? Are we now saying players can be in control with both feet off the ground at speed? Is this a new interpretation of the rules?

 

Both sending off offences. No need for comparison of brutality. Doesn't matter if you win the ball or not. You've launched in either straight legged studs raised or with both feet off the ground.

 

 

I dont think it was even a foul , he was in control , wasnt endangering the opponent. His studs are pointing down. To me thats a firm challenge but not a dangerous one. Porteous’s challenge is very dangerous and was completely out of control with a straight leg and studs up. Had Lundstrum dived at Doigs ankle hed have hurt himself more , that was more of a block like youd see in the penalty box. To me , not a foul. 

[Riccarton3]

9 minutes ago, sadj said:

 

I dont think it was even a foul , he was in control , wasnt endangering the opponent. His studs are pointing down. To me thats a firm challenge but not a dangerous one. Porteous’s challenge is very dangerous and was completely out of control with a straight leg and studs up. Had Lundstrum dived at Doigs ankle hed have hurt himself more , that was more of a block like youd see in the penalty box. To me , not a foul. 

Well, I can tell you now if any Hearts player has 2 feet off the ground other than when heading the ball, they will be sent off 😉

[sadj]

2 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Well, I can tell you now if any Hearts player has 2 feet off the ground other than when heading the ball, they will be sent off 😉

Thats a very different debate. Thats bias thats not about the legality of a challenge.

[sadj]

13 year old charged with throwing the bottle at Celtic players on Sunday

[Fozzyonthefence]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

So many supporters of Porteous and Hibs. 

People are just giving an opinion, why does it bother you so much?  It doesn’t make them a Hibs supporter ffs!  I take it you’re a Hun supporter then using your logic? 

[complete control]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

So many supporters of Porteous and Hibs. 

Your right. The guy is a dirty overrated gash player. They might change their mind on him when he puts a player oot for months. 

[Riccarton3]

1 minute ago, sadj said:

Thats a very different debate. Thats bias thats not about the legality of a challenge.

Is it legal to make a challenge with 2 feet off the ground? How can that possibly be in control just given the speed of the game? If a Hearts player is dismissed it won't be bias but an application of the rules. 

[sadj]

8 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Is it legal to make a challenge with 2 feet off the ground? How can that possibly be in control just given the speed of the game? If a Hearts player is dismissed it won't be bias but an application of the rules. 

Iv given you my opinion , iv explained why i think he is in control and not endangering the opponent at least twice so far

[Rudy T]

20 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

 

I'm one of those traitorous types who hate Rangers more than Hibs in general but Porteus is an angry little thug and that tackle was horrific, much closer (though not as bad) to Scott Allan's vicious one just above.

I think Porteous would like to be known as a hard man but in reality he’s just a run of the mill centre back who will not play above his current level. The fact Hibs are appealing it is just laughable, they should be taking at least a months wage off him for leaving his team mates in the shitter at Ibrox.

[Riccarton3]

9 minutes ago, sadj said:

Iv given you my opinion , iv explained why i think he is in control and not endangering the opponent at least twice so far

But why not just refer to the actual rules if the game? We can all have an opinion.