Eddie Smith was right!

[piltonjambo]

Eddie Smith has said he got the celtic penalty spot on and was right to send the midden player off,So the red card stands.

GFA law unto themselves

 

 

This is just confirmation that this individual should NEVER be allowed to officiate at a SPL game again ...

Will it happen?

 

Not a chance!!! Not while these morons are in control of the SFA!!!

[John Findlay]

Referees will make mistakes. They are human beings and all us humans make mistakes in all walks of life and referees are no different there.

 

You do have to start questioning though when, the mistakes they make ninety percent of the time favour two football teams. One called Celtic the other Rangers.

 

I can understand the argument that they will get decisions( I dont agree with it) at both Celtic Park and Ibrox due to the large crowds. However I dont understand this when they get decisions at Easter Road, Pittodrie, Tynecastle when 75% of the crowd are for the home teams. The argument about the crowd swaying them is a nonsense.

 

With regards Eddie Smith. He is apparently a high ranking police officer with Strathclyde police and as such has accompanied Celtic(twice) and Rangers(three times) abroad on European games as an advisor in a security capacity.

 

To me this should automatically barr him from refereeing any games in Scotland that involve either of these two teams as it takes away any suggestion or chance that he may show favour for one of them or both.

 

Thirdly with regard to any referee if he is going to be swayed by a football crowd anywhere and I mean anywhere then he should resign forwith.

 

This is very simple. The rules of football apply to both teams and apply to them equally they should be applied fairly to both. Hand on heart how many believe that to be the case in the case of both Celtic and Rangers?

 

Whether it is ICT v Killie or Celtic v Rangers the rules are the same. They should be applied the same in both games. Just because one is seen as the bigger game does not alter the rules of football and does not merit special dispensation like taking into account the atsmosphere etc etc.

 

If a referee is afraid of getting his windows tanned then give up refereeing.

 

All we the paying customer are asking is for a level playing field right across the board. It is not much to ask but alas it is always in vain.

 

 

 

 

John

[Jambo66]

Problem is, you're basically saying that any foul in the box is a red card. Which is clearly not the interpretation of the law that is used throughout football.

 

Do you think Banks should've got a red for handling outside his box on Saturday?

 

I certainly don't think that any foul in the box is a red card offence, but the wording of the law is quite clear. The only question the referee needs to ask himself is whether or not the foul prevented a clear goalscoring opportunity. In this case, the Falkirk player is on the verge of shooting from 12 yards - if that's not a clear goalscoring opportunity, I don't know what is. Fair enough if another defender is in a position to put in a good challenge, but that wasn't the case - he would have had plenty time to get his shot away.

 

I don't particularly like the rule (or as another poster has said, the way in which it is interpreted), but it seems to me that referees have no idea what they are supposed to be doing. For example if the foul that led to the penalty had taken place at the other end - ie a Falkirk defender had beaten a man in his own box and was fouled as he was about to clear the ball, do you honestly think that would have either merited or resulted in a yellow card?

 

My interpretation of the laws is that Saturday's incident was a penalty and a red card. The one thing it really couldn't have been was a penalty and a yellow card (unless for persistent fouling). The foul simply wasn't worthy of a yellow card. In my view the referee bottled it - and surprise, surprise ended up favouring an OF team.

 

As for the Banks incident, I'm afraid I was able to go to the game on Saturday and haven't seen it.

[Jambo66]

Referees will make mistakes. They are human beings and all us humans make mistakes in all walks of life and referees are no different there.

 

You do have to start questioning though when, the mistakes they make ninety percent of the time favour two football teams. One called Celtic the other Rangers.

 

I can understand the argument that they will get decisions( I dont agree with it) at both Celtic Park and Ibrox due to the large crowds. However I dont understand this when they get decisions at Easter Road, Pittodrie, Tynecastle when 75% of the crowd are for the home teams. The argument about the crowd swaying them is a nonsense.

 

With regards Eddie Smith. He is apparently a high ranking police officer with Strathclyde police and as such has accompanied Celtic(twice) and Rangers(three times) abroad on European games as an advisor in a security capacity.

 

To me this should automatically barr him from refereeing any games in Scotland that involve either of these two teams as it takes away any suggestion or chance that he may show favour for one of them or both.

 

Thirdly with regard to any referee if he is going to be swayed by a football crowd anywhere and I mean anywhere then he should resign forwith.

 

This is very simple. The rules of football apply to both teams and apply to them equally they should be applied fairly to both. Hand on heart how many believe that to be the case in the case of both Celtic and Rangers?

 

Whether it is ICT v Killie or Celtic v Rangers the rules are the same. They should be applied the same in both games. Just because one is seen as the bigger game does not alter the rules of football and does not merit special dispensation like taking into account the atsmosphere etc etc.

 

If a referee is afraid of getting his windows tanned then give up refereeing.

 

All we the paying customer are asking is for a level playing field right across the board. It is not much to ask but alas it is always in vain.

 

 

 

 

John

 

Spot on

[Paolo]

Referees will make mistakes. They are human beings and all us humans make mistakes in all walks of life and referees are no different there.

 

You do have to start questioning though when, the mistakes they make ninety percent of the time favour two football teams. One called Celtic the other Rangers.

 

I can understand the argument that they will get decisions( I dont agree with it) at both Celtic Park and Ibrox due to the large crowds. However I dont understand this when they get decisions at Easter Road, Pittodrie, Tynecastle when 75% of the crowd are for the home teams. The argument about the crowd swaying them is a nonsense.

 

With regards Eddie Smith. He is apparently a high ranking police officer with Strathclyde police and as such has accompanied Celtic(twice) and Rangers(three times) abroad on European games as an advisor in a security capacity.

 

To me this should automatically barr him from refereeing any games in Scotland that involve either of these two teams as it takes away any suggestion or chance that he may show favour for one of them or both.

 

Thirdly with regard to any referee if he is going to be swayed by a football crowd anywhere and I mean anywhere then he should resign forwith.

 

This is very simple. The rules of football apply to both teams and apply to them equally they should be applied fairly to both. Hand on heart how many believe that to be the case in the case of both Celtic and Rangers?

 

Whether it is ICT v Killie or Celtic v Rangers the rules are the same. They should be applied the same in both games. Just because one is seen as the bigger game does not alter the rules of football and does not merit special dispensation like taking into account the atsmosphere etc etc.

 

If a referee is afraid of getting his windows tanned then give up refereeing.

 

All we the paying customer are asking is for a level playing field right across the board. It is not much to ask but alas it is always in vain.

 

 

 

 

John

 

 

This is the point - if they were genuine mistakes, you wilud expect them to be spread more evenly, but they are not, the only ecven spread is Celtic v Rangers on decisions and the rest versus the rest.

 

The fact that Eddie Smith still says he is correct is shocking, but even if he did admit he was wrong, it would not get St Midden their point back, the same with both Dundee Utd incidents last season, where the mistakes were 'genuine' yet both favoured Rangers, and there is plenty more where this came from.

 

Like Levein though, and the rest, they had the chance to speak out when Hearts did, but they didn't - instead they let the media and Scottish fooball slate us and laugh at us, yet say the exact same thing when the next play the OF - so this is disgraceful, but they have lost my sympathy.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

I certainly don't think that any foul in the box is a red card offence, but the wording of the law is quite clear. The only question the referee needs to ask himself is whether or not the foul prevented a clear goalscoring opportunity. In this case, the Falkirk player is on the verge of shooting from 12 yards - if that's not a clear goalscoring opportunity, I don't know what is. Fair enough if another defender is in a position to put in a good challenge, but that wasn't the case - he would have had plenty time to get his shot away.

 

I don't particularly like the rule (or as another poster has said, the way in which it is interpreted), but it seems to me that referees have no idea what they are supposed to be doing. For example if the foul that led to the penalty had taken place at the other end - ie a Falkirk defender had beaten a man in his own box and was fouled as he was about to clear the ball, do you honestly think that would have either merited or resulted in a yellow card?

 

My interpretation of the laws is that Saturday's incident was a penalty and a red card. The one thing it really couldn't have been was a penalty and a yellow card (unless for persistent fouling). The foul simply wasn't worthy of a yellow card. In my view the referee bottled it - and surprise, surprise ended up favouring an OF team.

 

As for the Banks incident, I'm afraid I was able to go to the game on Saturday and haven't seen it.

 

Think the issue is between "goalscoring opportunity" and "clear goalscoring opportunity". I've never seen reds given for the sort of thing that happened at Falkirk v Rangers on Saturday.

 

There were other defenders around, therefore I can see why the ref didn't think it was a "clear" goalscoring opportunity. Not saying it's perfect, but it's pretty much the same as the interpretation used throughout football every week by referees.....

[Ben Dover]

Once again this mantra that 'it evens out' is nonsense

I ask the same question on all these threads -

can you recall a decisive or match winning penalty being awarded AGAINST either of the OF ?

Please dont jump in with the cup 98 decisions either thanks as that was just pure Karma

I've watched the SPL highlights for as long as I can remember and I dont imagine I would forget such a GIRFUY moment to easily as even an award to the Hobos would be ok in those circumstances ( CUP games excluded of course )

[Jambo66]

Think the issue is between "goalscoring opportunity" and "clear goalscoring opportunity". I've never seen reds given for the sort of thing that happened at Falkirk v Rangers on Saturday.

 

There were other defenders around, therefore I can see why the ref didn't think it was a "clear" goalscoring opportunity. Not saying it's perfect, but it's pretty much the same as the interpretation used throughout football every week by referees.....

 

Fair enough, but it still doesn't explain why there was a booking. Either he booked him because he doesn't understand the laws or because having given Falkirk a penalty, he wasn't about to make things worse by sending an OF player off as well.

 

As it happens, I am undecided as to which it is ...

[bighusref]

Do you think Banks should've got a red for handling outside his box on Saturday?

 

I think we got very lucky with that one.

 

As for Eddie Smith, he proved himself to be a cheat yesterday. You could argue, from his angle it LOOKED a penalty, you could argue that the Linesman was too slow getting back and you could argue that in these situations, penalties are given.

 

Having seen it again on tv, he CANNOT argue that is a penalty. Much like another poster states, rescinding the red card will not give St Mirren any points, but it would show an admittance of "error".

[Guest JamboRobbo]

I think we got very lucky with that one.

 

Agree, but just like Eddie Smith, Brines was looking right at Banks handball, and it was pretty clear, even at the game I think most of us thought it was handball, and tv proved it clearly was. Does that prove Brines is a cheat (towards us?!!)

 

Hold on - think I've just got your point you're talking about the "confirming he was right". Fair point.

[bighusref]

Agree, but just like Eddie Smith, Brines was looking right at Banks handball, and it was pretty clear, even at the game I think most of us thought it was handball, and tv proved it clearly was. Does that prove Brines is a cheat (towards us?!!)

 

My opinion on Brines is that he is scared to upset the big boys. He will go with either of the two Glasgow boys against anybody else, and he will go with us against a lesser team like Motherwell. He picks his fights and sides with the big guy to take on the wee guy. On this specific incident, I have not seen it again, but I would suspect that Brines HOPED that Banks hadn't handled the ball outside the box as it would have given him a tough decision to make. I think he gave us (wrongly) the benefit of the doubt because it was only wee Motherwell.

 

IF that is the case, and I believe it is, then he is cheating other teams. Long answer but I would say yes.

[Ben Dover]

I think we got very lucky with that one.

 

As for Eddie Smith, he proved himself to be a cheat yesterday. You could argue, from his angle it LOOKED a penalty, you could argue that the Linesman was too slow getting back and you could argue that in these situations, penalties are given.

 

Having seen it again on tv, he CANNOT argue that is a penalty. Much like another poster states, rescinding the red card will not give St Mirren any points, but it would show an admittance of "error".

 

That appears to be one route that ES is not prepared to take.

I may be grossly unfair in saying so but I would hazzard a guess, what with his high profile Euro involvement with both OF clubs, that Mr Smith is 'up himself' in a large way

[bighusref]

Hold on - think I've just got your point you're talking about the "confirming he was right". Fair point.

 

Yeah, I was not referring to me having seen it on television, I was referring to Smith seeing it again and still maintaining he was correct.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Yeah, I was not referring to me having seen it on television, I was referring to Smith seeing it again and still maintaining he was correct.

 

And I was being a bit slow.

[Charlie-Brown]

Does anybody know how many / if any refereeing decisions are revoked by appeal? an approx percentage would do?

[MacDonald Jardine]

For risk of getting another shoeing for going against the grain...

 

This is not the fault of the SFA. The rules of the game state that the referee is the sole arbiter of fact in a game of football. Thus if the useless fud says he was right, then there is nothing the SFA can do about it.

 

All that's happened in recent years is that the managers have been 'allowed' by the SFA to ask a referee to review their decisions. Which can result in the referee rescinding a red card.

 

In this case, Smith reviewed hos decision and unbelievably decided he was correct

 

He remains the sole arbiter in the game.

The issue is whether the red card, and consequent penalty points and suspension, should stand.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Let's see now. Eddie Smith is a Strathclyde copper and an GFA referee. Surely in the Oxford Concise Dictionary's that's the example they give to describe the meaning of of the word arrogance.

[Le Chat]

Let's see now. Eddie Smith is a Strathclyde copper and an GFA referee. Surely in the Oxford Concise Dictionary's that's the example they give to describe the meaning of of the word arrogance.

 

Could also be the word Tosser.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Could also be the word Tosser.

 

After further consideration I bow to your superior knowledge of the dictionary.

[Le Chat]

After further consideration I bow to your superior knowledge of the dictionary.

 

[Jammy T]

Does anybody know how many / if any refereeing decisions are revoked by appeal? an approx percentage would do?

 

I actually think that more than half are revoked - just from those that I have been aware of being reported

 

Thing is, if it has already influenced the game itself its a kind of pointless gesture

[Jarhead]

 

Nope' date='and I'll tell you why,if past history has anything to go with then the OF have more shot's on/off goal than any other 2 teams put together,they get more chances in the box,have more possession so therefore will get more free kick's given against them.

 

Anyway instead of ripping into the refs why not just be glad that at least one of them has had a penalty awarded against them so early in the season.

 

PS for what it's worth(I know 2 wrongs dont make a right)the tims should have had a pen just before the pen was given, and if the defender is daft enough to let JVoH in front of him and grab his arm then hell mend him,he should know better than to give the ref another chance at giving them a pen.[/quote']

 

I would agree that ra sellick should have had a penalty before the one that was given so all the more reason to rip into the ref.

He didn't get one big desicion wrong, he got two wrong.

[Smoked-Glass]

 

There would have been a riot if Falkirk hadn't been awarded that penalty. However' date=' the referee made sure that Falkirk didn't gain too much of an advantage by not sending the Rangers player off.

 

I may be wrong, but if I have just beaten a player in the box, 12 yards from goal and I am about to shoot, I would say that I have a clear goal scoring opportunity. If I'm fouled, I would expect the perpetrator to be sent off. In this case he was only booked. Why? Simple, the referee wasn't prepared to do what he should have done and send him off.[/quote']

 

you're right remember when boomsong should have been sent off in near the end of 2004? He only got booked at ibrox and we lost 3-2. The week before Maybury was sent off when we lost 1-0 at tyne to motherwell.

 

To be fair to scotsport, they showed both incidents side by side and moaned about it.