joe1874 Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 hes not liking things ( so the news of the world says ) that dont go his way now he knows how other managers feel when a decision goes the other way welcome to the club mr smith :107years: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Why oh why oh why doesn't just one journalist have the cojones to ask him if he's happy with all the decisions that DO go their way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eckauskas Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Good, hope he's gutted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldChampions1902 Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Just been reading the back page of the Sunday Mail with the headline "We WERE ROBBED - SMITH IN RAGE OVER LINESMAN'S BLUNDER". What a cheek and what a shame! For the first time in a long time, a decision goes against one of the uglies and the Sunday Glasgow gives this 'injustice' banner headlines. To coin a well-worn Glesga phrase, 'it's enough tae gi ye the boak'. Mark Guidi then says in his opening paragraph, "We shouldn't be seeing linesman Billy Baxter anywhere near a top-flight game for some time after his astonishing blunder yesterday". Here's a challenge for you then Mark Guidi, let's see you rag dedicate banner headlines on the back pages of your 'newspaper' when a non-OF team suffers at the hands of SPL officials incompetence (or lack of bottle) when they play Celtic or Rangers. In which case, we'll soon see which teams benefit most from these situations, the answer to which is blatantly obvious to supporters of all Scottish Teams outside of Celtic and Rangers. Your article and level of coverage does nothing to help provide the level playing field that all managers outside of the OF are striving so hard to achieve. But then, that's exactly the point of your article is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffundo Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Just watched the game on Setanta and the thing what caught me eye was... Beasley was not offside Boyd was....but if you watch the Aberdeen defence...they all go towards Boyd...this imo is interfering with play and the offside flag was correct. I do not think thats why the liesman flagged...but I do think that might be his explanation and he is more than welcome to use my theory for his defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spennyboy Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Just watched the game on Setanta and the thing what caught me eye was... Beasley was not offside Boyd was....but if you watch the Aberdeen defence...they all go towards Boyd...this imo is interfering with play and the offside flag was correct. I do not think thats why the liesman flagged...but I do think that might be his explanation and he is more than welcome to use my theory for his defence. EX ****ING ACTLY!!!! Boyd was well off, INSIDE the box so imo he was interferring with play and offside!! The offside rule, as it is now, is the ******* child of football at the moment, we need to go back to the way it was years ago, if you're behind the last defender ANYWHERE on the pitch then you are offiside no questions asked!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Beasley was on side but it was not a easy call given Boyd was in the Linesman line of sight when the cross came over. Nowhere near recent OF friendly blunders but just an attempt to claim it evens out by the Mafia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe.gausden Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 i take it Smith was also not happy that the ref gave a foul for another blatant dive which led to their goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Just been reading the back page of the Sunday Mail with the headline "We WERE ROBBED - SMITH IN RAGE OVER LINESMAN'S BLUNDER". What a cheek and what a shame! For the first time in a long time, a decision goes against one of the uglies and the Sunday Glasgow gives this 'injustice' banner headlines. To coin a well-worn Glesga phrase, 'it's enough tae gi ye the boak'. Mark Guidi then says in his opening paragraph, "We shouldn't be seeing linesman Billy Baxter anywhere near a top-flight game for some time after his astonishing blunder yesterday". Here's a challenge for you then Mark Guidi, let's see you rag dedicate banner headlines on the back pages of your 'newspaper' when a non-OF team suffers at the hands of SPL officials incompetence (or lack of bottle) when they play Celtic or Rangers. In which case, we'll soon see which teams benefit most from these situations, the answer to which is blatantly obvious to supporters of all Scottish Teams outside of Celtic and Rangers. Your article and level of coverage does nothing to help provide the level playing field that all managers outside of the OF are striving so hard to achieve. But then, that's exactly the point of your article is it not? FFS !! Has this guy ever heard of Brothers Davis & Dallas and their Great Tynie Robbery act ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spennyboy Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 FFS !! Has this guy ever heard of Brothers Davis & Dallas and their Great Tynie Robbery act ? Did Mark Goodbelly write a report on that game? If he did we should dig it put and compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuffKirkMacKenzie Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Beasley was on side but it was not a easy call given Boyd was in the Linesman line of sight when the cross came over. Nowhere near recent OF friendly blunders but just an attempt to claim it evens out by the Mafia. Paul Lambert stated that the linesman should have known by Mendes body shape he was passing to Beasley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Evans Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Im devasted for them. And to quote a great man 'if your not interfering with play,what are you doing on the f****** pitch'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spennyboy Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Paul Lambert stated that the linesman should have known by Mendy's body shape he was passing to Beasley. IMO it doesn't matter who Mendes was passing too or the fact that Beasley was onside, Boyd was in the middle of the penalty area in an offiside position and attracting the attention of the aberdeen defenders so is therefore interferring with play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spennyboy Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Im devasted for them. And to quote a great man 'if your not interfering with play,what are you doing on the f****** pitch'. Great man? Wasn't it that tube Hansen who said this (albeit without the word ****ing)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Evans Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Great man? Wasn't it that tube Hansen who said this (albeit without the word ****ing)? I believe it was Brian Clough who said it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 I believe it was Brian Clough who said it first. Naw - it was Shankley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spennyboy Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 I believe it was Brian Clough who said it first. Now that was a great man!! I remember seeing the footage of him decking that fan, briliant, teach him for invading the pitch eh LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Boy Named Crow Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 I believe it was Brian Clough who said it first. Jack Charlton was it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Evans Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Naw - it was Shankley. Was a great quote though. And correct. Shankley or Clough. Two legends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Naw - it was Shankley. It was indeed. I wasnt able to attend Tynecastle yesterday due to work committments. However I was tuned into Jim Traynor's phone-in show. If ever proof was needed at how biased things up here are. A decision debatedly goes against Rangers at Aberdeen and we never hear the end of it on this phone-in. Last week at least two decisions could be said to have gone against Hearts and not a peep from anyone apaart from Miko did dive and a penalty against Rangers would have been very harsh. Lets see how many more decisions go against Rangers this season when they are not playing Celtic. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Mc Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 I believe it was Brian Clough who said it first. It was a Brian Clough quote. Bill Shankly gave a lot of wonderful quotes but this wasn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Evans Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 It was a Brian Clough quote. Bill Shankly gave a lot of wonderful quotes but this wasn't one of them. Cheers Bill. Two great men. And a brilliant and correct statement it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 It was a Brian Clough quote. Bill Shankly gave a lot of wonderful quotes but this wasn't one of them. Sorry to be a pedant but the quote is Bill Shankly's. http://www.Shankly.com Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Evans Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Sorry to be a pedant but the quote is Bill Shankly's. http://www.Shankly.com Cheers John Cheers John. Two great men im sure you will agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingus Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Sorry to be a pedant but the quote is Bill Shankly's. http://www.Shankly.com Cheers John Sorry to be pedantically pedantic, but I always thought that quote was ****e. If a player is interfering with play but is in an offside position, then he's offside and feck all use as a free kick will be awarded against him.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Beasley was on side but it was not a easy call given Boyd was in the Linesman line of sight when the cross came over. Nowhere near recent OF friendly blunders but just an attempt to claim it evens out by the Mafia. Correct, the goal should have stood but one small point of note to Old Watty. Boyd was not back tracking as you suggested, but made a secondary forward movement from an already standing start, equally offside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 No the goal should not have stood. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A733600 You can only be offside at the instant the ball is touched, and only if you then actively participate in the play. This means: Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position. For example, if the goalkeeper or other players are distracted by your position, then that could be counted as gaining an advantage. Interfering with play, ie, you intercept or receive the ball. Interfering with an opponent. So in this case, Boyd is closest to the keeper who can't help being distracted - remember he doesn't have the benefit of the linesman's view. I wish more linesmen would apply this important principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vilenin Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 No the goal should not have stood. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A733600 You can only be offside at the instant the ball is touched, and only if you then actively participate in the play. This means: Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position. For example, if the goalkeeper or other players are distracted by your position, then that could be counted as gaining an advantage. Interfering with play, ie, you intercept or receive the ball. Interfering with an opponent. So in this case, Boyd is closest to the keeper who can't help being distracted - remember he doesn't have the benefit of the linesman's view. I wish more linesmen would apply this important principle. Exactly - Boyd is closest to the keeper, on the shoulder of a defender *and* actually turning back towards goal as the pass is made. It's not a dodgy decision at all, but Rangers and the meeja are trying to pretend it is to take the heat off their tame, OF friendly refs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tynie b Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 TOMMY DOCHERTY - just after Bill had announced his retirement "Adidas wanted to present him with a Golden Boot in recognition of what he'd done. Bob ( Paisley ) took the call and said, 'They want to know what shoe size you take'. Shanks shouted back, 'If it's gold, I'm a 28.' " I know it's got Fek all to do with the OP's Topic...But...I've Just spit Cola over my keyboard when I read this!! :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japanjambo Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 TOMMY DOCHERTY - just after Bill had announced his retirement "Adidas wanted to present him with a Golden Boot in recognition of what he'd done. Bob ( Paisley ) took the call and said, 'They want to know what shoe size you take'. Shanks shouted back, 'If it's gold, I'm a 28.' " I know it's got Fek all to do with the OP's Topic...But...I've Just spit Cola over my keyboard when I read this!! :rofl: LOL!!! Lynn:ninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.