bertracoon Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Can someone correct me but it appears that having an "aggressive stance" should lead to at least a yellow if not a red card, according to Pat Nevin. If that was the case then every game would end as a 5-a-side game you slavering *****. PS just seen "good honest Scotch Laddie" c/o John Hughes just about murder a Utd. player and only get a booking. B******s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupaJT Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Just saw this on sportscene and was shouting at the screen. Zal was stupid but they're just making this up as they go surely?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clanmac Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Looked awfy like miller was the one that put the heads together.But saying that zali should learn to play with his hands in his pockets:xmasgrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoes_off Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 I was literally laughing when I heard him say that. "Agressive stance"?? Lee miller just about took his head off, what is he supposed to do, give him a hug? Id love to see the official rules where it states " aggressive stance warrants a red card" :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 aye, pat nevin - the intellectual elf. aggressive stance!!!!! talk about avoiding the real issue, thought he would have left his side stepping when his fitba career ended. as for that thespian fi stirling, too feird to upset his orange tinged fudrucking buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primrose Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Well saying Richard ( Stirling Jambo) Gordon is a dons fan. WTF does aggressive stance mean Nevin you arses horse? Then no comment on what should have happened to Miller for sticking his head on Zal? The double standards in our media are astonishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Well saying Richard ( Stirling Jambo) Gordon is a dons fan. WTF does aggressive stance mean Nevin you arses horse? Then no comment on what should have happened to Miller for sticking his head on Zal? The double standards in our media are astonishing. The officials obviously missed it but nothing stopping the GFA giving Miller a retrospective red card for the headbutt that Zal is taking the blame for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flux Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Can't believe he got a straight red card for getting a boot in the face and then getting head butted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Montgomery Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 aye, pat nevin - the intellectual elf. aggressive stance!!!!! talk about avoiding the real issue, thought he would have left his side stepping when his fitba career ended. as for that thespian fi stirling, too feird to upset his orange tinged fudrucking buddy. I take it you were upset about that John! Maybe thats what happens when you move from Porty to the Pans (you might get a bit more aggressive, or is that Scotts influence (joke, I know you are both all right). I couldn't believe how they shrugged off (sorry didn't mention it) that it was Millers head that went forward (while even at that I don't think he was even that bad, possibly deserved a yellow for Miller). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Astonishing! Having now seen this on a bigger screen.... Was their goal a fluke? If you look carefully, Severin has a Lampard-esque slip of his standing foot as he takes free kick. Granted, Miller struck it well but was it intended for him? Mackie's tackle on Zal would have been considered violent conduct if it had happened the other way. Perhaps Zal should have roles about in feigned agony rather than "wave the card". Mackie clearly dived in box when shoulder to shoulder with Zal. If standards applied to Hearts are the same as other teams, he should have had second yellow and walked. Zal did nothing wrong after being kicked by Miller and it was Miller who reacted by butting Zal. Nade was completely innocent so why the card when Severin who laid both hands on Zal went unpunished. No longer a conspiracy theory it is a conspiracy FACT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAYEL Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 The BBC are as bad as the sun and ****** these days !! :xmassick: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Are the BBC not supposed to be impartial ? They're clearly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Montgomery Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Just looked and listened to Pat Nevins comments again. Funny how they went straight to the adverts after his comments about the 'aggressive stance'. If I was cynical (which of course I am not) I might have suggested they could not justify the comments and just had to ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Are the BBC not supposed to be impartial ? They're clearly not. Not impartial - but objective. Unfortunately, this enables them to justify practically anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 The rules are : Lithuanians = bad guys , Scots = good guys ..... quite simple really - get with the program...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosheeturtle Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Pat Nevin is a muppet!! An aggressive stance?? I give up watching scottish football on tv it drives me mad!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richierich Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 how agressive was sheils when he won the penalty v killie, like a ufc fighter trying to get the ball after being awarded it, is that not agressive and i saw no yellow or red?:xmascrazy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Busby ! Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Astonishing! Having now seen this on a bigger screen.... Was their goal a fluke? If you look carefully, Severin has a Lampard-esque slip of his standing foot as he takes free kick. Granted, Miller struck it well but was it intended for him? Mackie's tackle on Zal would have been considered violent conduct if it had happened the other way. Perhaps Zal should have roles about in feigned agony rather than "wave the card". Mackie clearly dived in box when shoulder to shoulder with Zal. If standards applied to Hearts are the same as other teams, he should have had second yellow and walked. Zal did nothing wrong after being kicked by Miller and it was Miller who reacted by butting Zal. Nade was completely innocent so why the card when Severin who laid both hands on Zal went unpunished. No longer a conspiracy theory it is a conspiracy FACT. Saved me typing. The only aggressive head movement comes from Millar. Brines either has to retrospectively retract Zals dismissal, or give a straight out-and-out retrospective red to Millar for his head movement. The precedent of course exists for TV-evidence based red cards... as we all recall Hartley being crucified post-match for his off the ball kick at a Celtic player 3 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HillmanHearts Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 If some sheep sh&gging t%sser tried to stick the head on me - I sure as hell would adopt an agressive stance - at the very least !! Wonder what that little weasel Pat Nevin would have done ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drumelzier Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Saved me typing. The only aggressive head movement comes from Millar. Brines either has to retrospectively retract Zals dismissal, or give a straight out-and-out retrospective red to Millar for his head movement. The precedent of course exists for TV-evidence based red cards... as we all recall Hartley being crucified post-match for his off the ball kick at a Celtic player 3 years ago... I admire your optimism DB, but on appeal they will still make sure Zal misses the Hibs game by reducing his straight red to a yellow which means he misses this weekend's derby, providing the appeal is in and the panel can sit before the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Little Scotlander Nevin ,his comment reminds me of the old comedy sketch with the Met police man saying to the judge "me lord the accused was standing on the corner looking Black" . Nevin should be ashamed of his prejudice showing in that comment ,he would probably refer to Wilkie or Giraffe jones in such a situation as being resolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connlach Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Nevin is normally reasonably fair but that was just total horse **** last night. It is no wonder people think there is an agenda against Hearts. They don't show the free kick that wasn't for the goal despite always showing this. If you remember the highlights of the game against St Mirren when Robbie went down quite easily this was shown and commented on. After watching the highlights and because I was there it was clear that Aberdeen should have ended up with 9 men. Can you imagine a Lithuanian player falling over in the box like Mackie. The only thing the BBC did get right was the feeling between Aberdeen & Hearts. I hate Aberdeen more than any other team, especially the "living in the 80's support". Maybe something to do with living up here but roll on the next game and lets get it right up them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paris 84 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Little Scotlander Nevin,his comment reminds me of the old comedy sketch with the Met police man saying to the judge "me lord the accused was standing on the corner looking Black" .Nevin should be ashamed of his prejudice showing in that comment ,he would probably refer to Wilkie or Giraffe jones in such a situation as being resolute. What in god's name is a little Scotlander? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BervieJambo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Can someone correct me but it appears that having an "aggressive stance" should lead to at least a yellow if not a red card, according to Pat Nevin. If that was the case then every game would end as a 5-a-side game you slavering *****. PS just seen "good honest Scotch Laddie" c/o John Hughes just about murder a Utd. player and only get a booking. B******s. If adopting an "agressive stance" is worthy of a yellow, the whole Hearts team should be awarded them for merely walking on to the pitch. Zal clearly did nothing wrong and Miller ought to receive 2 retrospective red cards for the kick at Zal and then the attempted headbutt. As for Mackie, 2 dives in the box, no penalties (thankfully) but no bookings either, and, of course, no mention on the BBC. No wonder Zal has to tell Brines how to do his job - not only is he a f****** p****, he's also a useless ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Can't believe he got a straight red card for getting a boot in the face and then getting head butted! Yes, but they aggresive stances must be kicked out the game, it is not the way we play footbal here. Maybe in their country they are allowed to do that kind of thing........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I think from now on our players should always take a subservient stance in league games,the next time the Ref comes to book Zal ,he should get on his hands and knees and kiss the refs feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 the explanation for nevin producing this latest piece of nonsense is simple..... it matters not to these media/pundit morons whether or not they are consistent in what they say (and what they don't say), it's more important to find some way.... any way.... to justify decisions that go against us. how long before some ridiculous little trumpet like nevin claims it's a yellow card offence for a hearts player for looking the wrong way at a player? an aggressive expression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraggle Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I think from now on our players should always take a subservient stance in league games,the next time the Ref comes to book Zal ,he should get on his hands and knees and kiss the refs feet. The (supported living) organisation I work for provides a "Positive Behaviour Support" training course which teaches a neutral stance when dealing with aggressive behaviour. Maybe this was what Csaba meant last week when talking about the "other methods" he'd like to implement. :xmasgrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Quagmire Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 i thought the long dramatic pause after he spouted that ****** was hilarious !! Pat Nevin is a wxnker / Pat Nevin is a wxnker nah nah nah nah / nah nah nah nah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 We're the only team to have a player red carded as a result of video evidence. We're the only team to have a linesman overrule a referee regarding a penalty decision. We're the only team to have a player red carded as a result of an appeal by an opposition manager to the fourth official. We're the only team to have a player booked for suggesting a player should be booked for an awful challenge. We're the only team to have a player red carded for an "aggressive stance". People say there is not any bias against us! People say that the above is simply incompetence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 We're the only team to have a player red carded for an "aggressive stance". Nevin can say what he wants, Brines can change his report to read what he wants, what can't be denied though from tv pictures is that Brines clearly indicated the straight red card was for a headbutt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Nevin can say what he wants, Brines can change his report to read what he wants, what can't be denied though from tv pictures is that Brines clearly indicated the straight red card was for a headbutt. Have still not seen the incident on TV but I would imagine a appeal would be a formality. I am not Zal's biggest fan but he has been playing well and I think we need him for the derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Originally Posted by Gambo Nevin can say what he wants, Brines can change his report to read what he wants, what can't be denied though from tv pictures is that Brines clearly indicated the straight red card was for a headbutt. Have still not seen the incident on TV but I would imagine a appeal would be a formality. I am not Zal's biggest fan but he has been playing well and I think we need him for the derby. Hearts aren't allowed to make a formal appeal until they have been given the referees report confirming the reason for the red card. The report could say anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Hearts aren't allowed to make a formal appeal until they have been given the referees report confirming the reason for the red card. The report could say anything. It could say anything but it would still have to be a red card offence. If the report swerves too far from what happened the ref will open himself up to being exposed. I think we will appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Pat Nevin is a muppet!!An aggressive stance?? I give up watching scottish football on tv it drives me mad!! Nevin is usually not too bad, one of the better pundits, so dissappointing to here he said this without justifying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Zal's head did not move. Did Miller get anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorgie rd eh11 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Would Stephen Mcmanus or David Weir be red carded or even booked for taking an "aggressive stance"? Absolutely no chance. Referees can't wait to get their cards out when dealing with Hearts players, and the media condoning it are as involved and responsible for the continued bias against HMFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldstone Wonder Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Little Scotlander Nevin ,his comment reminds me of the old comedy sketch with the Met police man saying to the judge "me lord the accused was standing on the corner looking Black" . Yes, I immediately thought of the Not the Nine O'clock News sketch. Adopting an aggressive stance is the new "wearing a loud shirt in a built up area", it seems. It's clear to me that Zal was sent off for a headbutt. Brines motioned that to him and it was a straight red. The pictures show no headbutt from him but an attempted headbutt from Miller. Presumably if Zaliukas had fallen down he would have been called a cheat. Instead, because he stands his ground, this is now being called "an aggressive stance." I cannot see how on those pictures a red card (or even a yellow) can be justified in the case of Zaliukas. I think there is an argument for a red card for Miller and the very least he should have been cautioned. This has to be appealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 All these pieces of evidence that jouno's and Refs etc are against are proof that we really have become public enemy No.1. Why ? IMO........ It's because VR had a go at all and sundry a couple of years back. There really was no need for that and we're now paying the consequences. It may not be right but if you upset people with a platform like they have, then expect a bit of retaliation. Things were never, ever this bad prior to those outburts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 All these pieces of evidence that jouno's and Refs etc are against are proof that we really have become public enemy No.1. Why ? IMO........ It's because VR had a go at all and sundry a couple of years back. There really was no need for that and we're now paying the consequences. It may not be right but if you upset people with a platform like they have, then expect a bit of retaliation. Things were never, ever this bad prior to those outburts. that's a possible reason to explain.... not an excuse or justification. there is no possible justification for operating a campaign like we all see on one specific team, it's completely contrary to a true sporting contest. it's called cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 All these pieces of evidence that jouno's and Refs etc are against are proof that we really have become public enemy No.1. Why ? IMO........ It's because VR had a go at all and sundry a couple of years back. There really was no need for that and we're now paying the consequences. It may not be right but if you upset people with a platform like they have, then expect a bit of retaliation. Things were never, ever this bad prior to those outburts. "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 It's clear to me that Zal was sent off for a headbutt. Brines motioned that to him and it was a straight red. The pictures show no headbutt from him but an attempted headbutt from Miller. Presumably if Zaliukas had fallen down he would have been called a cheat. Instead, because he stands his ground, this is now being called "an aggressive stance." I think that is spot on ,we are now at the stage where our players are damned if they do and damned if they dont,Our Players/club has worked on our pecived discipline problems have the Refs SFA worked on theres?. For those who say our players should just take it on the chin ,i ask how do you expect them to do so in a high pressure game when they are not getting equal treatment or percive that they are not. How do you say to Zal dont worry if a player kicks you ,headbutts you and you get the blame just live with it and dont do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 It's because VR had a go at all and sundry a couple of years back. There really was no need for that and we're now paying the consequences. . I think he was right to have a go a couple of years back. He had the balls to came out and said what a hell of a lot of folk think about the old-firm/the GFA/the press. He probably thought he would have got a bit more support (especially from his own supporters) from others, but no it seems they were happy all along to be shafted by the GFA/Old-firm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I think that is spot on ,we are now at the stage where our players are damned if they do and damned if they dont,Our Players/club has worked on our pecived discipline problems have the Refs SFA worked on theres?. For those who say our players should just take it on the chin ,i ask how do you expect them to do so in a high pressure game when they are not getting equal treatment or percive that they are not. How do you say to Zal dont worry if a player kicks you ,headbutts you and you get the blame just live with it and dont do it again. exactly. it's got to the stage where someone like zaliukas appears to have been punished for basically existing in a certain place at a certain time. the only way he could possibly have avoided his punishment would have been if he hadn't even been there.... which of course is not actually possible after all. it's blindingly obvious to most on here but not everyone it would seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 All these pieces of evidence that jouno's and Refs etc are against are proof that we really have become public enemy No.1. Why ? IMO........ It's because VR had a go at all and sundry a couple of years back. There really was no need for that and we're now paying the consequences. It may not be right but if you upset people with a platform like they have, then expect a bit of retaliation. . As you say (it does not matter if you agree or disagreed at the time) it was a couple of years ago........how long do we go on getting punished(=cheated)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 exactly. it's got to the stage where someone like zaliukas appears to have been punished for basically existing in a certain place at a certain time. the only way he could possibly have avoided his punishment would have been if he hadn't even been there.... which of course is not actually possible after all. it's blindingly obvious to most on here but not everyone it would seem. It's okay, Vlad spoke out about decisions like this a couple of years ago so that makes it alright for refs to do what they want when it comes to Hearts players now and for ever more. Just sit back and accept it seems to be the stance of some, or even better, be whiter than white whilst the opposition kick you all over the park unpunished. :xmascrazy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 It's okay, Vlad spoke out about decisions like this a couple of years ago so that makes it alright for refs to do what they want when it comes to Hearts players now and for ever more. Just sit back and accept it seems to be the stance of some, or even better, be whiter than white whilst the opposition kick you all over the park unpunished. :xmascrazy: yes that does seem to be the fairy story theory that a worrying number of intelligent posting people subscribe to. lets all turn the other cheek eh? it worked for jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 that's a possible reason to explain.... not an excuse or justification. there is no possible justification for operating a campaign like we all see on one specific team, it's completely contrary to a true sporting contest. it's called cheating. I think it's human nature. We all hold grudges against people we don't like - We aren't liked and we now have to deal with it. Our reputation definitely proceeds us on most occassions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 It's okay, Vlad spoke out about decisions like this a couple of years ago so that makes it alright for refs to do what they want when it comes to Hearts players now and for ever more. Just sit back and accept it seems to be the stance of some, or even better, be whiter than white whilst the opposition kick you all over the park unpunished. :xmascrazy: I am not saying it is ok for refs to cheat but what benefit did we get out of VR's rants at the refs/sfa ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke I wish you'd used that statement a couple of years ago !! Anyway...... VR in reality did nothing. He opened his big mouth, let his belly rumble but failed to follow it up with any real evidence. If he had then maybe things would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.