jonnyboy Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I Gordon Smith changing things at the SFA???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Probably not as it was a clear foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 When has that mattered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 When has that mattered? Paranoia, don't you just love it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Probably not as it was a clear foul. Have to disagree.God did I just say that? When the tackle was made I too thought it was a clear foul, and the ref called it right. However IF contact was made it was minimal and Sheilds made the most of it. Hubs players don't dive( not) That said I am not in the least sorry that McGregor or Rankers for that matter had a player dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I thought it was much the same as the Hearts-Celtic game in January 2006 - with Shiels playing Maloney's role, and McGregor playing Takis'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean counter Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Haven't seen it but friend said it was a two footed tackle anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I Gordon Smith changing things at the SFA???? Hell, no. They're just lulling us into a false sense of security. It was difficult to tell from the television coverage I've seen and I heard that they were hinting that their own stuff might prove to be inconclusive so I was convinced it was going to be another escape for him. Very glad it wasn't and I hope it's the first of many red cards for the bad tempered bugger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dipped Flake Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Hell, no. They're just lulling us into a false sense of security. It was difficult to tell from the television coverage I've seen and I heard that they were hinting that their own stuff might prove to be inconclusive so I was convinced it was going to be another escape for him. Very glad it wasn't and I hope it's the first of many red cards for the bad tempered bugger. That's what I don't understand. rangers said that after going over their tv pictures, it was inconclusive, so why appeal??? IMO, referee had no option but to send magregor off but shiels definately made the most of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 That's what I don't understand. rangers said that after going over their tv pictures, it was inconclusive, so why appeal??? IMO, referee had no option but to send magregor off but shiels definately made the most of it Mmm. Presumably McGregor was insisting that he was innocent and therefore if their own stuff was inconclusive, it was worth testing the water to see if the SFA had anything better. They were just chancing their arm. I don't know for sure, but I guess that any club would appeal a red if there was any teeny wee bit of doubt involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7628mm Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 That's what I don't understand. rangers said that after going over their tv pictures, it was inconclusive, so why appeal??? IMO, referee had no option but to send magregor off but shiels definately made the most of it but Super Ally said after the game that you could clearly see that macGregor made contact with the ball. yeh? That will be shining bright ya tube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Jambo Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 well if super Ally said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboRossi79 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I thought it was much the same as the Hearts-Celtic game in January 2006 - with Shiels playing Maloney's role, and McGregor playing Takis'. You really do have a problem seeing anything properly. Maloney going away from goal and not in the middle, Shiels through on goal on the edge of the box slap bang in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornhillHearts Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 You really do have a problem seeing anything properly. Maloney going away from goal and not in the middle, Shiels through on goal on the edge of the box slap bang in the middle. Presuming he means in terms of the type of tackle/contact or lack therof as opposed to the position the tackle took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Presuming he means in terms of the type of tackle/contact or lack therof as opposed to the position the tackle took place. Obviously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I Gordon Smith changing things at the SFA???? ha ha ha ! good one. of course nothing is changing - it's just if they let MacG away with it, then they may have to grant hearts an appeal at some point... and we can't have that now can we as that would indicate the refs are against us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorgie rd eh11 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Rangers can now claim that decisions go against them, forcing referees and their assistants to "even things up" giving them everything for the next 100 years. Just like the previous 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucky Thompson Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Cyclops was falling over about 10 feet before he reached McGregor, he knew what he was doing:cool: Cheating little scrott, playing up to the fact he's only got one eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo_ellen Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 He was 1 on 1 with a minute to go why would he dive. I thought you could only appeal on violent conduct anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedp6873 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 i have looked at it over and over and sorry to say but Mcgregor did take the ball first!!!!! but that is only IMO everyone else has their own one. Sheils is a cheating wee scrote proved when he took out Gordon in the derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Gilbert Wauchope Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Rangers can now claim that decisions go against them, forcing referees and their assistants to "even things up" giving them everything for the next 100 years. Just like the previous 100 years. Maybe the simple explanation is that they didn't know who McGregor plays for? But give it a wee while, until they do realise.... A "semi-final draw"-type error will announced. It appears that the whole thing is the Presiding Officer's fault .... we've looked at the evidence again .... referee not to blame. Result? Red card rescinded. Good boy - have a good game on Saturday. Paranoia? Aye, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 i have looked at it over and over and sorry to say but Mcgregor did take the ball first!!!!! but that is only IMO everyone else has their own one. Sheils is a cheating wee scrote proved when he took out Gordon in the derby. There wasn't sufficient contact on the ball to merit Rangers reason for appealing the red. Happens too often in Scottish football the belief being that contact with ball is no foul. The only way the decision would have been overturned if Rangers claimed Sheils had dived. And that evidence is inconclusive as well. It was however, very good goalkeeping. If he had been less aggressive, Sheils would have scored and Rangers out the cup. Professional We however, get players sent off for arguing with their own fans; (minorly)putting hands on players faces when the ball is out of play; throwing imaginery elbows when the ball is nearly out of the park, going away from goal. Totally unprofessional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,356
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.