Dougie told me to lie

[Radge21]

When the sky camera focused on Dougie MacDonald between the dugouts today, he looked like a haunted man.

On this halloween he looked like he had seen a ghost.

Guilt written all over him.

He has got very little time to make up a story with Hugh Dallas.

Wonder what it will be.

[wibble]

I have posted this on another thread, but I will add it here too.

 

 

The fact that it takes one of the OF to put this in motion speaks volumes. BUT.. I don't care as long as it gets set in motion.

 

If qualifying for the CL was still the same as it was a few years ago, you can guarantee that there would not be as much made of everything as it is now. But since the OF clubs are set to lose huge amounts of cash for failing to qualify for the group stages, the 2 horse race is going to be even more contested than usual.

 

Now, when you have a club that thinks they have a conspiracy against them, and that an incident they themselves have highlighted then goes on to show that the referee and linesman were actually trying to be biased towards them for fear of the lashback from the fans, the people involved with the club, and also "friends" they have in power. Then you know the "baws burst". The fact that this penalty decision was shown to be correct yet Celtic somehow now "expect" to be given these decisions also speaks volumes.

 

Imagine if Celtic never actually went on to win?

 

Scottish football is rotten, not to the core. Beyond it. It's now a small gelatinous blob.....

 

...But[/i, this is something anyone with half a brain would have noticed if they have been following Scottish football for any length of time. The pressure now on the OF to qualify for the group stages of the CL is now so great, we are about to see the people in power (Within the SFA, SPL)show their true colours, which are either green or blue.

 

Remember that all the clubs outside the OF are just here to make up the numbers.

 

Yep, we are the guy that is crap at football we phone when we don't have enough people for 5's just so the game doesn't get called off.

 

I started a thread in the early season that stated why a weak co-efficient was good for the rest of Scottish football. When there is only one CL place you will get Rangers and Celtic at each others throats. This is one small example.

 

Hopefully the single CL place lasts for a good many years, so that these 2 teams tear each other (and the SFA) limb from limb. Anyone who wants a strong co-efficient and doesn't support the Old Firm simply hasn't thought about the scenario for long enough.

[Lovecraft]

I started a thread in the early season that stated why a weak co-efficient was good for the rest of Scottish football. When there is only one CL place you will get Rangers and Celtic at each others throats. This is one small example.

 

Hopefully the single CL place lasts for a good many years, so that these 2 teams tear each other (and the SFA) limb from limb. Anyone who wants a strong co-efficient and doesn't support the Old Firm simply hasn't thought about the scenario for long enough.

 

 

Yep, I posted the same thing on another thread too.

[wibble]

Yep, I posted the same thing on another thread too.

 

Prior to this year there was a vested interest in each team accepting the status quo - given that they were both rewarded with a healthy CL payday. Even if Celtic felt second best, it was good enough to accept that status for the sake of the payoff.

 

Now, after years of favours to them both, they both have a misguided expectation of favours granted, but now there can be only one winner each year. The pressure on the SFA will be intense and if it results in ref's getting their windows smashed and the SFA getting their offices burned down then that's all good. The situation has to come to an almighty head before any significant change is made. I'd rather that the entire system melted into chaos than the existing one had the cracks papered over.

[colinmaroon]

Listening to Traynor yesterday and i think he said something along the lines of celtic made 30 complaints last season about referees.

 

It could be that ref's are scared to get it wrong when they are in charge of celtic games.

 

 

Fear is one of the main reasons for people lying in a situation (so called "white lies" or dirty, big black ones - a lie is a lie is alie).

 

When this effects "government" of state, or any institutions in the state, from banks to football, it leads to corruption!

[Fareastjambo]

So this time it's out in the open. Makes you wonder how many times things like this have happened before and been swept under the carpet. Vlad has been right all along and this just shows how bad Scottish football refereeing has become. Big overhaul is needed, but I won't hold my breath!

[IMA MAROON]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9143774.stm

 

That is it all cleared up, a big fuss about nothing.

[rossthejambo]

When all is said and done about this fiasco. There's only one man to blame for this being blown out of all proportion. Who is he you ask?

 

 

Little rat that he is.

[ToadKiller Dog]

I dont think it is a fuss about nothing ,it has opened other questions that need answered , such as is there a culture of telling porkies to the match day observer ,ping ponging the blame between Dougie and Craven doesnt answer anything . Hugh Dallas's role needs looked into as does the other claims made by Craven . At least we have had a slight look inside the world of Scottish refs and its not very nice .

If this had been a Hearts v Dundee United game would the lie just have stood or anybody else ?

I thought the BBC guy did not probe as hard as he maybe could have .

 

An Independent review of the standards and the set up of the Scottish Whistlers has been needed for a very long time ,All i can see will be the SFA closing shop

as ever .

[Johanes de Silentio]

McDonald's piss poor explanation has made it worse for him - whether it was a wee 'white lie', he has admitted that he lied - I think that that pressure from clubs, fans, and the press will force him out - possibly Dallas too!

[bean counter]

They are all mic'd up why not record all the conversations. Then we would hear exactly what was said by all officials and also the Players\Managers

[The Old Tolbooth]

 

look forward to Chic Dung and Jim Traynor getting interviews with Hugh Dallas

and Kenny Clark over this fiasco.

 

With all due respect mate, the above pair will love an interview with the cheating one because it will give them an opportunity to cover up even further this corrupt official. Anyone who heard Chick Dungs position on it yesterday will realise this. He basically said that Hearts have no right to comment on such a situation because we can't beat Kilmarnock at home, and we can't get our finances in order, wtf?!?!?!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9143774.stm

 

That is it all cleared up, a big fuss about nothing.

Listening to that makes my blood boil, he admits lying but says it's ok

 

He then tries to justify it by saying that plenty of people will be telling their kids "white lies" at christmas time by saying a man in a red suit will be coming down their chimney to give them presents, and that white lies are done for the right reasons sometimes ffs, what a complete and utter welt, not only has he cheated and lied through his teeth about this whole thing, he's dashed thousands of kids hopes for Santa!

 

It takes a pure barstard to do that!

[Das Root]

McDonald's piss poor explanation has made it worse for him - whether it was a wee 'white lie', he has admitted that he lied - I think that that pressure from clubs, fans, and the press will force him out - possibly Dallas too!

 

 

Will all come down to the Weeja. If the paps smell blood it's good news for us all, if however they decide to sweep things under that large OF rug then it will be gone by the w/e.

[Charlie-Brown]

This issue opens up a can of worms - ie how often do referee's or linesmen collude / lie to cover up for controversial decisions, how often do they lie to match observors to protect themselves? how often are falsified or erroneus match reports submitted by the match observors, how often does Hugh Dallas feel the need to 'protect' his match officials by being economical with the truth either to his superiors at the SFA or in public to the football clubs staff and the watching media? Is lying and covering up contentious decisions endemic or standard practice or a rare occurence?

[bean counter]

This issue opens up a can of worms - ie how often do referee's or linesmen collude / lie to cover up for controversial decisions, how often do they lie to match observors to protect themselves? how often are falsified or erroneus match reports submitted by the match observors, how often does Hugh Dallas feel the need to 'protect' his match officials by being economical with the truth either to his superiors at the SFA or in public to the football clubs staff and the watching media? Is lying and covering up contentious decisions endemic or standard practice or a rare occurence?

 

Agreed

 

It throws into doubt the credability of the whole system and the only course of action to restore credability is a total overhaul of the SFA it's processes, procedures, structure, committees to include transparancy and openess

 

Below is a quote from the Herald I have seen it mentioned\referred to else where but do not understand the significance of the of the section I've put in Bold.

 

We entered the dressing room [at Tannadice] together and sat down,? Smith said. ?Stevie instigated removing the communication packs [ie headsets]. At that point Stevie asked Dougie ?what are we going to say to the supervisor??. It was Stevie that instigated the conversation so we could clarify it to the supervisor.?

 

Does it matter who took their headset off first ? are they monitered\recorded ? It's like he is saying to take off the headsets allowed them to go off the record or am I reading too much into it

[269miles]

Agreed

 

It throws into doubt the credability of the whole system and the only course of action to restore credability is a total overhaul of the SFA it's processes, procedures, structure, committees to include transparancy and openess

 

Below is a quote from the Herald I have seen it mentioned\referred to else where but do not understand the significance of the of the section I've put in Bold.

 

We entered the dressing room [at Tannadice] together and sat down,? Smith said. ?Stevie instigated removing the communication packs [ie headsets]. At that point Stevie asked Dougie ?what are we going to say to the supervisor??. It was Stevie that instigated the conversation so we could clarify it to the supervisor.?

 

Does it matter who took their headset off first ? are they monitered\recorded ? It's like he is saying to take off the headsets allowed them to go off the record or am I reading too much into it

 

To you and me , probably not. But if it was mentined (and it was) Dougie must have had a reason to mention it. I agree with you : sounds like collusion between officials isn't unusual.

 

Having just read the refs assessor's report on the game I would LOVE to see the reports on Dallas & Davies in THAT game at Tyencastle.

 

That must be fascinating reading.

[Ben Dover]

Agreed

 

It throws into doubt the credability of the whole system and the only course of action to restore credability is a total overhaul of the SFA it's processes, procedures, structure, committees to include transparancy and openess

 

Below is a quote from the Herald I have seen it mentioned\referred to else where but do not understand the significance of the of the section I've put in Bold.

 

We entered the dressing room [at Tannadice] together and sat down,? Smith said. ?Stevie instigated removing the communication packs [ie headsets]. At that point Stevie asked Dougie ?what are we going to say to the supervisor??. It was Stevie that instigated the conversation so we could clarify it to the supervisor.?

 

Does it matter who took their headset off first ? are they monitered\recorded ? It's like he is saying to take off the headsets allowed them to go off the record or am I reading too much into it

 

Craven appears to have spoken first ( somebody had to ) but the BBC have now presented that as 'Craven INSTIGATES cover up'

He was resigning anyway at Xmas so they appear to be dumping the lead role on him, while protecting McHobo at the same time?

I wonder if the huns within the BBC Sports dept have realised that a root and branch overhaul of the system may not be in their best interests

[Francis Albert]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9143774.stm

 

That is it all cleared up, a big fuss about nothing.

 

Long ago before Paxman and Day BBC interviewers were renowned for the way they interviewed senior politicians. "Prime Minister, is there anything you would like to share with the nation this evening?" was a typical hard hitting, thrusting question. Fifty years on, it is interesting that the same interview style survives in BBC Scotland's sports department.

[Charlie-Brown]

based on experience I think it's almost 100% certain that there will be an SFA clampdown. match officials will be silenced and under strict guidelines not to discuss decisions outwith the SFA and certainly not with the media to avoid fanning the flames of any controversy, secondly the SFA will attempt to silence and censure the clubs against any future criticisms of match officials with the threat of very strong punishments.

 

The referees & match officials are far from happy at being hung out to dry, receiving threats & abuse away from stadiums in their home & family life, unhappy at SFA 'management' of them - thye know that if enough of them threaten to walk then the game would be plunged into crisis so the SFA will be forced into ending this furore over match-officials by implementing a blanket ban on the matter and referring all decisions and discussions to internal SFA procedures that will only release anything when and how they decide is appropriate.

 

Anything different would be a complete reversal of the way the SFA have handled any criticisms of themselves in my lifetime.

[Ben Dover]

based on experience I think it's almost 100% certain that there will be an SFA clampdown. match officials will be silenced and under strict guidelines not to discuss decisions outwith the SFA and certainly not with the media to avoid fanning the flames of any controversy, secondly the SFA will attempt to silence and censure the clubs against any future criticisms of match officials with the threat of very strong punishments.

 

The referees & match officials are far from happy at being hung out to dry, receiving threats & abuse away from stadiums in their home & family life, unhappy at SFA 'management' of them - thye know that if enough of them threaten to walk then the game would be plunged into crisis so the SFA will be forced into ending this furore over match-officials by implementing a blanket ban on the matter and referring all decisions and discussions to internal SFA procedures that will only release anything when and how they decide is appropriate.

 

Anything different would be a complete reversal of the way the SFA have handled any criticisms of themselves in my lifetime.

 

Sad but true Charlie

I've expressed a hope that change might come out of this but it will more than likely pan out exactly as you have said.

Heads will NOT roll and life will go on as before

The GFA will simply vent their spite on us and I still feel we'll get a row, if not a fine, after Serge's statement on the website

[world_3]

With all due respect mate, the above pair will love an interview with the cheating one because it will give them an opportunity to cover up even further this corrupt official. Anyone who heard Chick Dungs position on it yesterday will realise this. He basically said that Hearts have no right to comment on such a situation because we can't beat Kilmarnock at home, and we can't get our finances in order, wtf?!?!?!

 

I think I hate that ******* clown Dung even more than Andy W@nker and Charlie Ridiculous. And he seems to hate us even more than W@nker and Ridiculous do, which is fine by me, know your enemies and all that.

[bn jambo]

New info from the daily Mash

 

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/scottish-football-in-multi%11pound-cover-up-201011013211/

 

 

 

[Cut The Crap]

Agreed

 

It throws into doubt the credability of the whole system and the only course of action to restore credability is a total overhaul of the SFA it's processes, procedures, structure, committees to include transparancy and openess

 

Below is a quote from the Herald I have seen it mentioned\referred to else where but do not understand the significance of the of the section I've put in Bold.

 

We entered the dressing room [at Tannadice] together and sat down,? Smith said. ?Stevie instigated removing the communication packs [ie headsets]. At that point Stevie asked Dougie ?what are we going to say to the supervisor??. It was Stevie that instigated the conversation so we could clarify it to the supervisor.?

 

Does it matter who took their headset off first ? are they monitered\recorded ? It's like he is saying to take off the headsets allowed them to go off the record or am I reading too much into it

 

The supervisor in the stand is miked up as well, so yes, your interpretation is exactly right.

[Horatio Caine]

The smell of sh***e from the GFA just gets stronger and stronger.

 

Sadly, I think Charlie Brown is right - nothing will happen. One blames the other, it's a conspiracy of `white` lies but at the end, it means we can't trust our referees to be honest. And that's a huge blow to the game.

[wibble]

Hopefully Craven will feel so aggrieved at being made the scapegoat that he decides to spill his guts about other controversies. Otherwise this s going to be swept under the carpet pronto and the press are going to help every way they can.

[ToadKiller Dog]

It needs another Ref to speak out (no chance i think ) , its to easy for them the cover Craven with manure . Apart from sniping at the side cant see the Weegia getting to te truth.

 

Like others i see a cover up coming a few empty promises of change with nothing really happening .

[Miller Jambo 60]

Dougie Mcdonald told me to lie

 

from Sunday Mail

 

McDonald and Dallas surely to resign, positions must be seen as untenable?

 

 

TBH this has been building up on DM for years.

Thing is hes dragging all the other corrupt refs in the SPL down with him love it.

 

 

 

Doug.

[Miller Jambo 60]

The smell of sh***e from the GFA just gets stronger and stronger.

 

Sadly, I think Charlie Brown is right - nothing will happen. One blames the other, it's a conspiracy of `white` lies but at the end, it means we can't trust our referees to be honest. And that's a huge blow to the game.

 

 

Thing is bud even the GFA cant ignore this, the shat has hit the fan big time, sorry tic fans.

[Cut The Crap]

Almost despite myself, I find myself feeling slightly more sympathetic towards McDonald after listening to him speak (and watching him squirm) for 15 minutes.

 

I appreciate some of the reasons why they don't want to do it, but I really think the refereeing community in general would benefit if they would come out and talk about their decisions after matches.

[Miller Jambo 60]

When all is said and done about this fiasco. There's only one man to blame for this being blown out of all proportion. Who is he you ask?

 

 

Little rat that he is.

 

More like a mup

[hawaii]

Imagine if refs were required to explain decisions after a game.

 

How long would the interview with Brines last exactly?? He is the only ref that every SPL fan agrees is not biaised cos he is so bloody inept in every single game.

 

My opinion on refs is to ask why so many Grade 1 officials hail from Strathclyde. The SFA appoints refs to Grade 1 so why not limit the number each district can have? That would at least be a start.

 

For those who say that refs are able to support a team but be objective when taking charge of a game involving their favourites then why isn't this allowed in England? Why do we have to put up with it here? Most fans support a team from say age 5 to 18 and by that point in their life even if they don't go to games they still support their club. Why must we believe that someone who takes up refereeing at 18 would be able to referee for 10 years and not still hold an affection for their club just cos they don't go to any matches? Are refs different from other human beings? Are they part robot? In Scotland refs favour the OF more so than they did 10/20 years ago and this is because we have more OF supporting refs - and the people responsible for this happening work for the SFA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Miller Jambo 60]

I was pals wi one of the best refs in Scotland, no names, he was a jambo, but not a cheat.

[Das Root]

I was pals wi one of the best refs in Scotland, no names, he was a jambo, but not a cheat.

 

 

 

Are you saying all other Jambos are cheats?

[Das Root]

Imagine if refs were required to explain decisions after a game.

 

How long would the interview with Brines last exactly?? He is the only ref that every SPL fan agrees is not biaised cos he is so bloody inept in every single game.

 

My opinion on refs is to ask why so many Grade 1 officials hail from Strathclyde. The SFA appoints refs to Grade 1 so why not limit the number each district can have? That would at least be a start.

 

For those who say that refs are able to support a team but be objective when taking charge of a game involving their favourites then why isn't this allowed in England? Why do we have to put up with it here? Most fans support a team from say age 5 to 18 and by that point in their life even if they don't go to games they still support their club. Why must we believe that someone who takes up refereeing at 18 would be able to referee for 10 years and not still hold an affection for their club just cos they don't go to any matches? Are refs different from other human beings? Are they part robot? In Scotland refs favour the OF more so than they did 10/20 years ago and this is because we have more OF supporting refs - and the people responsible for this happening work for the SFA.

 

 

It's simple. Make them professional. Fully employed and paid. Held accountable, disciplined and promoted like any other employee. Ongoing training, ongoing evaluations. If yer sh*t, yer sacked. No more part-timers in the top flight, 3 strikes rule on game-changing mistakes. Stop protecting them under a "if we don't, they'll quit and WHERE WILL WE BE THEN EH?" pish. If they were pro, then if sh*t, sack and hire / train a new ref.

 

Seems to work well in every other business. Scottish Football is ******* amateurish at best.

[DETTY29]

This issue opens up a can of worms - ie how often do referee's or linesmen collude / lie to cover up for controversial decisions, how often do they lie to match observors to protect themselves? how often are falsified or erroneus match reports submitted by the match observors, how often does Hugh Dallas feel the need to 'protect' his match officials by being economical with the truth either to his superiors at the SFA or in public to the football clubs staff and the watching media? Is lying and covering up contentious decisions endemic or standard practice or a rare occurence?

Correct Charlie,

 

Also am I missing the point on something that is being reported today as well.

 

Dallas is getting his lawyers involved over what Craven says. His defence being that he encouraged everyone to come out with the truth.

 

But 48 hours after the game, Dallas was the one publicly coming out saying that MacDonald got the call from Craven, despite it appears being in full knowledge of the facts.

 

This is the chance of a right fresh start with a new SFA chief in charge.

 

If I'm being totally honest, I hope Celtic don't let this lie and they go for Dallas and Fleeting. Of course it's not fair that it has to happen to one of them before anything is done about it. As with a lot of successful change, sometimes you have to get into bed with your enemies first. A call from David Southern to Peter Lawwell might not go amiss. And one to Campbell Ogilvie to see where his priorities really lie as well.

[Charlie-Brown]

Correct Charlie,

 

Also am I missing the point on something that is being reported today as well.

 

Dallas is getting his lawyers involved over what Craven says. His defence being that he encouraged everyone to come out with the truth.

 

But 48 hours after the game, Dallas was the one publicly coming out saying that MacDonald got the call from Craven, despite it appears being in full knowledge of the facts.

 

This is the chance of a right fresh start with a new SFA chief in charge.

 

If I'm being totally honest, I hope Celtic don't let this lie and they go for Dallas and Fleeting. Of course it's not fair that it has to happen to one of them before anything is done about it. As with a lot of successful change, sometimes you have to get into bed with your enemies first. A call from David Southern to Peter Lawwell might not go amiss. And one to Campbell Ogilvie to see where his priorities really lie as well.

 

There are also claims from Craven that as well as himself several refs & match officials are sick fed up of alleged bullying management style of Dallas & his assistant John Fleming so it could be the case of Dallas trying to pre-empt and protect himself from any further fall out arising from these claims & this incident.

[Ben Dover]

There are also claims from Craven that as well as himself several refs & match officials are sick fed up of alleged bullying management style of Dallas & his assistant John Fleming so it could be the case of Dallas trying to pre-empt and protect himself from any further fall out arising from these claims & this incident.

 

I imagine McHobo won't need much encouragement but I wonder if it's been people like Dallas and Fleming who have orchestrated the harsh treatment we have undoubtably suffered for some years

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

I don't know if I'm missing something but to me, none of this seems to be that big a deal.

 

McDonald made the decision to give the penalty, and seemingly immediately changed his mind. He was apparently shown to have been correct in doing so. He then tried to give his linesman the credit for getting the decision right, presumably to save his own embarrassment at having had to change his mind. And Hugh Dallas apparently was told this was not the case.

 

At the end of the day, no-one was cheated and the right decision was made. So what's the big deal?

[Charlie-Brown]

I don't know if I'm missing something but to me, none of this seems to be that big a deal.

 

McDonald made the decision to give the penalty, and seemingly immediately changed his mind. He was apparently shown to have been correct in doing so. He then tried to give his linesman the credit for getting the decision right, presumably to save his own embarrassment at having had to change his mind. And Hugh Dallas apparently was told this was not the case.

 

At the end of the day, no-one was cheated and the right decision was made. So what's the big deal?

 

The fact that the match officials and their superior were prepared to lie and collued both publicly and internally in an attempt to deceive others and protect themselves about the controversial decision but due to internal disagreements and subsequent evidence they got caught & found out.... the natural question then is can we trust our match officials and their superiors? how frequently to they attempt to lie/cover up mistakes or controversial decisions etc.

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

The fact that the match officials and their superior were prepared to lie and collued both publicly and internally in an attempt to deceive others and protect themselves about the controversial decision but due to internal disagreements and subsequent evidence they got caught & found out.... the natural question then is can we trust our match officials and their superiors? how frequently to they attempt to lie/cover up mistakes or controversial decisions etc.

 

It's not like they lied to cover up a deliberatly wrong decision though. I don't know why McDonald had to lie about anything in the first place, he got the decision right!

[Charlie-Brown]

It's not like they lied to cover up a deliberatly wrong decision though. I don't know why McDonald had to lie about anything in the first place, he got the decision right!

 

He got the decision right eventually but not after he got the decision wrong by awarding Celtic a penalty that he should not have.....why was he whistle happy to blow for the penalty if he then immediately thought it was the wrong decision? Can we or can't we trust his judgement would have been the headlines, so rather than face that stushie they tried to tell porkies and ended up creating an even bigger stushie.

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

He got the decision right eventually but not after he got the decision wrong by awarding Celtic a penalty that he should not have.....why was he whistle happy to blow for the penalty if he then immediately thought it was the wrong decision? Can we or can't we trust his judgement would have been the headlines, so rather than face that stushie they tried to tell porkies and ended up creating an even bigger stushie.

 

I know it's already been mentioned by others, but this happened to us only last season - TWICE! On those occasions the ref didn't feel the need to lie about it or cover anything up. Why is this? Maybe he didn't fear for his safety as much as DMcD did?

 

It's only because this involved the OF that anyone is still talking about it, had it involved any other team then it would barely have been mentioned, like when it happened to Hearts.

[MacDonald Jardine]

I know it's already been mentioned by others, but this happened to us only last season - TWICE! On those occasions the ref didn't feel the need to lie about it or cover anything up. Why is this? Maybe he didn't fear for his safety as much as DMcD did?

 

It's only because this involved the OF that anyone is still talking about it, had it involved any other team then it would barely have been mentioned, like when it happened to Hearts.

 

One of these times he was the ref.

[Charlie-Brown]

I know it's already been mentioned by others, but this happened to us only last season - TWICE! On those occasions the ref didn't feel the need to lie about it or cover anything up. Why is this? Maybe he didn't fear for his safety as much as DMcD did?

 

It's only because this involved the OF that anyone is still talking about it, had it involved any other team then it would barely have been mentioned, like when it happened to Hearts.

 

it is precisely because Celtic's manager and Directors have been demanding answers from the SFA, because thuggish Celtic fans hhave threatened the linesmen and referees, because Celtic sympathisers within the SFA have leaked internal SFA documents which revealed some of the fallacies/lies and then after revelations from Craven forced their hand the SFA acted to slap DMcD on the wrist and admit some wrong-doings ..... also because it involves Celtic the media have helped to continue the story and the stushie and yes you are right - nobody except us cares that it happened to us twice, it was simply swept under the carpet and forgotten about.

[Ben Dover]

I don't know if I'm missing something but to me, none of this seems to be that big a deal.

 

McDonald made the decision to give the penalty, and seemingly immediately changed his mind. He was apparently shown to have been correct in doing so. He then tried to give his linesman the credit for getting the decision right, presumably to save his own embarrassment at having had to change his mind. And Hugh Dallas apparently was told this was not the case.

 

At the end of the day, no-one was cheated and the right decision was made. So what's the big deal?

 

 

While it could be considered an open and shut case in some regards - ref makes mistake, ref corrects mistake, I think one of the facts emerging is that Dallas is clearly desperate that the offials are not seen as being at fault here.

His power is based on that flawed belief that Refs are never wrong and therefore any criticism is wrong and must be harshly punished.

 

He wants the 'TRUTH' to read thus -

Dougie gave the CORRECT decision from his vantage point

However the assistant, having also seen it CORRECTLY from his vantage point followed a clearly laid down procedure and

intervened to ensure that the correct decision was reached !

Did they ****. They blundered through, making it up as they went along and FORTUNATELY the TV appears to back them up

Everyone's a f***** hero, G&Ts all round at GFA HQ ..........and Hearts cop a fine if at all possible !

[Francis Albert]

Correct Charlie,

 

Also am I missing the point on something that is being reported today as well.

 

Dallas is getting his lawyers involved over what Craven says. His defence being that he encouraged everyone to come out with the truth.

 

But 48 hours after the game, Dallas was the one publicly coming out saying that MacDonald got the call from Craven, despite it appears being in full knowledge of the facts.

 

This is the chance of a right fresh start with a new SFA chief in charge.

 

If I'm being totally honest, I hope Celtic don't let this lie and they go for Dallas and Fleeting. Of course it's not fair that it has to happen to one of them before anything is done about it. As with a lot of successful change, sometimes you have to get into bed with your enemies first. A call from David Southern to Peter Lawwell might not go amiss. And one to Campbell Ogilvie to see where his priorities really lie as well.

There is not a chance in a million that Dallas or anyone else at the SFA is going to take it to court. Outside their own little world of self-managed kangaroo courts they would be eaten alive (as they recognised when Craig Levein challenged them). Imagine them on oath in Court faced with a top QC. I'd love to see it and maybe Vlad would pay the QC's fees. Dallas "consulting lawyers" is just part of the cover-up, so that he can refuse to speak on the grounds that there may be legal action.

[Ben Dover]

There is not a chance in a million that Dallas or anyone else at the SFA is going to take it to court. Outside their own little world of self-managed kangaroo courts they would be eaten alive (as they recognised when Craig Levein challenged them). Imagine them on oath in Court faced with a top QC. I'd love to see it and maybe Vlad would pay the QC's fees. Dallas "consulting lawyers" is just part of the cover-up, so that he can refuse to speak on the grounds that there may be legal action.

 

Slimey barsteward

[Malinga the Swinga]

If you hear Dougie McDonald now, he is trying to come over like some form of saint, when he is in fact a lying cheat. He is an admitted liar, therefore when he says he has never lied before, how does anyone know he isn't lying again. The BBC are giving him a clear run at this, instead of hammering him for lying. Don't they get it, he lied and can never be trusted again. If he can't ref Celtic games, he cannot referee any games. There can be no special treatment.

 

Just like Andy Davis lied about seeing Greek cheat being fouled against Hearts all those years ago. If they lied about Celtic, they can lie about Hearts. Dallas and DM must resign.

[DETTY29]

I know it's already been mentioned by others, but this happened to us only last season - TWICE! On those occasions the ref didn't feel the need to lie about it or cover anything up. Why is this? Maybe he didn't fear for his safety as much as DMcD did?

 

It's only because this involved the OF that anyone is still talking about it, had it involved any other team then it would barely have been mentioned, like when it happened to Hearts.

ASG,

 

My take on the 2 incidents the season before last are as follows:-

 

Aberdeen.

Referee (Conroy?) correctly gives Hearts a penalty as from his angle it was a stonewaller.

Assistant referee correctly draws the matter to the referee that from his angle Stewart clearly dived (which he did) and the decison was correctly over turned.

 

Falkirk

Referee MacDonald correctly gives Hearts a penalty as from his angle Driver was taken out from behind.

Assistant referee incorrectly queries decision however as Bullen was in between Driver and himl and there is no way he could clearly see whether Bullen made contact with the ball, or of he did, whether he impeded Driver first, which he clearly did.

 

The above is just my own opinion and what I can't say with any certainty is the positioning of the assistant referee at both incidents. I'm pretty sure he wasn't standing in the position he should for agreeing with the ref at the Aberdeen and for Falkirk whether Pressly was argiung on the shy line or the bye line. This is absolutely crucial because what has caught the Dallas and MacDonald out here is that no-one intially picked up on Craven's position of supporting the pen decision and therefore would not have been calling MacDonald over. Unfortunately for us, if on both occassions the assistant ref is on the bye line then (in corruption if you like) they have played a wonderful straight bat.

 

Naturally what is really whiffy about the second incident is that it is the same assistant ref involved. If we had played our cards right we should have (Falkirk game only):-

 

1) Asked the SFA for a copy of the report and for the officials to explain themselves.

2) Gone back saying that in our opinion the assistant ref was in no position to over turn the refs decision and seek further clarity as to why the ref allowed his assitant to over turn an incident. The ref clearly had a better view and and shouldn't be overturning tackles from behind on his other officials blind side

3) Then ask whether the assistant he took Stewart's earlier misdemeanour into account and treat all Hearts players as divers.

 

Unfortunately for us Big Zal had one of his momemts later in the game which deflected a bit of the public attention away from focusing solely on the penalty incident. As I said earlier, whether we like it or not, Celtic have approached this in the correct way, the same as they did with the Cadette incident that took Farry out. Unfortunately for us we go off on one sarcastically accusing people of making '97' mistakes in one game or waffling some inane (but highly amusing) dribble that gets lost in transalation.

[IMA MAROON]

If he gave the penalty even though he knew it was not a penalty then he would have been cheating. That never happened.