BrahimHemdani

The Laws of the Game are specific on this issue. It can only be a foul or penalty if the player "handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)"; however what constitutes deliberate is not specified but this article is useful guidance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4524354.stm

Can you not do things deliberately with your eyes closed? Does that mean that blind people never do anything deliberately, like cross the street?

It is never accidental in a million years. I ran the line for John Gordon (JRP Gordon, Newport on Tay, some older folk will remember the name) at Wembley and his take was that if a player has his hands up or out wide and the ball hits his hands then it is deliberate hand ball, because he has his hands up deliberately. That always made sense to me. Hands being in an "unnatural position" is just modern parlance for the same thing. If it had happened against us, we would be up in arms (pardon the pun); but I'd like to think we wouldn't be flashing off letters to the SFA.

Quite so. I don't think the current crop of Scottish referees are anywhere near as good as some of their predecessors but Delia's initial assessment undoubtedly was correct, Scottish Referees are amongst the best and most highly regarded in Europe. That said, Hugh Dallas working for UEFA certainly does help as Tom Wharton did in his era.

That is a TOP appointment for the much and oft criticised Mr Collum. It's worth remembering that our referees have suffered from a lack of tough matches (not just old firm games) with Rangers not being in the SPL.

Excellent post, bang on the money.

Dinner time bump

He really is a very stupid man, highlighting all the player indiscretions and suggesting a conspiracy, the only conspiracy is one of their own making. Ms Findlay is even more bigoted but at least she is intelligent and you can argue with her, this guy is just plain dumb. Perhps that was his sister who got interviewed?

21/04/2015 Gunslinger £10.75 Balance £81.27 That's 7 paid and CH committed for 2. I appreciate that some will not want to commit before seeing where we finish in the league and hence finalising the date; but that's four from the deep south committed which involves considerable travelling expenses. I would be grateful if any "locals" or even Edinburgers who know they will attend regardless of the date, could commit now so that we can get up to at least the 12 needed to break even and I can tell the restaurant on Saturday.

Will do CH, would appreciate if you would remit the dosh asap, cheers.

It was a clear penalty kick and the Inverness player should have been sent off but to say is absolute nonsense and just shit stirring. It's obvious what happened; the referee didn't see it and the linesman (I refuse to call them assistant referees) thought it hit the player's head, which from his angle is quite understandable. Since the referee conferred with the linesman, the fourth official doesn't come into it. It was a mistake, or even two mistakes, but mistakes happen, that's football.

And spare a thought for the Gersnet Dinner organiser and attendees too

You can easily argue this one both ways but I would not agree with McCall; the season isn't over till FT in the last play-off game. If a player is on 5 bookings going into the last league game of the season and the rule prevents him committing another bookable offence then it is a good rule; and conversely if he were to commit another bookable offence and "get away with it" by avoiding a suspension , then it would be a bad rule. In any event it's arguable that losing Miller would be beneficial to the team, not so McGregor of course.

He showed great promise when with us that's for sure but his ego and wallet got the better of him and he moved too soon.

Actually, I agree with that; but there's no harm in having a wee bit of fun along the way. And it was a piss poor crowd for a semi final.

He has been a bit fagile throughout his career.

Apologies, although very right footed he was frequently played in LMF; he played 50 league games for us in 2 seasons scoring 12 goals (14 in 68 overall) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikel_Arteta, but was never guaranteed a regular game and left for Everton via Real Sociedad. Mind you he was only 20-22 when with us. A 10-year career in the EPL speaks volumes, very unlucky not to have been called up for Spain in an era when they were blessed with outstanding MF like Xabi Alonso, Xavi and Iniesta. Has scored a goal every 7 games on average throughout his career. What we would give to have a player like that for the next two seasons, we can but dream.

Sorry, missed that, thanks for pointing out.

Obviously a conspiracy. Did they forgert to call, rentacrowd? Terrible error by Esson.

Can't agree with that at all. I saw him play for Arsenal at West Ham in Oct 12 and he completely dictated the game, he took every ball out of defence and rarely missed a forward pass.

That's a bit simplistic, GS, but I agree that we lean far too much the wrong way.

You are right about this, GS, of course, gate money far outstrips TV money in Scotland but it's not as simple as that. Sponsors want exposure on TV, without TV no (club) sponsors.

There is a balance to be had here between the drudgery of playing each other at least 4 times and often 5 or 6 times a season and expanding the league to 16 to avoid that, which you would argue would lower the quality per se. On the bother hand, many players from Mark Walters onwards have commented on the difficulty of playing the same opponents 4+ times a season. I think there are just about enough FT teams to make a 16 team league viable if you take the current top 10 plus the top 5/6 in the "Championship" right now. You could argue that the likes of Hamilton are punching way above their weight and that attendances in some quarters are pitifully low but there needs to be a further redistribution of wealth to help address that issue. It is often argued that a 16 team league means a lot of meaningless games at the end of the season but that would be an opportunity to develop young players if a team was "safe" and there could be at least 2 automtatic relegation places and play offs as well to keep things going. Personally, I think that the balance of advantage lies with a 16 team league and perhaps now that the SPL has had to do without Rangers for 3 years (and perhaps more) it might be the right time to do it for season 2016/17. After all if Rangers come back next season or the season after, the other Clubs should welcome one visit from us where they have had none in recent years.

You are correct and it won't happen; for the avoidance of doubt that is an opinion not inside knowledge but it is an informed opinion based on past discussions and events.

Our first agreement in a little while, TB, thanks for that! I think the reason is equally obvious; namely, whatever the rights and wrongs, P Murray's tenure on the Board is on a shoogly "fit and proper" peg right now and King who is in the same pickle, quite understandably doesn't want to force the issue. However, I see no reason why "Rangers" could not have issued a very dignified statement, saying that we did want to be seen to gain any advantage from playing last and therefore favoured all the games kicking off at the same time on the same day. That would have done us the world of good both with the SFA and the other Clubs most notably Hibs and Hearts. For all the criticism of Regan, it was he who took action to force the change. Backing the SFA at a time when they are considering the "fit and proper" issue in connection with one director and another potential director/chair would have been the "diplomatic" thing to do, not the opposite. Leaving it McCall was quite wrong in my view. It was a terrible decision, Rangers should have said so loud and clear. Not saying so as a Club actually gives the impression that we weren't that bothered or worse still were happy to accept the advantage, which would have been equally wrong.