BrahimHemdani

It looks quite deliberate but since the referee saw it and deemed no action required other than a verbal warning; no further action can be taken.

Rumour has it that if Mr Ashley can sell Newcastle United to the Chinese he will make Mr King an offer he can't refuse.

And scored our only goal and I think I am correct in saying had our only other shot on target.

It's a fair point; stressed by having to play with our team of chancers (Miller, Wilson and Hill apart); rather than scared of playing against Celtic?

The referee was indeed unsure and didn't get any help form the linesman, so he quite rightly took his time and looked for guidance from the 4th official. Although obviously not in line, he probably had the clearest and most direct view; and he made the right call. I sit just behind Rangers TV and saw the replay on the monitor. It was around a foot inside the box. A clear penalty, not even a close decision.

I've no idea what planet you're on but it sure isn't anywhere on earth. Right now Club 1872 have a £million+ in the bank and I believe I'm right in saying that at most 47.5% of that can go to projects other than buying shares. I'm fairly sure it would be contrary to their Articles to use any of the money to buy players. And what kind of player would you get for less than half a million anyway? SDI are making mincemeat of DK & PM in the court case already in part because they as Directors of RRL encouraged the fan's boycott contrary to their fiduciary duty to that company. Either the SD contract is going to run for the remaining 6+ years or they are going to exact big damages from TRFC. The boycott of the stores has proven to be counter productive, now you want to peacefully protest at the hub; get a grip.

I would defer to CS for the Spanish, gracias amigo.

To qualify or to win it

They got a Platinum Card

No worries. I wanted to look at my travel plans anyway! Remember that there are a whole host of countries whose entrants are not yet decided and there will be one team each from the likes of the Netherlands, Turkey, Greece, Switzerland and Romania in Q2. This is not to mention the higher ranked nations such as Germany Italy, France, Russia Ukraine and Spain whose teams will enter in Q3. It will be exceptionally difficult to make any progress at the first time of asking and it will take 5 seasons of progressive improvement to re-establish our coefficient. However, Scotland would need to get back up to 15th - 17th for CW or N3 to start in ELQ3. The last time Scotland was in that position was in 2010. We were 10th in 2008! For that reason might be easier to qualify for the group stages of the CL through the Champions route as Celtic did this season if we were to win the League.

Sorry to hear that, I heard you were on the bell; but have kindly sent £50 to BD for the kitty. Thanks. :cheers:

It's in La Fiorentina, not Malaga Tapas this time, CS. Sons of Guillermo, indeed! I'll stick with Sangre de Toro, gracias usted.

You'll find the latest information on Bert Kassie's excellent site https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/index.html I have extracted current possible opponents and coefficients though many are still to be decided: EL2-3=Hajduk Split 11.550 (eu/Q2) or (eu/Q1) EL2-3=NK Osijek 5.550 (eu/Q1) or (eu/Q2) Croatia EL1-2=Shakhtior Saligorsk 7.475 (eu/Q1) or (eu/Q2) EL2-3=Dinamo Minsk 10.975 (eu/Q1) Belarus CW=Östersunds FK 3.945 (eu/Q2) EL2=AIK Stockholm 9.945 (eu/Q1) EL3=IFK Norrköping 4.945 (eu/Q1) Sweden EL1=SK Brann Bergen 3.665 (eu/Q2) EL2=Odd Grenland 5.665 (eu/Q1) EL3=FK Haugesund 4.165 (eu/Q1) Norway EL1=Gabala FK 7.800 (eu/Q1) EL2=Inter Baku 6.050 (eu/Q1) Azerbaijan EL1=Kairat Almaty 5.550 (eu/Q1) EL2=Irtysh Pavlodar 3.550 (eu/Q1) EL3=Ordabasy Shymkent 4.050 (eu/Q1) Kazakhstan CW=Valur Reykjavik 1.925 (eu/Q1) EL2=Stjarnan FC 4.175 (eu/Q1) EL3=KR Reykjavik 5.175 (eu/Q1) Iceland CW=Torpedo Kutaisi 1.775 (eu/Q1) EL2=Chikhura Sachkhere 3.025 (eu/Q1) EL3=Dinamo Batumi 1.525 (eu/Q1) Georgia CW=SJK Seinäjoki 2.780 (eu/Q1) EL2=HJK Helsinki 10.530 (eu/Q1) EL3=VPS Vaasa 2.030 (eu/Q1) Finland CW=Cork City 2.565 (eu/Q1) EL2=Derry City 2.315 (eu/Q1) EL3=Shamrock Rovers 3.065 (eu/Q1) Ireland EL1-2=FK Jelgava 2.975 (eu/Q1) EL2-3=FK Ventspils 5.725 (eu/Q1) Latvia EL1=FK Trakai 1.575 (eu/Q1) EL2=Suduva Marijampole 1.825 (eu/Q1) EL3=Atlantas Klaipeda 1.825 (eu/Q1) Lithuania EL1-2=Coleraine 0.900 (eu/Q1) N Ireland EL1-2=Levadia Tallinn 4.050 (eu/Q1) EL2-3=Kalju Nomme 4.800 (eu/Q1) Estonia EL1-3=Pyunik Yerevan 3.275 Armenia CW=KI Klaksvik 0.700 (eu/Q1) EL2=NSI Runavik 1.450 (eu/Q1) EL3=B36 Torshavn 2.450 (eu/Q1) Faroe Islands EL1-2=Bala Town 1.525 (eu/Q1) EL1-2=Connah's Quay 1.275 (eu/Q1) Wales but there are many others still to be decided. We will have no coefficient from our own efforts since we have not been in Europe for the past 5 seasons. Therefore we will only have our country coefficient which is the 5-year total of 20% of the points, currently 3.785; almost all earned by Celtic it has to be said. For example this season Scotland are actually 19th with 4.375, 20% of that total i.e 0.875 is added to each Scottish Club's coefficient: Scotland 4 teams 9 3 6 0 3 3 4 17.5 Average of 4 teams 4.375 43 Celtic CL 3 1 2 0 3 3 4 10.5 93 Aberdeen EL 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 3.5 105 Hearts FC EL 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2.5 140 Hibernian EL 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.0 As you can see from the list above a coefficient of 3.785 is right on the borderline. This season the last seeded team in Q1 was NK Domzale Slo with 3.625 ; so if that pattern is repeated we would be seeded; which would be a huge advantage. There are some horrible possibilities in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, for example if we are not seeded. It's unlikely we would be seeded in Q2 (this season Lokomotiva Zagreb Cro with 5.775 were the last.) Incidentally as things stand based on the applicable 2016 standings Scotland are 25th so in theory all our teams go into the ELQ1. (This season 25th was enough for Q2 but the changes to the CL have bumped everything else down one place.) However, it is also possible that other things can happen which bump everyone up a place. This season The Champions League title holder spot was not used since Real Madrid already qualified for the group stage via their domestic league. This implied that the Europa League title holder Sevilla gained access to the Champions League group stage, leaving an empty spot in ELQ3. In order to fill the gap the cup winner of the 18th country on the ranking list (Cyprus) had direct access to the 3rd qualifying round, and the cup winners of the 26th and 27th countries on the ranking list (Norway and Serbia) had direct access to the 2nd qualifying round of the Europa League. If that happens this season then Scotland, being 25th are next in line. As far as I can figure things out for next season the only doubt about the same thing happening would be that Athletico Madrid win the CL and do not finish in the top 4 in Spain, which is fairly unlikely. So therefore the CL title holder spot would not be used and everyone else gets bumped up, which means that if Celtic win the Cup whoever finishes second in Scotland gets to play in ELQ2 (because the losing finalists get no seniority). If I'm right that's still something to play for (an extra 2 weeks holiday for starters). If Aberdeen win the Cup, then they would automatically be next in line for an ELQ2 spot. Also Scotland are currently 23rd so in 2018/19, the CW would automatically enter the ELQ2. Apologies for any inaccuracies in the above. I'm off to bed; need some sleep for the 'morrow.

Agreed on both counts. A dirty foul as you say would have been serious foul play.

In theory "exceeds the necessary use of force " is a lesser standard than "far exceeds" but I think that removal of that word makes it more difficult to distinguish between that and "reckless". So yes, I agree.

Thank you for that vote of confidence, Scott. I was a referee, I'm not sure how clever I am. In my day as a referee, the distinction was quite easy. "Serious foul play" was something like a tackle that DID injure an opponent. The type where you might see a player run at an opponent with obvious malicious intent not just to foul i.e. trip the opponent but to cause him injury in the process. Everything else came under the banner of "ungentlemanly conduct" which was a bit of catch all like breach of the peace. So any kind of foul that the referee thought was serious enough for a booking but not serious enough for a sending off would be classed as UC. In those days it also covered what are now called "professional fouls" i.e. stopping a goalscoring opportunity, which nowadays is a red card. However, today's rules are much more complicated and therefore, in my opinion, more difficult to apply. According to the Laws of the Game [12]: Direct free kick A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: charges jumps at kicks or attempts to kick pushes strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt) tackles or challenges trips or attempts to trip If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick. Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off Note that the wording was changed this season Previously 12.4 Reckless – removal of ‘complete’ from definition Reckless means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponen(…) (…)must be cautioned. Explanation There were legal concerns about the meaning /relevance of ‘complete’. AND 12.5 Serious foul play– removal of ‘far’ from definition Using excessive force means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent(…) (…)must be sent off. Explanation There were legal concerns about the meaning/relevance of ‘far’. In my opinion the removal of these words makes it more difficult to distinguish between reckless i.e. a caution/yellow card and serious foul play i.e. ordered off/red card. A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area) holds an opponent impedes an opponent with contact spits at an opponent Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. The following must be considered: the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement (I have included the handball rule because it was a bone of contention last week.) As an observation it would appear from the current rule that if you strike an opponent carelessly no further action ensues, if you do it recklessly it is only a caution and it is only if you hit someone hard enough to constitute "excessive force" is it deemed an ordering off offence. Turning to Mr Brown then, it would seem that his case was that he was "reckless" i.e. he acted "with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" but that he did not exceed the necessary use of force and thereby endanger the safety of an opponent. I must admit that I do not understand the use of the word "necessary" in this context. So the question would be how can you disregard the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent but not at the same time endanger the safety of an opponent? Quite frankly, how a referee is supposed to judge the difference between disregarding the danger to an opponent and endangering the safety of an opponent in the heat of the moment is beyond me, and I'm glad I'm not refereeing under these Laws. For what it's worth, I would have sent off Brown for serious foul play because he launched himself at his opponent's ankle. The comparison has been made with Halliday's tackle on Roberts last week. Halliday launched himself with two feet but did not contact his opponents foot, he wiped him out as was said at the time, swept him away would be another way of putting, but Roberts was not injured and stood up straight away. So I think the referee was right to judge that "reckless" rather than "excessive force" but I'm not so sure about Beerman. I can't find a video showing that tackle now but at the time I thought it was more dangerous than Halliday and I don't think he could have had much argument if he'd been sent off. I hope I've helped by detailing the considerations that come into play in these fine judgements. It would have been very interesting to hear the legal arguments. As another aside; that's something that worries me about video referees. It will still be down to the opinion of the man who views the video. What next, video lawyers? I'm old fashioned. If, in the opinion of the referee....... was always the rule. So a referee could always say, if you don't believe that was a goal, read about it in the papers. We're in a different world now of course.

I hope I can still maintain some semblance of a deal; I'll speak to them at the weekend.

Agreed, Police failed in their duty to protect innocent members of the public; but the Rangers fans who ran on to the pitch to take up the challenge were not defending anyone.

I accept what you say about that GS; I have always been concerned that the thin line of stewards (often just young lassies) between fans at some venues e.g. Parkhead; would be unwilling or unable to stop an altercation if someone led the charge. I see no reason why strong barriers should not be erected between the sections where there might be segregation in some matches. They wouldn't cause an issue if fans of the same team happened to be on both sides of the barrier on some occasions. Failing that the Police not stewards should form the barrier. Fans should not have to become deputies in any circumstances.

I understand what you are saying because I had that situation in Stuttgart in 2003 but Rangers fans were every bit as much to blame because they were trying to shake the fence down. Fortunately the fences between fans tend to be higher and often topped with barbed wire abroad. I still don't believe that those Rangers fans on the pitch at Hampden acted in self defence.

In terms of scale there was no comparison between the Motherwell invasion and the Hibs invasion at Hampden. That apart I completely agree with BD. I was in the Mount Florida end near the bottom and we were never in any danger of attack by the Hibs fans, they were taunting us but no more than that. Unfortunately hundreds of our fans, some might say mindless idiots, ran on to take up the challenge or as has now been proven, to challenge the Hibs fans themselves. If Hibs fans attempted to enter or actually did enter part of stand where Rangers fans were seated then that is a different matter altogether.

I know you didn't mean it that way, BD, but he has actually been invited and accepted; now it's a case of saying the event has been cancelled and he'll draw his own conclusion from that. Comments noted. The dinner was costed to cover the cost of the guest's meal, drinks and expenses; so depending on the outcome with the restaurant we may be able to use any surplus to have the first drink "free". I appreciate that these things happen but if everyone who indicated that they were coming at the outset and their guests had bought tickets then we would easily have doubled the numbers. Anyway, as I said, those of us who are going will be sure to enjoy ourselves. PS: Did I mention that the Rangers Ladies Team are coming in their strips (no offence to our other lady guests).

I am at a loss to understand how the FA didn't know about this a long time ago. Taking everything he says about the comparisons into account the sentence does seem to be very harsh, though we would have to wait for the FA's stated case to see the justification. I don't see the "addiction" as a defence but it might be mitigation, somewhere in the region of 6-12 months might be the final outcome.

He stated that he did not play and was not in a position to influence any match where he bet against his team.

These people are an embarrassment to the Club. Yes the Hibs fans started it; but I was sickened to see Rangers fans running on to take up the challenge and even as in these cases, challenging Hibs fans to fight. Looking ahead to Europe in particular, we should have a campaign to try to get all travelling supporters understand that they are Ambassadors for the Club, Glasgow and Scotland, especially when we have been out of Europe for so long. And before anyone says it, I am well aware that we have been very badly treated in a number of places most notably Bucharest for the game against Unirea and in Pamplona vs Osasuna; but there a lot of folk who seem to think that when we are away from Ibrox, anything goes.