calscot

It won't be a large Scottish audience, that's for sure. There may be a lot of English people watching who don't know much about football though. That will increase quite a bit if GB get to the semis. I don't think the quality of the audience will match the quantity and I doubt it will help any overage players' careers in any way with regards to transfers. Players can do what they like but like anyone they should think about all the aspects and repercussions. That Tartan Army guy is an arsehole but that doesn't mean there isn't still a tangible threat to our national team. There is also the chance of him relapsing his injury for a meaningless competition so I see double standards when it comes to Rangers players being injured playing for Scotland. For me, I can't see why an overage play WOULD wish to participate unless his career is severely flagging. I was annoyed at Moore and would be annoyed at Naismith - the latter for multiple reasons. I completely disagree with the spokesman's attitude although he does have a point which he makes excruciatingly badly. If we want to protect our national team - the one which held the first international in the world, then we have to be careful and avoid GB teams - especially for a meaningless competition. I do agree with you here, but I do find them far more significant than our players playing in a GB team in the Olympics. If he goes and is not picked, it won't do his reputation any good from many angles. I think the backlash for the idiot Hamish guy has clouded the judgements of the real issue - protecting our national team. The bonus is our players not being at risk of injury at the most meaningless football competition in existence but that also seems to have not been addressed by many of the comments. If people can't help themselves over the Unionist stuff then they can always support England - it wouldn't be much different from a UK team with regard to the players that are picked... Just because we're Rangers fans, some are Unionist and most hate the SFA and the TA, doesn't mean we should turn our backs on our national team.

Next year's prepayments shouldn't be on the balance sheet for this year if I understand it correctly...

What opportunity? The same opportunity that Craig Moore received? There is very little honour in representing your country as an overage player in a non-event of a competition in the sport. Football shouldn't be in the Olympics period and it would be delusional for any player to think he's achieved much by playing in it - less so as an overage player. If so many in Scotland (and especially Rangers fans) can't get the slightest bit excited about our proper national team in real competitions like the World Cup or European Championship, why the sudden interest in a GB team in a non-Event? To me the recent home nations tourney is more relevant and that hardly inspired anyone. If so many are annoyed at our players playing in meaningless friendlies for Scotland, why the hypocrisy over one playing for a GB team in a meaningless competition? The even more pathetic thing is that he's probably not a real pick - smacks to me of a token Scot to give a GB rather than just English feel about the team.

Seems to me that half of most teams should be given a two game ban every game for similar offences - if a player takes a foul, a throw, a corner etc when the ref got it wrong then isn't he cheating in the same way? Two players players make counter claims all the time - one must be wrong and therefore guilty of simulation and cheating. What is the difference? Aluko thinks he deserves a penalty, the referee gives it, just what has he done wrong? I think there is enough contact to mean that there it is not beyond reasonable doubt that he deliberately fell to try and get a penalty. Besides there is photographic evidence that his arm was held by an opposing hand which is as far as I know, against the rules. Therefore whether he fell or not, technically a foul was committed inside the box and a penalty is the correct decision. One offence is clear cut - although as the tug was minimal it may considered, "soft". The other offence requires second guessing the actions and intentions of another person which in this case is not so clear cut. So which alleged offence should be punished? I agree with Craig (seperate from the difficulty in judging this case), I would be less bothered if (a) all players adjudged by the referee to have "cheated" in some way are sent off and given a two game ban so the punishment is consistent and (b) these rules are applied evenly and consistently for every team and incident. I have said before these rules were contrived that perhaps the referee should ask the player involved if there was definitely a foul and take him at his word. His word is checked later using TV footage, but if he is found to have lied or grossly exaggerated, he gets a long ban. The difference here is that Aluko would have opportunity to decide if the contact was enough not just to have caused him to fall - but crucially also enough to pass the TV test. IE he could believe he was 100% fouled but realise there is not enough evidence and so drop it. The offending player could also be asked their opinion and equally banned if the evidence does not agree with what they say. It could be used in any situation on the park. This could seriously cut down the amount of cheating. The players could answer, "yes", "no" or "I can't say for sure". A big problem I have here is that if Aluko believed he was fouled and the ref gave it - what crime has he committed. Like I said, players argue about events and incidents all the time - the Referee is there to make the final decision. If Aluko believes he was fouled then he is more innocent than any player who takes a throw where he knows the linesman got it the wrong way round - which happens all the time. Aluko may be guilty of cheating, due to the contact nobody knows for sure, but the real point is that the judicial system just doesn't make any sense.

It does seem strange that even if Aluko is guilty, he is suffering badly from a refereeing error. Had the referee got it right he wouldn't have a ban. Seems like a massive anomaly to me. However, if Aluko really didn't dive but actually lost his footing due to the mildest of contacts then you have to question what he did wrong and why he deserves a ban... Perhaps it wasn't a penalty objectively but Aluko feels he should have had one. I again appeal to those who play the game: how many times have you, without lying or cheating, wanted a free-kick or penalty or by-kick or corner or throw in and both the opposition and referee disagreed? You probably even know yourself it's not cut and dried but in the balance think you deserve the decision. Perhaps even viewing from cameras will disagree with you - doesn't mean your 100% wrong from your own point of view - however, you'd probably go with the ref's decision. I think Aluko BELIEVES that he was knocked off balance by contact and so deserves the penalty. Had he not been given it he probably wouldn't have protested too much and played on - just like the defender in the incident. However, he's accepted the penalty kick that he felt he deserved and by doing so has received four times the punishment than if he was booked at the time - IF he even deserved it then. The correct decision may easily have been to just play on. There is also a moronic belief these days that if a guy goes down and it's not a penalty then it must be a dive. That is such an illogical point of view. It's a contact sport and so a level of tussling is allowed - players can easily lose their feet involuntary but the interpretation is that it's not enough for a foul. IF you received a sending off and a two match ban at the time, then it might be a bit more fair enough but to massively increase the punishment because the ref didn't agree with the review panel is just ludicrous. BTW not only has Aluko possibly been innocently punished, he's also been branded as a cheat into the bargain... And they call this justice? The SFA are a laughing stock which is incredibly damnable considering Scotland gave the world the Enlightenment.

Are you paranoid if they are out to get you? Funny how as Celtic start to close the gap we bring in a player who has a couple of excellent performances and then suddenly he gets an incredibly dubious two match ban... Stinks to me.

Not so many at the moment as we're going for cheap options in lesser countries for established internationals. However, looking back, and with a bit of licence what happened compared to "what if" (when it comes to a few appearances that may not have happened), there are loads. Examples are the likes of Novo, Amoruso, Porrini, Ricksen, Klos, Albertz, Mols, Cuellar, Schnelders, Spackman, Rod Wallace, Hemdani, Kontermann, Huistra, Aathe, Alan Thomson Di Canio, Alan Stubbs, Stéphane Mahé etc Most of those didn't play much for their home countries had things been different as well as the rules and motivations (and if they weren't picked at all for their home countries), they may have been persuaded to play for Scotland. Can I put a disclaimer against the Celtic players - it's all I could think of and agree they don't look great, but compared to Scottish players from the rest of the SPL at the time, you can't really knock them, even if they were in crap compared the the Rangers players... (of course... but really, look at the names and decide... )

I only seen the last 20 minutes on a poor quality stream but the player that impressed me most was Aluko. I wasn't surprised he was man of the match. I don't know if Davies faded - he was really poor at the end, but he might have been like that all through the game for all I know so faded may not be correct. However, if anyone deserves criticism it is our captain - especially given his title. I also thought despite that, we were playing some decent football, albeit lacking in a cutting edge somewhat, in the last quarter of the pitch.

PS The biggest problem for me his how unevenly the rules seem to be applied these days. I've seen simulation after dive for loads of other teams and nothing happens - the ghost of a chance a Rangers player has done it and we'll be seeing a media outcry and new law with a 10 year jail sentence by next week...

Well for me, simulation, otherwise known as "cheating" should be at least a 10 game ban - when judged during the match or retrospectively. The problem is always proving it - as one man's simulation is another's destabilising contact. "Blatant" offenders should for me, be given about a year ban at least. In other industries (accountancy???) they would be sacked, lose their licence, and criminal charges pursued. I'm probably in a minority though, as many people condone it as "part of the modern game". To be honest, I HATE cheating, but realise, judging it in a high speed, contact sport like football is incredibly difficult.

I know there's a lot of glib stuff about how he "obviously" dived - but even though I haven't yet seen it and he may be guilty, a lot of people talk like they've never played a football match in their life or even run at top speed where it only takes the slightest nudge to send you off your feet. It's a bit like the old woman who complained she saw a footballer spit once which proved she'd never done a decent bit of exercise in her life... The thing that gets me is that many pundits have played the game then talk like they've never experienced anything like a completive sporting occasion. I've seen players go down in agony for the slightest contact and been slagged off for being a pussy when I KNOW how much a simple sclaff on the shin can hurt - only for a couple of minutes and then it's fine - but ironically the player then gets slagged off for recovering too quickly... I'm not even endowed with any football gift, but having played the game at the lowest levels, I can't comprehend the crap some people come out with, which sounds like the nearest thing they have come to the sport is a bit of a bitchy knitting contest. Run as fast as you can and let someone give you a tug and see how long you stay on your feet, I'll bet I could knock you over with the slightest of nudges. Is it a penalty - that's for the referee to decide at the time. The biggest trouble we have is that so called professional footballers sometimes fall down just because they "feel something" and that is condoned by the same commentators and fans who call them "clever" - except when it's a Rangers player. Some players are killing the game - some big name players who people actually look up to and respect for some strange reason - the question is: is Aluko one of them? Like I said, I haven't even seen it, but in the context of what's been happening, I reckon there's a lot of real shit going on here...

I have a bit of a Groucho Marx attitude towards this type of thing - if a player who left because he thought he was too good for us and then wants to come back it means he's not good enough for us now. IE we should refuse any player who desperately wants to rejoin our club.

When you look at the number of second rate foreigners who play for the two best clubs in Scotland, our team could easily be filled with foreigners.

In the same ball-park as Hun, I'd say. Ie they shouldn't be used if we're blanket banning all derogatory, religious/political/nationality references. We're better off using MOPES and Soap Dodgers etc.

That may be true but the counter argument is that Buffel was not versatile enough to play effectively in a team that wasn't playing in rare and specific formation. That pretty much makes him ineffective most of the time and so that was proven in his career - mostly ineffective. Lack of versatility is why species become extinct...

It's got to be said that there must a be a lot of patience in these negotiations. I think most of us would make a few fair offers and instead of being "close" - but no cigar, we'd probably just give up and move on elsewhere. You don't see the Dragon's in the Den negotiating like that...

Sorry, don't agree with this. If you accidentally knock someone over in the box when they are just about to score - I'd say that's a penalty. The deliberate part is irrelevant - what is important is that you gained an unfair advantage in a way that is outside the rules, whether deliberate or not. A clumsy late challenge may not be deliberate in the slightest with the player fully intending to get the ball - but it is still a foul. Football is a contact sport but there are rules about how contact is made - one way that is completely banned is pulling on a player with your hand, be it his body or his shirt. Sometimes you don't even need to have contact to cause a foul - if you gain an unfair advantage by doing something outside the rules or not in the spirit of the game. Sliding in with a two footed tackle and making a player with the ball to have to jump and fall to the ground to avoid injury is still a bookable offence even if there is no contact and the tackler was fully intending to go for the ball. Deliberateness and Contact are not required to gain an unfair advantage that needs to be re-addressed.

Found this article which I don't have a problem with and pretty much agrees with what I've said: Scotland will bid to rewrite the rules on international qualification which could see non-Scots and asylum seekers becoming eligible for caps. Under the proposal, a player need not have a direct blood connection with Scotland but would qualify instead if he had spent his formative years here growing up. It would mean the likes of Hearts winger Andy Driver, English by birth but resident in North Berwick from 11 years old, leaping on to the Hampden radar. Sportsmail can reveal that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland met in Holland last month and agreed on a change to the bloodline agreement that currently takes the caps issue back to grandparents. The brainchild of SFA chief executive Gordon Smith, the blueprint proposes a condition to allow any footballer who has spent five years or more in education in one of the Home Nations from below the age of 16 to become eligible for that country. Smith believes the loophole is required to reflect changes in multi-cultural society over the past two decades, while trying to protect the basic bloodline stance. But the SFA remain opposed to someone like Rangers star Nacho Novo, a resident here for eight years, from becoming eligible because he was an established professional when he moved from Spain. England will be asked to rubber-stamp the new gentlemen's agreement when a l l f o u r Home Nations gather in a Northern Ireland hotel tomorrow for the annual meeting of the International Football Association Board, with FIFA chief Sepp Blatter in attendance. 'We were in Holland last month f o r a meeting of presidents and chief executives that was called by UEFA and we held talks on the cap eligibility issue with Wales and Northern Ireland,' revealed SFA president George Peat. 'There was unanimity between those three nations to stick by the previous Gentlemen's Agreement - which means caps are awarded on the basis of a bloodline to the country involved - with a player either born there, a parent born there or a grandparent born there. 'The only exception that will be added to that will be something to cover people who have grown up in Scotland. We were thinking of the case perhaps of an asylum seeker who has been to primary school here. 'We are looking at it to apply to those who have been in Scottish education for four or five years before the school leaving age - which would be 16 - and then became British passport holders. Essentially, these people regard themselves as Scottish. 'England were at the meeting in Holland but, unfortunately, the FA's representative did not have the authority for the issue we were discussing. They took it back to the FA. 'I've no doubt it will be raised on an informal basis when all four Home Nations gather in Northern Ireland.' Novo publicly declared his interest in playing for Scotland last October, even though it emerged he had not yet applied for a British passport. That part of the saga was concluded when Smith declared Scotland would stick to the bloodline agreement. Ironically, Sportsmailunderstands that First Minister Alex Salmond is in favour of a 'foreign' player like Novo being considered for international recognition as part of Holyrood's 'inclusive Scotland' policy. But Peat is also adamant there should be no green light for 'mercenary' professionals. He added: 'We have spoken about it with Wales and the Northern Irish and we don't want someone who has come over here as a player at the age of 19 or 20 and then stays a few years. 'The only change to the bloodline eligibility would be for someone here from a very young age.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1156743/Exclusive-Smiths-blueprint-open-door-non-Scots-playing-national-team.html#ixzz1fgT6KsOa

Forgot to point out that Goram had Scottish parents which is good enough for me. Stuart McCall had a Scottish father as did Richard Gough and now Phil Bardsley. Any others?

Craig, I think you've made a very good argument for the grand parent rule... it's an excellent example.

PS You can argue whether or not the grand parent rule is valid but it's a completely different argument from the Nacho case. These guys may not be pure Scottish but they at least have a reasonable amount of Scottish DNA and therefore represent Scottish people in at least some way. I don't see how that applies to a possibly UK naturalised Spaniard who lived in Scotland for five years.

Hines is also ok: from the Scottish rugby website: "Nathan, who qualifies for Scotland through a maternal grandfather from Govan in Glasgow". Wonder if he's a Bear?

Just looked up Parks on Wikipedia: "Parks qualified to play for Scotland via his maternal grandfather who was born in Kilbirnie Ayrshire." That seems to pass muster.

I can see the point of the grand parent rule and could accept someone who was brought up as a child in their chosen country. The likes of Novo is just wrong - in any sport - especially when given the choice between playing for Scotland and his home country you know what it would be. There are some exceptions but you'd hope most of them are for people who genuinely feel they represent their country of choice. And just because it happens elsewhere, doesn't make it right. I need to look into Parks and Hines but I don't condone it if it's like Nacho. To be honest I don't agree with foreign managers either and at least we probably won't be doing that again football wise.

I don't think the referee can be blamed, there is a difference in seeing something live, in the heat of the game, at full speed, from one angle while trying to keep an eye on other possible infringements; and sitting repeatedly watching slowmo replays from various angles at something you know is going to happen, where and when. Give the guy a break...