calscot

Craig, I think our opinions are not far away but I'm not sure if you realised that I do think he engineered it. My point is that his movement is so small so as to not only cast doubt whether he did it at all - as it could feasibly have been for legitimate reasons, but that if he was guilty, it's such a minor crime in the scheme of a football match, not to be given a harsh punishment. It's like arguing over whether a handball incident was deliberate, how guilty you are can depend on the size of the movement of the arm. If you only move it slightly and there is a chance it could have been a normal movement then it's not as big a crime as deliberately fully extending a hand to save a goal.

A good April fool should start slightly believable and then use humour to start to make it fishy. The BBC one is pants while Frankie's was very good.

PS Sutton used to "engineer" free kicks and penalties as a consistent part of his weekly game, but was not hounded to the extent of Thomson. As this is Thomson's "first offence" perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt. If it becomes a habit, then it's time for the vilification.

The thing is Thomson's trip was genuine, he even had an injury. It wasn't as if he felt slight contact and deliberately fell over. To me it's no foul but no booking either. Samaras perhaps had a case for a foul for being kicked. If that becomes a booking then it will change the whole game. I think we should get rid of the blatant divers first, before we go into the esoteric interpretation of full contact incidents.

They started after the first four games - saying it was a conspiracy that they had a harder start. On paper from the standings from the season before, I think it was actually easier although a couple of the teams they had improved. However, after about 7 games we'd pretty much played the same teams. They also seemed to think a game against Kilmarnock - a later relegation candidate, was obviously harder as they drew - nothing to do with Celtic playing badly. The depths of their paranoia knows no bounds and even the fixtures computer is against them...

It already is as they have obviously played more away games than us so far... and are very hot under the collar about it. They seem to forget that the accepted way of thinking is that it's an advantage to play your away games first. They also think it's a conspiracy that we've played each other at Ibrox twice! Ignoring the fact that could be seen as an advantage, it was at their club's request! You couldn't make it up.

Craig, I'm not saying I'm some kind of expert that can prove he didn't cheat; what I'm saying is that what happened is open to interpretation and the movements involved are subtle enough to mean that I can't see how he can been seen as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. To me, if "trying to con a ref" is a bookable offence, then not many games would have many players on the pitch at the end. Claiming for a throw/corner/freekick etc would surely result in a booking every second time or so... Taking a free kick or throw from 10 yards on, would be a booking. Going down with a genuine leg injury and holding your head would have to be booked. Almost every tussle could result in a booking. Football is not a sport of impeccable manners and fair play, and Thomson was subtle enough not to be extreme enough to be booked, just like 21 other players on the pitch. And in fact he did get booked for being 100% genuine with the referee by trying to show him the divot where a foul must have happened. Anyway, my armchair expert jibe is aimed at people who say, "I know for a fact it was a dive", when that takes huge subjectivity and presumption. All I'm saying is that if it was a crime it was subtle enough not to be provable. In explanation for the leg movement, have you for instance, taken into account that he was swerving to his right - away from Samaras, which, if you watch any athlete, causes the body to lean to the right and the legs kick out to the left? I think part of it can be attributed to that, although it's slightly exaggerated. I still think he was expecting to be fouled, Samaras started to go towards him which would result in a foul, pulled out an instant before, and in Thomson's surprise, he moved his leg. In the end players fall down all the time for various reasons, you can't just book everyone that wasn't fouled. There is far too much made of this one incident when you compare it to something like the one's involving Miko or Messi, or even the hand ball, "goal" by Henry - now that was really conning the ref.

Thomson may have cheated but looking at the video evidence, I don't know how anyone can be so certain without being a bit glib. He admits playing for the foul which explains a lot, but he didn't simulate falling over. He may have slightly engineered the trip, but that to me, doesn't come under the definition of simulation and as such, I would be surprised at someone being booked for it. I think he put his foot out a tiny bit to be caught by any challenge and misjudged it - hence why he was also injured. Samaras actually looked to pull out a bit late but he had already slightly impeded Thomson and so contributed to the collision. I really don't thing playing for a foul and overdoing it by smacking your shin against an opponent is covered under simulation and Thomson's was definitely not blatent enough to really say you 100% know his intent was to engineer a trip. A lot of movements look weird in slow motion and people seem somehow to claim to be experts in what a body should look like, frame by frame during the complex motions of a football match. I personally think it has to be more blatant before you call someone a cheat. Like a player going down, claiming a penalty when the video shows they weren't touched. Whatever happened to benefit of the doubt?

It does not follow that if a player falls over and it is not a foul then it must be a dive, no matter how many people mistakenly believe it. You can genuinely fall over without diving and it's still not a foul.

Funny how Spiers hints that he was involved in having UEFA reopen the case and now slagging off the reporter who provided the evidence against Celtic and saying how we should forget about it and move on. He's clearly nailing his colours to the mast...

Well, they didn't get caught doing it near or in the stadium. They're bigots definitely seem a lot more canny than our bigots. They seem to know how to get away with it while ours are always asking to get caught. I've thought that for a long time. However, I'd rather we just cut it out than learn how not to get caught...

I think we're agreeing now. My point was always that Thomson's fall was technically not a dive and anyone calling him a cheat was stretching things with the video evidence. Looking back on it, I think the only way the ref could really punish Thomson, is for a foul on Samaras - for kicking his ankle. I can't see how tripping over someone is simulation, even if it's your own fault and you were hoping for a foul. IMHO It would have to far more blatant that it was engineered to be punished using the simulation rule. There is just enough of it open to interpretation for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

How could it be a penalty when the trip was outside the box? His leg moved towards Samaras no more than Samaras' leg move towards Thomson. If a slight movement makes you guilty then perhaps it should have been a free kick for us... The reason it wasn't is that the movement by Samaras wasn't big enough, same goes for Thomson. The way I see it, Thomson was hoping to be fouled and tried to run accross the player to help it happen but ended up just tripping himself. I've seen far more blatant stuff than that, and as it's still not totally clear, I've given the player the benefit of the doubt, rather than presume that he is a cheat.

The way things are going this season, you'll never, ever, in a million years be able to convince me it was the wrong move!!! You should give Paul that Celtic help line number...

Cuellar also, for me.

Not me, I would have defended the Rangers player but would have still come to the same, "no foul, no dive," conclusion. I think it's a bit much to accuse a professional football of cheating with such inconclusive evidence, which in the context of the events just doesn't add up. I've seen far worse from Sutton who used to engineer penalties, yet he not only got away with it but also won games from the resultant undeserved spot kick. At worst, Thomson's case is "Not proven".

I've read sometime in the past that some modern managers sometimes prefer the full backs to show the winger the inside. If the defence is organised then it shepherds him towards other defenders which then limits his options. It also puts him onto his "wrong" foot which is why I think it works best against very one footed wingers who like go wide to put in a good cross from the dead ball line. Not all managers think this way but there are definitely a few that do.

PS I bet if it was the other way around, the Tims would be claiming they were robbed of a penalty by the establishment - even with the incident being obviously outside the box.

Looked at it again, and Samaras definitely moved in his direction and then pulled away as he fell. Thomson, looked to contrive it a wee bit, but technically and semantically it seems obvious that he tripped rather than dived. The controversy should be about whether he engineered the trip. To me he is so close to Samaras who is moving in that there is no way anyone can draw a definitive conclusion. If he did engineer it, he didn't have to do much and it wasn't blatent. Therefore we go to intent. It's a bit much to just accuse someone of cheating when there is such inconclusive evidence. I think the most likely scenario was that he played the ball in the box and chased it as fast as he could to draw the foul. His leg then hit Samaras' shin and he went over. The fact that it was more Thomson hitting Samaras means that no foul is committed - but also no dive either. The ref got it right IMHO, and the only reason it's talked about at all is that Celtic are involved and we know what little it takes for them to get in a furore. Had it been St Mirren v Kilmarnock, it wouldn't have got a mention.

PS Reminds me of Dailly Thomson in the Olympics - and the fact our teamsheet read - Davis, Dailly, Thomson, Ferguson

Could have been whistling any tune...

Could it be that both players chose the team and fans that suit their mentality? Excellent article, SA, that's really well written.

Is it not generally accepted that in Europe it is an advanatage to play your away game first? Extrapolate that and Celtic clearly have the advantage on both counts - one engineered by themselves... Are they saying Celtic are cheating?

Can you imagine the conspiracy theories if the boot was on the other foot and it was a Rangers player who got a pentalty for that kind of incident? There is no way Celtic fans would have agreed it was a penalty. It would be the softest penalty of the season. The green tinted specs are of the most myopic kind.

Cheers, Frankie. I support the RST all the way, but feel if they're going to publish this kind of stuff they could give a bit of expanation about where they stand and where they're going on each point. They can still keep any sensitive information to themselves. However a point entitled, "Players" just doesn't say anything at all and doesn't exactly enspire people to join. I sometimes think the thing that frustrates me the most about the RST is the lack of information about what they are actually doing and where they stand on many issues. I think a bit more tranparency and promotion would help their profile enormously.