Morelos appeal successful: reduced to yellow card

[Uilleam 5,498]

12 hours ago, 26th of foot said:

Canon Tom of Finland enjoys blowing whistles and being the sole arbiter of the game.

Somewhat outre tastes for darkest Lanarkshire.

[der Berliner 3,290]

They rescinded blatant errors in refereeing. I have edited the previous post of mine to make it more clear. Brown's was a straight dark red card in anyone's book.

[craig 5,199]

3 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

They rescinded blatant errors in refereeing. I have edited the previous post of mine to make it more clear. Brown's was a straight dark red card in anyone's book.

Were the appeals successful ?  Yes.  Which means your statement isn’t true.  Balance and factuality will help strengthen your position.

[der Berliner 3,290]

2 hours ago, craig said:

Were the appeals successful ?  Yes.  Which means your statement isn’t true.  Balance and factuality will help strengthen your position.

What are you on about? Jack's red cards obviously and factually weren't red cards, some not even yellows.

 

Brown's red card was a red one all day long ... and it was overturned despite anyone including the referee, the commentators at the game and anyone else with remote knowledge of football would tell you. It was appealed because the Scum deemed him necessary for the game against us despite - methinks Rodgers even said so - it was an aweful, retributive challenge from behind right into the opponent with but one intention. That those presiding over it came to a different decision just shows what sort of incompetence or impartiality reigns at Hampden.

Edited August 7, 2018 by der Berliner

[Frankie 8,186]

18 hours ago, RANGERRAB said:

On a brighter note Craig Thomson has retired hasn’t he ? That should be worth a few points over the season for us

No he's still involved unfortunately.

[craig 5,199]

1 hour ago, der Berliner said:

What are you on about? Jack's red cards obviously and factually weren't red cards, some not even yellows.

 

Brown's red card was a red one all day long ... and it was overturned despite anyone including the referee, the commentators at the game and anyone else with remote knowledge of football would tell you. It was appealed because the Scum deemed him necessary for the game against us despite - methinks Rodgers even said so - it was an aweful, retributive challenge from behind right into the opponent with but one intention. That those presiding over it came to a different decision just shows what sort of incompetence or impartiality reigns at Hampden.

Did the club need to appeal those rescinded red cards ?  Yes.  Which, as I’ve already said, makes your statement factually inaccurate.

 

change the narrative all you like.  Read whatever you like.  But your original assertion was that only Celtic players have success with red card appeals.  The fact Jack had 3 rescinded, regardless of them being obvious non-red cards, still shows that they were rescinded on appeal..... all of which disproves your theory.

 

the rest of your post about Brown is largely irrelevant.

 

Your venom for the team you like to call “scum” clouds what you say sometimes.  It is your prerogative of course.  But it won’t prevent me from pointing out where you are inaccurate.

[der Berliner 3,290]

2 minutes ago, craig said:

Did the club need to appeal those rescinded red cards ?  Yes.  Which, as I’ve already said, makes your statement factually inaccurate.

 

change the narrative all you like.  Read whatever you like.  But your original assertion was that only Celtic players have success with red card appeals.  The fact Jack had 3 rescinded, regardless of them being obvious non-red cards, still shows that they were rescinded on appeal..... all of which disproves your theory.

 

the rest of your post about Brown is largely irrelevant.

 

Your venom for the team you like to call “scum” clouds what you say sometimes.  It is your prerogative of course.  But it won’t prevent me from pointing out where you are inaccurate.

 

You know exactly what I meant and for whatever reason chose to debate for semantic's sake and pull your "it's your prerogative" line out of the locker. And rest assured, my vision is not clouded when talking about the Scum or us.

 

[craig 5,199]

2 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

 

You know exactly what I meant and for whatever reason chose to debate for semantic's sake and pull your "it's your prerogative" line out of the locker. And rest assured, my vision is not clouded when talking about the Scum or us.

 

You can think what you like of me.  You can twist words all you like.  I’m not sure why you need to get so prickly when your inaccuracy is pointed out to you.  It’s ok to admit you are wrong every now and then.  I’ve found it liberating myself.

 

your vision most certainly is clouded, which is your prerogative

[der Berliner 3,290]

37 minutes ago, craig said:

You can think what you like of me.  You can twist words all you like.  I’m not sure why you need to get so prickly when your inaccuracy is pointed out to you.  It’s ok to admit you are wrong every now and then.  I’ve found it liberating myself.

 

your vision most certainly is clouded, which is your prerogative

Me twisting words? Me be wrong every now and then? Yeah ...

 

Obviously, it is your prerogative to read my comments as you want to read/understand/interprete them.

 

Edited August 7, 2018 by der Berliner

[craig 5,199]

31 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Me twisting words? Me be wrong every now and then? Yeah ...

 

Obviously, it is your prerogative to read my comments as you want to read/understand/interprete them.

 

I read the words you typed.  No need to interpret them.