MelvinBragg Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 It's blatantly obvious that Andy Walker doesn't like us. Randolph's collision was accidental and they both shook hands after the game. As for Hately i think he's ok nothing more but he needs to work MUCH harder at his game he's lazy. Huphrey does ma head in to be honest. I've had enough of his pish crosses and when he comes up against a decent left back he chucks it. He can leave in January as far as im concerned. <_> If, after Saturday's performance, you're complaining about Humphrey and not Hateley, then you sir, need spectacles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 hateley was knackered for the last 30 minutes, either carrying an injury or ill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Stall Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 hateley was knackered for the last 30 minutes, either carrying an injury or ill. It doesnt mean he wasn't shite and the worst player in claret & amber on Saturday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 It doesnt mean he wasn't shite and the worst player in claret & amber on Saturday i thought he was no bad for the first hour then horrendous after that. lasley and higdon were brutal for the entire game and cummins was booting the ball anywhere. it's a close run thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StipeIsGod Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 i thought he was no bad for the first hour then horrendous after that. lasley and higdon were brutal for the entire game and cummins was booting the ball anywhere. it's a close run thing. There's a shocker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Randolph offered 2 game ban. Not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 And when you consider what McCulloch got away with!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I'll be livid if the club don't fight this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammy Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Thank god Michael Fraser isn't still at the club! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I don't think the club will fight it as they will be on to plums. It will waste money also. What they should do is highlight the blatant "trial by television" that is going on whilst mentioning Lee McCullochs elbow and other gestures that players have made. Higdon got done for fuck all whilst Stokes, Mulgrew et all have made much worse inflamatory gestures since and not a peep. There is just no consistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I'll be livid if the club don't fight this. Unfortunately the TV pictures dont look great! Hardly vicious, but there is an obvious flicking out of his boot. Can only presume he has either thought the boy has come in to do him and reacted, has been trying to wind him up, or if we're being generous, instinctively swung his leg out to try and break his fall or stop an awkward landing. I'm more concerned about who sets the agenda here? Andy walker? Scotsport? Or the SFA? Lee mcculloch had a look over his shoulder to see where cummins was before elbowing him in the face, yet that didn't make the highlights. Am I putting 2+2 together by suggesting he gets an easy ride because he's pretty good with the press? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
si91 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Unfortunately the TV pictures dont look great! Hardly vicious, but there is an obvious flicking out of his boot. Can only presume he has either thought the boy has come in to do him and reacted, has been trying to wind him up, or if we're being generous, instinctively swung his leg out to try and break his fall or stop an awkward landing. I'm more concerned about who sets the agenda here? Andy walker? Scotsport? Or the SFA? Lee mcculloch had a look over his shoulder to see where cummins was before elbowing him in the face, yet that didn't make the highlights. Am I putting 2+2 together by suggesting he gets an easy ride because he's pretty good with the press? Same situation with Stevie Thompson if St Mirren, incident in front of the Cooper Stand & it wasn't shown on the highlights package, and guess what, he's another media darling!! Mentioned before, all we look for is consistency, not favours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Its trial by TV....the pictures dont look good and he did flick out his right leg to catch the Hearts player, but the referee did not deem it worthy of a booking or a Red card at the time. Now after we have W**kers like Andy Walker and his media chums bleating on about it, the other tosser that is the SFA compliance officer decides to have a look, would we be getting the same uproar if it was a player from either of the ugly sisters involved.. i think not... as the recent McCulloch incident proved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Am I correct in thinking this is the 3rd run in we've had? Higdon for "doing the higdon" and Jennings for making Jim Goodwin punch him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquid_football Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Having seen it a couple of times, the 'flicking out of the leg' which everyone seems to be focussing on seems more like self-preservation to me. He's in mid-air (it's not like he can get out of the way), he sees Paterson tanking in towards him, and his instictive reaction is to brace with his trailing leg. If Paterson had ran into him, Randolph could easily have landed head first. I'm glad Paterson wasn't badly hurt because it looked like a sore one, but if the charge against Randolph is for 'violent conduct' then surely Paterson should be cited for dangerous play. There was no way he was getting that high ball, but he still ran straight at Randolph. No different from a high boot or leading with the elbow when going upfor a header in principle really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Am I correct in thinking this is the 3rd run in we've had? Higdon for "doing the higdon" and Jennings for making Jim Goodwin punch him. Stuart McCall was also offered a ban for getting sent to the stand against Aberdeen but contested it and won. Has there ever been a ban handed out where the incident wasn't highlighted by the media? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Agree with what everyone is sayin, it did look deliberate so no point in appealing but mention the fact higgy got banned for doing "the higdon" whilst mcculloch got nothing for a clearly deliberAte elbow. That game was also on tv so why was that not looked at?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_tony Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Having seen it a couple of times, the 'flicking out of the leg' which everyone seems to be focussing on seems more like self-preservation to me. He's in mid-air (it's not like he can get out of the way), he sees Paterson tanking in towards him, and his instictive reaction is to brace with his trailing leg. If Paterson had ran into him, Randolph could easily have landed head first. I'm glad Paterson wasn't badly hurt because it looked like a sore one, but if the charge against Randolph is for 'violent conduct' then surely Paterson should be cited for dangerous play. There was no way he was getting that high ball, but he still ran straight at Randolph. No different from a high boot or leading with the elbow when going upfor a header in principle really. Whether Randolph meant to go for the lad or not, I think the only decision that could be made by a truly impartial tribunal is to dismiss the case. There is simply not enough evidence to say conclusively that Randolph did indeed try to hurt Paterson. Video evidence would have to clearly show Randolph attempting to hurt Paterson (i.e. with clear intent) for it to be "violent conduct". The referee's right there, too. So overturning his decision would be a huge example of undermining his authority and ability too. It's very hard to tell what he's doing, but Randolph does definitely move his leg, although not what I would call a kick. To be totally honest, I think he's either trying to get his leg up to shield himself, or trying to make sure Paterson catches him in order to get a free kick. I really don't think Randolph's tried to do the lad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Stall Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Goal keepers have to protect themselves in the air. If theres an arguament to be made that he was protecting himself& not going on the offensive then we should pursue. If we lose, then the club have to react about the inconsistencies of the apparant trial by tv we are getting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainier Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 As already said, the referee was a few yards away with a clear view and gave nothing. That decision should be accepted. The point of the compliance officer is to look at incidents missed by the referee. The referee saw the incident and dismissed it. We should grow a pair and appeal it and ask the ref to give evidence on our behalf because his judgement is also being called into question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numpty Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Personally I have no problem with trial by TV, and I'm even fairly ambivalent as to whether Randolph is sanctioned or not on this occasion, just because it looked kinda deliberate to me. The only thing I have an issue with is how the incidents to be reviewed are being chosen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshi-1991 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I thought it looked quite deliberate at the time, although I would like to think that none or our players would like to do anything like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfcdez Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Typical sfa bawbaggery . Ref saw incident from close quarters and gave nothing . Players shook hands at end indicating no quarrel between them , so should be a case of forget it and move on . Trial by television with Andy Wa*ker sitting as judge , putting ideas in Vince Loony's head is shocking . 'Offences' of that level not highlighted on t.v. happen weekin , week out and go unpunished . Unless its mentioned in the match report , or the ref looks over it again and feels he should have took action , any unreported incident should be left alone . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Personally I have no problem with trial by TV, and I'm even fairly ambivalent as to whether Randolph is sanctioned or not on this occasion, just because it looked kinda deliberate to me. The only thing I have an issue with is how the incidents to be reviewed are being chosen. Sums it up well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andalg Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I think the club should appeal on the grounds that the referee and his assistants saw it and deemed it ok. It wasn't off the ball or behind their backs and as we keep getting told thr referees word is final. Will the referee face a ban for not taking the appropriate action at the time. It seems a bit unfair that if officials make mistakes like they did in the Hibs game that cost us we have to just put up with it but this mistake is looked at and changed retrospectively Will they give Stevie Hammell his goal back I doubt it, but its the same thing a mistake by an official. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.