Kenny Clark's comments regarding Derek Riordan

[El Gubbz]

The reputations of McGregor, Riordan and Lafferty affects referees, admits former official Kenny Clark. from here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8938240.stm?

What is Riordan's reputation?

[Sir David Gray]

I haven't seen this anywhere else but apologies if I have missed it.

Has anyone else seen the quotes attributed to the ex-referee Kenny Clark about Derek Riordan?

"Before the game, if you had been asked to write down five or six players who might get themselves embroiled in incidents where perhaps they didn't need to do so, I'd have thought there would be every chance that Derek Riordan and Kyle Lafferty would have been right up there; Allan McGregor might not have been far behind them, and so on." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8938240.stm)

I personally think it's disgraceful that Clark is mentioning Riordan in the same breath as Lafferty when it comes to being "embroiled in incidents where perhaps they didn't need to do so". :bitchy:

Riordan, as far as I'm aware, has never deliberately feigned a headbutt to try and get a fellow professional sent off and has never put in a potentially career threatening tackle either. In fact, we are talking about someone who has only ever been sent off once in his entire career, and that came almost SEVEN YEARS AGO.

Is it just me getting a little bit over excited or is anyone else annoyed at reading that?

[blackpoolhibs]

Thats shocking, i couldn't have told you the last time Derek was suspended?

[hibsdaft]

the only trouble i can think of Deek getting up to on the pitch is occasionally winding up opposition support and the odd bit of dissent.

[Westie1875]

Thats shocking, i couldn't have told you the last time Derek was suspended?

It was in the unmentionable semi final - and only as a result of a pathetic booking for a non-tackle IIRC.

Other than this and the incident Falkirk Hibee mentions I can't recall Derek ever being banned. The laddie hardly ever gets booked never mind anything else, pathetic comments from Clark.

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

just another weegie mong trying to shy all the blame away from his beloved huns, he should be kicked out of the paper and Hibs should complain to the SFA

[blackpoolhibs]

It was in the unmentionable semi final - and only as a result of a pathetic booking for a non-tackle IIRC.

Other than this and the incident Falkirk Hibee mentions I can't recall Derek ever being banned. The laddie hardly ever gets booked never mind anything else, pathetic comments from Clark.

Ah thats why. :boo hoo: I have erased that game from my mind, no wonder i couldn't remember.:wink:

[7Hero]

dont get annoyed, get even :devil:

[Sir David Gray]

It was in the unmentionable semi final - and only as a result of a pathetic booking for a non-tackle IIRC.

Other than this and the incident Falkirk Hibee mentions I can't recall Derek ever being banned. The laddie hardly ever gets booked never mind anything else, pathetic comments from Clark.

Exactly. When it comes to being worried about certain Hibs players getting caught up in flashpoints during matches, Derek Riordan is WAY down the list.

I couldn't be any more unconcerned about someone getting involved in stuff like that than I am about Derek Riordan.

[The_Todd]

Hibs should complain to the SFA

Wouldn't get us anywhere. They'll make noises about setting up a committe or a review then let it quietly drop.

The SFA have no backbone. Never have, never will.

[PC Stamp]

Another former referee whose own opinion of himself was always the highest.

[Sas_The_Hibby]

the only trouble i can think of Deek getting up to on the pitch is occasionally winding up opposition support and the odd bit of dissent.

And cleverly headbutting goalkeepers whilst appearing not to make any contact! :greengrin

[The_Todd]

the only trouble i can think of Deek getting up to on the pitch is occasionally winding up opposition support and the odd bit of dissent.

Let's not forget that amazing fight he won against the Yam pitch invader with only one punch.... erm... no punches. It takes a real hard case to knock a guy out just by staring at them.

[Glasgow Hibee]

I'd have thought that verges on liable, for defamation of character, if Derek was inclined to litigate... but then again, I'm no lawyer.

Then again..........after two minutes surfing - a definition of "Defamation" (try saying that when your drunk !):

To be actionable, a defamatory statement must be false and able to "lower
the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society", to establish which,
generally an objective test is applied. In defamation actions, the law of Scotland will
compensate a pursuer where he has suffered injury to his feelings and damage to his
"fame, reputation and honour".

- wonderful thing the internet :greengrin

[BEEJ]

Where are these comments printed? :confused:

[Glasgow Hibee]

Where are these comments printed? :confused:

My mistake, it was an interview so it'll be slander not liable....:greengrin

[oldbutdim]

I'd have thought that verges on liable, for defamation of character, if Derek was inclined to litigate... but then again, I'm no lawyer.



Kenny Clark is though................... :cool2:

Wonder if he's a better lawyer than he was a referee.
:wink:

[Sir David Gray]

Where are these comments printed? :confused:

It's on the BBC website, I have put in a link in my first post but it's not very clear on this new format. Click on the quote that I have typed.

[since90plustwo]

was his only sending off not t park heeed?

[Glasgow Hibee]

Just clicked the link as you said and I think it actually gets worse, the full quote is:

"Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Sportsound on Monday, Clark said: "Hibs-Rangers games are very often volatile occasions.

"Before the game, if you had been asked to write down five or six players who might get themselves embroiled in incidents where perhaps they didn't need to do so, I'd have thought there would be every chance that Derek Riordan and Kyle Lafferty would have been right up there; Allan McGregor might not have been far behind them, and so on."

Asked if that meant referees would come down harder on such players, Clark added: "It's human nature. If a guy generally is not someone who is causing you a problem, he is not in your face, running about committing foul after foul, subconsciously you might give that individual the benefit of the doubt.

"With these guys, there is no prospect of them getting the benefit of the doubt, because you assume that it's just typical of them, this is the sort of thing they get up to all the time." "

If I was Deek with the good disiplinary record he has, I'd be very pissed off to be lumped in with the likes of Lafferty and MacGregor.

[Purple & Green]

Derek Riordan, 226 games for Hibs, 19 yellow cards, 1 red card (7 years ago)

In fact, he's been booked twice this year. Four bookings all last season, I could go on.

Uninformed pish, and it tells you all you need to know about Kenny Clarks opinion.

[Westie1875]

Just clicked the link as you said and I think it actually gets worse, the full quote is:

"Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Sportsound on Monday, Clark said: "Hibs-Rangers games are very often volatile occasions.

"Before the game, if you had been asked to write down five or six players who might get themselves embroiled in incidents where perhaps they didn't need to do so, I'd have thought there would be every chance that Derek Riordan and Kyle Lafferty would have been right up there; Allan McGregor might not have been far behind them, and so on."

Asked if that meant referees would come down harder on such players, Clark added: "It's human nature. If a guy generally is not someone who is causing you a problem, he is not in your face, running about committing foul after foul, subconsciously you might give that individual the benefit of the doubt.

"With these guys, there is no prospect of them getting the benefit of the doubt, because you assume that it's just typical of them, this is the sort of thing they get up to all the time." "

If I was Deek with the good disiplinary record he has, I'd be very pissed off to be lumped in with the likes of Lafferty and MacGregor.

Where do you begin when refs have attitudes like that, they're supposed to judge on what the actually see, not what has happened in previous games (even then it can be a frigment of their imagination). :bitchy:

It is in situations like this that I would like to see Yogi sticking up for our players, other refs will read this and take it as the truth and that will be his card marked - someone should set the record straight.

[The_Todd]

Where do you begin when refs have attitudes like that, they're supposed to judge on what the actually see, not what has happened in previous games. :bitchy:

It is in situations like this that I would like to see Yogi sticking up for our players, other refs will read this and take it as the truth and that will be his card marked - someone should set the record straight.

Especially with what they seem to think has happened in previous games never actually has...?

[Bishop Hibee]

Clarke's comments are a total disgrace. No real surprise though. Rangers and refs have always had a close relationship :rolleyes:

[Prof. Shaggy]

Derek Riordan, 226 games for Hibs, 19 yellow cards, 1 red card (7 years ago)

In fact, he's been booked twice this year. Four bookings all last season, I could go on.

Uninformed pish, and it tells you all you need to know about Kenny Clarks opinion.

I was hoping someone would get the facts. Thats one booking every 12 games.
He's an angel.:agree:

[Westie1875]

Especially with what they seem to think has happened in previous games never actually has...?


Good point, post amended. :wink:

[Sir David Gray]

was his only sending off not t park heeed?

Yup, we lost 6-0 that day too.

[patlowe]

Ridiculous comments from Clark. Like the Lafferty & McBride incident, people are afraid to target OF players individually so feel the need to tarnish others with the same brush. Riordan, for all his posturing and moaning, has never been anything near a troublesome player. The one red card in his career was a pretty pathetic forward's sliding tackle that barely made contact with the opposition player.

For me, the three shocking things about yesterday's game were as follows: McGregor embarrissingly feigning injury, Lafferty risking Miller's career and Weir getting away with yet another throttling of an opposition player (who does he think he is?). McBride was by no means innocent in all of this, but at at the end of the day all he did was kick a football at an opposition player (in all probability he meant it but it's a pretty subjective call and at absolute worst a booking).

Clark is talking p!sh, it's nothing to do with previous. The only 'previous' that had an influence on yesterday's decisions is the OF's 100 odd years of sectarian-fuelled dominance.

[Toaods]

A yellow for McBride at the worst for spotting behaviour. Craig Brown was living up to his name on BBC tonight by saying Lafferty + McBride had to go or the game would have got out of hand. utter conjecture from the 1946 world arze kissing champion. CLark opinion is as respected as a lump of fresh steaming jobbies on the sole of a new shoe.

[(((Fergus)))]

And cleverly headbutting goalkeepers whilst appearing not to make any contact! :greengrin

It was that wee ******* Caspar wot done it

[Aubenas]

If every active net member emailed the BBC with Deek's actual record, it would be interesting to see if they corrected the remark. Richard Gordon - being non-OF - is normally fair on such things.

[RMG_82]

This is an absolute disgrace. Derek's hardly a hard man on the pitch, his disciplinary record speaks
for itself. I honestly cant believe what i'm reading regarding this.

And what about Gordons Smiths comments...

"In the incident between McGregor and Riordan, there was no advantage gained from Rangers' point of view so the referee will be seen to now have dealt with the situation: there won't be any retrospective action taken on it. "

How is Riordan getting booked for nothing not an advantage from Ranger's point of view? Phannies
the lot of them

[1875godsgift]

This is an absolute disgrace. Derek's hardly a hard man on the pitch, his disciplinary record speaks
for itself. I honestly cant believe what i'm reading regarding this.

And what about Gordons Smiths comments...

"In the incident between McGregor and Riordan, there was no advantage gained from Rangers' point of view so the referee will be seen to now have dealt with the situation: there won't be any retrospective action taken on it. "

How is Riordan getting booked for nothing not an advantage from Ranger's point of view? Phannies
the lot of them
Exactly! Deek gets up, pats the horrible hun on the shoulder, next thing you know McSexpest is right in his face looking for square goes!
And then like the horrible wee hun person that he is he does a Laugh-at-me and feigns an assault.
I really wish they'd just off to an english league, or norwegian or Icelandic or anywhere, get tae from Scottish football cos you're not wanted here ya bunch of cheating, diving, masonic funny hand shaking embarrassments. You're just two soiled cheeks of the same unwiped arse and the sooner we're rid of you the better.



In my opinion that is.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Maybe McGregor was daydreaming and thought his burd was about to hook him and was just taking evasive action!

[Dashing Bob S]

Clark and Smith's comments are instructive, when taken into context with the general outlook of the Scottish media and the decision-making of the referees like Brines. Whenever Rangers or Celtic transgress, an opposition player or opposition supporters must also be taken out and scapegoated in order to smokescreen what is actually happening. That way issues like referee bias, cheating and sectarianism are seen to be a general malaise effecting Scottish football as a whole, rather than an overwhelmingly OF issue.

This is such a time-honoured and apparently well-rehearsed tactic, you would think they ran multidisciplinary courses on it down in Largs.

In fact, they probably do.

[bawheid]

Say what you want about Walter Smith, but one thing he's good at is defending his players in the media. In fact, all the best managers are good at it...Ferguson, Mourinho, Wenger...

Hughes wants to be getting himself in front of the camera and exposing this guff for the utter pish that it is.

226 games, 19 yellow cards.

That's all he needs to say. It's not like he can get into trouble for speaking out anyway since all Clark is now is a fat money-grabbing undeserving media pundit.

[basehibby]

Clark's inclusion of Riordan in his sweeping comments about (on-field) trouble makers is nothing short of slanderous - Deeks has NEVER been a dirty player - big mooth right enough, although more often than not towards his own teammates rather than the referee. Clarks inclusion of Deeks in his sweeping comments is indeed illuminating and explains the mentality behind some of the ludicrous decisions we witness on a weekly basis.

If you think about it, Clark's comments are effectively an admission of immense incompetence accross the board. Now we know why Davie Weir consistently gets away with violent conduct in grabbing opposition players by the throat at every opportunity - he's not been added to the SFA black book of supposed trouble makers and therefore gets "the benefit of the doubt" every week. :grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

[paxtonhibby]

Say what you want about Walter Smith, but one thing he's good at is defending his players in the media. In fact, all the best managers are good at it...Ferguson, Mourinho, Wenger...

[/U]Hughes wants to be getting himself in front of the camera and exposing this guff for the utter pish that it is.[/U]

226 games, 19 yellow cards.

That's all he needs to say. It's not like he can get into trouble for speaking out anyway since all Clark is now is a fat money-grabbing undeserving media pundit.
What dissappoints me most is Yogis comments about the incident,basically saying they are good mates and these things happen.Pandering to the Establishment,or not dragging him(and the good name of the club) down to THAT level?:dunno:

[Stevie Reid]

Clark's inclusion of Riordan in his sweeping comments about (on-field) trouble makers is nothing short of slanderous - Deeks has NEVER been a dirty player - big mooth right enough, although more often than not towards his own teammates rather than the referee. Clarks inclusion of Deeks in his sweeping comments is indeed illuminating and explains the mentality behind some of the ludicrous decisions we witness on a weekly basis.

If you think about it, Clark's comments are effectively an admission of immense incompetence accross the board. Now we know why Davie Weir consistently gets away with violent conduct in grabbing opposition players by the throat at every opportunity - he's not been added to the SFA black book of supposed trouble makers and therefore gets "the benefit of the doubt" every week. :grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

Quite. Clark is essentially saying that referees will punish Riordan not for what he does on the pitch, but because they think that he's a d!ck for what he does off it, totally unrelated to football.

One of the greatest arguments defending referee errors is that they're only human - whilst that is obviously true, an admission like this is a bit too human, especially for non OF supporters.

[Dashing Bob S]

What dissappoints me most is Yogis comments about the incident,basically saying they are good mates and these things happen.Pandering to the Establishment,or not dragging him(and the good name of the club) down to THAT level?:dunno:

I agree. He let them off the hook bigtime. I thought someone with his strength of character would stand up against this nonsense.

[Stevie Reid]

I agree. He let them off the hook bigtime. I thought someone with his strength of character would stand up against this nonsense.

Whilst it would be nice in theory, Yogi's 6 game ban last year proved that the SFA punish managers by the same criteria as Clarke set out in his statement. Whilst Yogi couldn't be punished for speaking out against the comments of a retired referee, what's to stop the SFA coming out with another ridiculously OTT punishment for his next minor indiscretion as a result?

[bawheid]

Whilst it would be nice in theory, Yogi's 6 game ban last year proved that the SFA punish managers by the same criteria as Clarke set out in his statement. Whilst Yogi couldn't be punished for speaking out against the comments of a retired referee, what's to stop the SFA coming out with another ridiculously OTT punishment for his next minor indiscretion as a result?

Doesn't matter IMO. He should be defending his player against this sort of pish, no matter the consequences.

All he needs to state are the facts. 226 games, 19 yellow cards.

[camhibby1]

Clark's comments, given Deek's disciplinary record are beyond the pale - defamation of character as far as playing football is concerned without a doubt. Potter's comments last week about Deek's were misinformed, biased and derogatory given how he is playing at the moment. Interesting that both coments come via BBC Scotland's sports department - a Glasgow based media organisation paid for by you and me. It appears to me that there is a concerted effort to besmirch a talented Hibs player and that there is an ulterior motive. This calls into question too the BBC's impartiality and its inability to see beyond Glasgow. It is shameful and we should be shouting about this ad nauseam. John Hughes should first air his concerns to Rod Petrie and our Chairman should take this up with the SFA and then both make a public nuisance of themselves by questioning the BBC's impartiality. I'm angry for Deeks and furious with two jumped up prats - Clark and Levein. As for BBC Scotland's sport's department's personnel - well now I don't want to be sued for dfamation of character.......tossers!

[patlowe]

Clark's comments, given Deek's disciplinary record are beyond the pale - defamation of character as far as playing football is concerned without a doubt. Potter's comments last week about Deek's were misinformed, biased and derogatory given how he is playing at the moment. Interesting that both coments come via BBC Scotland's sports department - a Glasgow based media organisation paid for by you and me. It appears to me that there is a concerted effort to besmirch a talented Hibs player and that there is an ulterior motive. This calls into question too the BBC's impartiality and its inability to see beyond Glasgow. It is shameful and we should be shouting about this ad nauseam. John Hughes should first air his concerns to Rod Petrie and our Chairman should take this up with the SFA and then both make a public nuisance of themselves by questioning the BBC's impartiality. I'm angry for Deeks and furious with two jumped up prats - Clark and Levein. As for BBC Scotland's sport's department's personnel - well now I don't want to be sued for dfamation of character.......tossers!

To be fair, the BBC can't help what's said by the numpties it interviews. If anything, I'd say that the BBC was the one organisation that would be willing to take hibs' side on such a matter, as opposed to the OF-loving rags. Let's get agent Nevin on the case!

[Captain Trips]

OK these are from soccer base:


Lafferty Y-27 R-2, this includes games at Burnley but he has not been playing as long as Riordan yet is well ahead.

McGregor as a kepper sent off twice and not easy to compare as they will be booked less.

A total nonsense, take Liam Miller has had far more cards than Riordan so if doing research you could mention him and they may have point. I would do something about that if it were me involved.

[banarc7062]

I'd have thought that verges on liable, for defamation of character, if Derek was inclined to litigate... but then again, I'm no lawyer.

Then again..........after two minutes surfing - a definition of "Defamation" (try saying that when your drunk !):

To be actionable, a defamatory statement must be false and able to "lower
the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society", to establish which,
generally an objective test is applied. In defamation actions, the law of Scotland will
compensate a pursuer where he has suffered injury to his feelings and damage to his
"fame, reputation and honour".

- wonderful thing the internet :greengrin

Go get him Deeks GGTTH

[Sir David Gray]

Quite. Clark is essentially saying that referees will punish Riordan not for what he does on the pitch, but because they think that he's a d!ck for what he does off it, totally unrelated to football.

One of the greatest arguments defending referee errors is that they're only human - whilst that is obviously true, an admission like this is a bit too human, especially for non OF supporters.

It's totally wrong but it happens all the time. I remember watching a match between Chelsea and Everton a couple of years ago where John Terry was sent off in the first half. During the half time analysis, Graham Poll mentioned that the referee had to really take his time when dealing with that incident because he had to take into consideration that he wasn't just dealing with anyone - he was dealing with the England captain.

I found that remark to be quite astonishing coming from a referee because they should be treating every single player and every single incident that occurs on its own merit.

If they are going to be taking Riordan's off-field conduct into account when targeting him, I don't know how Clark can say that McGregor is behind Riordan in terms of being a marked man by referees, when you consider the amount of times that he has been on the front pages of the tabloids throughout his career.

[patlowe]

It's totally wrong but it happens all the time. I remember watching a match between Chelsea and Everton a couple of years ago where John Terry was sent off in the first half. During the half time analysis, Graham Poll mentioned that the referee had to really take his time when dealing with that incident because he had to take into consideration that he wasn't just dealing with anyone - he was dealing with the England captain.

I found that remark to be quite astonishing coming from a referee because they should be treating every single player and every single incident that occurs on its own merit.

If they are going to be taking Riordan's off-field conduct into account when targeting him, I don't know how Clark can say that McGregor is behind Riordan in terms of being a marked man by referees, when you consider the amount of times that he has been on the front pages of the tabloids throughout his career.

Another "captain" that gets away with absolute murder. How on earth did he not get sent off at the weekend there?

[Geo_1875]

To be fair, the BBC can't help what's said by the numpties it interviews. If anything, I'd say that the BBC was the one organisation that would be willing to take hibs' side on such a matter, as opposed to the OF-loving rags. Let's get agent Nevin on the case!

Yeah right, Thick Dung's going to give Uncle Walter a grilling at the next IPox press call.

[Stevie Reid]

Doesn't matter IMO. He should be defending his player against this sort of pish, no matter the consequences.

All he needs to state are the facts. 226 games, 19 yellow cards.

But the TV pictures and the facts speak for themselves - nothing is going to change from Yogi speaking out. Well nothing positive for Hibs, certainly.

[givescotlandfreedom]

Clark typifies the Scottish football establishment. Lying, corrupt cheats.

[Liberal Hibby]

Quite. Clark is essentially saying that referees will punish Riordan not for what he does on the pitch, but because they think that he's a d!ck for what he does off it, totally unrelated to football.

One of the greatest arguments defending referee errors is that they're only human - whilst that is obviously true, an admission like this is a bit too human, especially for non OF supporters.

I agree - and am surprised by Riordan's disciplinary record - I thought it would be much worse. Riordan's problem (now hopefully behind him) have been off the pitch and his reputation precedes him. It's surely one of the reason he doesn't get picked for Scotland and I suspect why Strachan didn't give him the games he needed in the first team at Parkhead.

It's clear you can't separate out what you do off the park from what you do on it. That's all I read into these comments. It's the same for the rest of us - if you make such a dick of yourself out of work - your boss will know about it and it will harm your career prospects.

[givescotlandfreedom]

John Hughes should first air his concerns to Rod Petrie and our Chairman should take this up with the SFA and then both make a public nuisance of themselves by questioning the BBC's impartiality.![/B]

Yogi never seems to criticise others and as a result defend his own players,

[blackpoolhibs]

I agree - and am surprised by Riordan's disciplinary record - I thought it would be much worse. Riordan's problem (now hopefully behind him) have been off the pitch and his reputation precedes him. It's surely one of the reason he doesn't get picked for Scotland and I suspect why Strachan didn't give him the games he needed in the first team at Parkhead.

It's clear you can't separate out what you do off the park from what you do on it. That's all I read into these comments. It's the same for the rest of us - if you make such a dick of yourself out of work - your boss will know about it and it will harm your career prospects.

You mean like its affected the rangers keeper? You know the one never off the front pages, the one banned for life by the SFA? You could be a cross between Harold Shipman and Ian Brady, but if you happened to play for one half of the old firm, you'd be given special dispensation, and the manager would give out many reasons why you were just a little misunderstood.

[silverhibee]

Clark's inclusion of Riordan in his sweeping comments about (on-field) trouble makers is nothing short of slanderous - Deeks has NEVER been a dirty player - big mooth right enough, although more often than not towards his own teammates rather than the referee. Clarks inclusion of Deeks in his sweeping comments is indeed illuminating and explains the mentality behind some of the ludicrous decisions we witness on a weekly basis.

If you think about it, Clark's comments are effectively an admission of immense incompetence accross the board. Now we know why Davie Weir consistently gets away with violent conduct in grabbing opposition players by the throat at every opportunity - he's not been added to the SFA black book of supposed trouble makers and therefore gets "the benefit of the doubt" every week. :grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

:top marks :agree:

[--------]

Just clicked the link as you said and I think it actually gets worse, the full quote is:

"Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Sportsound on Monday, Clark said: "Hibs-Rangers games are very often volatile occasions.

"Before the game, if you had been asked to write down five or six players who might get themselves embroiled in incidents where perhaps they didn't need to do so, I'd have thought there would be every chance that Derek Riordan and Kyle Lafferty would have been right up there; Allan McGregor might not have been far behind them, and so on."

Asked if that meant referees would come down harder on such players, Clark added: "It's human nature. If a guy generally is not someone who is causing you a problem, he is not in your face, running about committing foul after foul, subconsciously you might give that individual the benefit of the doubt.

"With these guys, there is no prospect of them getting the benefit of the doubt, because you assume that it's just typical of them, this is the sort of thing they get up to all the time." "

If I was Deek with the good disiplinary record he has, I'd be very pissed off to be lumped in with the likes of Lafferty and MacGregor.


Those comments are appalling. He's basically admitting that a referee will pre-judge players and issues without regard to what's actually happening in the game he's supposed to be refereeing impartially. Deek's 'misbehaviour' - such as it has been - has always been off the park, not on it. Three or four yellow cards a season, and seven years since his only red, simply doesn't represent a player 'causing problems, constantly in your face, running about committing foul after foul'.

Disgraceful.

[Captain Trips]

I in a way can understand a pre judging of a player, if I was to ref a Rangers game next week I would have in my mind 2 players have pretended to be injured and anything else I know, I think it is impossible to not have things in mind, however incidents should be looked at on merit.

What I find strange is what pre judgements of on park trouble shuld there be for Riordan? I would like Clark to explain why Riordan is mentioned in his piece to be in same sentence as a clear cheat in Lafferty and with McGregor.

[blackpoolhibs]

I in a way can understand a pre judging of a player, if I was to ref a Rangers game next week I would have in my mind 2 players have pretended to be injured and anything else I know, I think it is impossible to not have things in mind, however incidents should be looked at on merit.

What I find strange is what pre judgements of on park trouble shuld there be for Riordan? I would like Clark to explain why Riordan is mentioned in his piece to be in same sentence as a clear cheat in Lafferty and with McGregor.

Its to do with balancing things up, he cant be seen to be having a pop at just huns so has to balance what he's saying by throwing in a few opposition players. Very much like the bookings and sending offs at the weekend. Corrupt to the core all of them.

[Captain Trips]

Its to do with balancing things up, he cant be seen to be having a pop at just huns so has to balance what he's saying by throwing in a few opposition players. Very much like the bookings and sending offs at the weekend. Corrupt to the core all of them.

There are Hibs players that would fit bill better, in a result of balance he would still not be able to explain why he named Riordan.

[blackpoolhibs]

There are Hibs players that would fit bill better, in a result of balance he would still not be able to explain why he named Riordan.

I dont think we have many players who are trouble makers on the pitch, it smack to me of him being lazy and not thinking it through. I still think it was a balancing act, he cant be seen to be against the huns, its just not done.

[Captain Trips]

I dont think we have many players who are trouble makers on the pitch, it smack to me of him being lazy and not thinking it through. I still think it was a balancing act, he cant be seen to be against the huns, its just not done.

I accept ts a balancing act, if we discuss Lafferty then he will be able to come up with a few things, I would like to hear what he has to say to clarify the naming of Riordan, of course he wont say its about balance he would have to state reasons, I am keen like most on here to see what the reasons are for him to be used to balance out his guff.

[--------]

I in a way can understand a pre judging of a player, if I was to ref a Rangers game next week I would have in my mind 2 players have pretended to be injured and anything else I know, I think it is impossible to not have things in mind, however incidents should be looked at on merit.

What I find strange is what pre judgements of on park trouble shuld there be for Riordan? I would like Clark to explain why Riordan is mentioned in his piece to be in same sentence as a clear cheat in Lafferty and with McGregor.

Oh indeed. So would I. But I'd wait till they'd actually done something before I sent them off. Wouldn't be hard to find an excuse - sorry, a very good reason for disciplining them.

As you say, incidents should be judged on merit (or in this case, demerit).

But as you say - Lafferty and McGregor have both been involved in behaviour that brought the game into serious disrepute. Deek's done nothing in any way similar that I can remember. I don't think I'm just being partial to a Hibs player, either.

[blackpoolhibs]

I accept ts a balancing act, if we discuss Lafferty then he will be able to come up with a few things, I would like to hear what he has to say to clarify the naming of Riordan, of course he wont say its about balance he would have to state reasons, I am keen like most on here to see what the reasons are for him to be used to balance out his guff.

Oh yes that would be interesting, although i think it would make him sound more of a prick trying to justify his words. Me thinks we wont hear another word on the subject.

[brog]

I think Derek should be commended by the club, by the fans & hopefully by the media for the dignified way in which he reacted to abuse, assault & acting by that apology of a human being, McGregor. IMO, Derek's quiet, bemused reaction showed just how much he has matured as a player & as a person.
Now we need to make him a decent offer, keep him at ER for life & reap the benefits of our long investment in this outstanding talent.

[--------]

I think Derek should be commended by the club, by the fans & hopefully by the media for the dignified way in which he reacted to abuse, assault & acting by that apology of a human being, McGregor. IMO, Derek's quiet, bemused reaction showed just how much he has matured as a player & as a person.
Now we need to make him a decent offer, keep him at ER for life & reap the benefits of our long investment in this outstanding talent.


Indeed. :agree:

[johnrebus]

I think Derek should be commended by the club, by the fans & hopefully by the media for the dignified way in which he reacted to abuse, assault & acting by that apology of a human being, McGregor. IMO, Derek's quiet, bemused reaction showed just how much he has matured as a player & as a person.
Now we need to make him a decent offer, keep him at ER for life & reap the benefits of our long investment in this outstanding talent.

I hope we do make this offer and he stays at Easter Road for the rest of his career.

But.......,

If I was Derek Riordan, I would be off like a shot before the transfer window closes and get a club anywhere but in Scotland. He must be totally sickened by what has gone on recently.


Fined by the club he loves for speaking the truth.

Left out and slagged off by a Hibee hating, half wit of a Scotland manager who obviously doesn't even watch him play

Getting unfair treatment - not only from current referees - but ****ing retired ones as well!!! ( Who don't even do their homework before speaking out)


:boo hoo::grr::boo hoo::grr:

:fuming:

[JimBHibees]

I dont think we have many players who are trouble makers on the pitch, it smack to me of him being lazy and not thinking it through. I still think it was a balancing act, he cant be seen to be against the huns, its just not done.

Nail on the head he wouldnt get the article space if he did. How many ex Rangers News journos work in the tabloid press is it not 12 or so.

I notice all the papers were concentrating on Laffable today rather than the real culprit of sunday, McGregor kind of says it all. Brushed under the carpet already.

[rubber mal]

And where would McBride be on this list of players who shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt?

[snooky]

Will Walter Smith disipline Cheaty Cheaty Heid Bang this weekend by dropping him? :hmmm:

Methinks he will be Walt Disney .... disnae discipline players, disnae give a toss about Rangers image, disney care what other folk think, disney matter as long as the Huns win. :ostrich: