Steven Craven - what now?

[Kaiser1962]

Reports in todays Sunday Mail suggest (that Steven Craven says) that it was Hugh Dallas who told Steven Craven to say that he had alerted Dougie MacDonald to his "mistake" at Tannadice.

If true I would suspect that Dallas cant continue in his post and I also would not be surprised if McDonald follows Craven and quits.

Anarchy reigns over a wrong decision that was actually righted. Beggars belief.

[Since90+2]

Reports in todays Sunday Mail suggest (that Steven Craven says) that it was Hugh Dallas who told Steven Craven to say that he had alerted Dougie MacDonald to his "mistake" at Tannadice.

If true I would suspect that Dallas cant continue in his post and I also would not be surprised if McDonald follows Craven and quits.

Anarchy reigns over a wrong decision that was actually righted. Beggars belief.

Regardless of whether or not the decision is right or wrong (and I actually think it was a foul on the lad by Kenneth before the keeper got the ball) if Dallas is telling officials to lie then it should be made public and he should be taken to task.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Reports in todays Sunday Mail suggest (that Steven Craven says) that it was Hugh Dallas who told Steven Craven to say that he had alerted Dougie MacDonald to his "mistake" at Tannadice.

If true I would suspect that Dallas cant continue in his post and I also would not be surprised if McDonald follows Craven and quits.

Anarchy reigns over a wrong decision that was actually righted. Beggars belief.

The system and the game is corrupt

[...WentToMowAnSPL]

Reports in todays Sunday Mail suggest (that Steven Craven says) that it was Hugh Dallas who told Steven Craven to say that he had alerted Dougie MacDonald to his "mistake" at Tannadice.

If true I would suspect that Dallas cant continue in his post and I also would not be surprised if McDonald follows Craven and quits.

Anarchy reigns over a wrong decision that was actually righted. Beggars belief.

I think the whole thing is a complete non-story, who cares exactly the sequence of decision making that resulted in the referee making the right decision? Bottom line Celtic didn't get their non-penalty and they shouldn't have . Far as I'm concerned Dougie McDonald's mum could have texted him for all I care. Neil Lennon was a bully as a player and a bully as a manager. What a lot of fuss over nothing. The referee is getting as much grief over what in during the match was ultimately the right decision and all because they didnt' explain it correctly to Neil Lennon.

Radio Scotland are making it worse by going over and over it. :grr:

Why is there never this amount of fuss when they make the wrong decision and don't try to explain anything ?

Makes me remember how much I detested Neil Lennon as a player now :agree:

[Jim44]

The system and the game is corrupt

Mad Vlad, anyone? :wink:

[Greenblood70]

The system and the game is corrupt

Bang on, when you regulalrly get ex OF players (Gough and Drinkell being the last two I can remember) openly stating that they influenced referees decisions it shows how corrupt or weak our officials are.

[s.a.m]

I think the whole thing is a complete non-story, who cares exactly the sequence of decision making that resulted in the referee making the right decision? Bottom line Celtic didn't get their non-penalty and they shouldn't have . Far as I'm concerned Dougie McDonald's mum could have texted him for all I care. Neil Lennon was a bully as a player and a bully as a manager. What a lot of fuss over nothing. The referee is getting as much grief over what in during the match was ultimately the right decision and all because they didnt' explain it correctly to Neil Lennon.

Radio Scotland are making it worse by going over and over it. :grr:

Why is there never this amount of fuss when they make the wrong decision and don't try to explain anything ?

Makes me remember how much I detested Neil Lennon as a player now :agree:

I'm with you. Obviously lying is an issue, and there may be repercussions, but the right thing happened at the time, and - such is the culture of box-ticking that pervades football and everything else - corners were cut to leave the appropriate paper trail. I realise that this probably isn't a logical response, but it does my head in when the Old Firm use their power to try and intimidate referees.

I'm still annoyed about Rangers taking the SFA all the way on a technicality over sending offs for on-field thuggery (that there was absolutely no question over), that were punished post-match.

[greenginger]

Why are we surprised that the Ref's match report was not accurate!

Anyone remember back in 1973 Hibs winning 2-0 at Parkhead with 2 mins to go and a few hundred of the unwashed stream on to the pitch as the fog was closing in.
Ref forced to stop the game to clear the pitch by which time he decides the fog is too dense to complete the match.

His match report said the game was abandoned because of fog and absolutely no mention of any pitch invasion and a replay was ordered which resulted in a 1-1 draw
:grr:

The weegie media all agreed it was the right decision :grr:

[Kaiser1962]

I remember one about the mid 70's at ER when we were winning 2-0 and the fog was like pea soup. Ally Macleod scored I think.


Why are we surprised that the Ref's match report was not accurate!

Anyone remember back in 1973 Hibs winning 2-0 at Parkhead with 2 mins to go and a few hundred of the unwashed stream on to the pitch as the fog was closing in.
Ref forced to stop the game to clear the pitch by which time he decides the fog is too dense to complete the match.

His match report said the game was abandoned because of fog and absolutely no mention of any pitch invasion and a replay was ordered which resulted in a 1-1 draw
:grr:

The weegie media all agreed it was the right decision :grr:

[greenginger]

I remember one about the mid 70's at ER when we were winning 2-0 and the fog was like pea soup. Ally Macleod scored I think.


Harper scored both, Hibs would have gone top of the League if the result had stood.

[Kaiser1962]

Well its obviously a conspiracy. What more evidence do we need?

:greengrin


Harper scored both, Hibs would have gone top of the League if the result had stood.

[PISTOL1875]

If these allegations do turn out to be true , the pressure on Dallas and McDonald will be too much and it could be curtains for them both...

[greenginger]

Well its obviously a conspiracy. What more evidence do we need?

:greengrin

Unfortunately there were no TV cameras at the game, and the ref explained the press photos of fans on the pitch by saying that they only came on after he stopped play :fibber:

[Hibs Class]

Reports in todays Sunday Mail suggest (that Steven Craven says) that it was Hugh Dallas who told Steven Craven to say that he had alerted Dougie MacDonald to his "mistake" at Tannadice.

If true I would suspect that Dallas cant continue in his post and I also would not be surprised if McDonald follows Craven and quits.

Anarchy reigns over a wrong decision that was actually righted. Beggars belief.

If true, then I agree with your view on Dallas. However I'd want a more reliable source than the Daily Record / Sunday Mail before reaching any conclusion. (There is a saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day, and that level of reliability is greater than these two s***-sheets)

[BEEJ]

Harper scored both, Hibs would have gone top of the League if the result had stood.
I thought Des Bremner got one of them. :confused:

You may be right, though.

[Winston Ingram]

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. The facts are that between the pair of them. Who cares who called who over. If the ref has fxxcked up and admits it before any damage is done surely that's good?
If it was an OF team we would have heard the last of it on the day it happened

[Hibernia Na Eir]

a pint in his lodge?

[heretoday]

The SFA saga continues. Oh cease my beating heart......:cool2:

[H18sry]

A good interview with Dougie McDonald here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/default.stm

[aberhibsfc]

Initially Celtic were getting right on my goat, always whining when things don't go there way. If this is being pursued because they had an incline that information was corrupt then good on them.

While some mistakes can be hard to take, anything other than complete honesty won't do.

These officials are at the core of our game their unbias shouldn't be questionable. If there is any doubt then someone independent of this affair should investigate, they shouldn't be allowed to investigate themselves.

If this is true, where else and how else could it be happening. I fear for the fairness of our game.

[Keith_M]

I've read loads on this but must be dumber than I thought.
I thought the linesman called macdonald over.And if he didn't and Macdonald decided to go over to ask his opinion...So what?
Between them I reckon they got it right. What's the big issue here?:confused:

:agree:

There are now two stories.

1) The Referee gave the decision then decided he'd been too hasty. He went to the linesman and both agree it wasn't a penalty.

2) The Referee gave the penalty but the linesman called him over. In light of the linesman's view of the incident, both agree it wasn't a penalty.

What part of that matches up with a conspiracy theory against Celtic?



Hello, Jack Regan, you out there? Care to answer my question?

[Since90+2]

:agree:


What part of that matches up with a conspiracy theory against Celtic?



Hello, Jack Regan, you out there? Care to answer my question?

The whole part of it that blows any conspiracy theory out the water is that if McDonald (who ultimately made the decision) was anti Celtic he would never have awarded a penalty in the first place!

[Kaiser1962]

There was a similar discussion on Keechback about how ref's were out to get them and some Yam said that , in the 1998 cup final, the ref (Willie Young) added on seven minutes of injury time to help Rangers score. In fairness another Yam pointed out that the ref also gave Hearts a penalty that was outside the box but this did not compute. That seven minutes were played at the end of the game meant there was an SFA conspiracy against Hearts.

In the Hamilton game last season they believed, they really do, that the ref had been instructed by the SFA to send of four Hearts players. The fact that two of them were sent off after the game for fighting in the tunnel didnt register (presumably the ref forgot to send them of during the game and had to get his target)

Logic and football .... eh?

[delbert]

As this is a thread about Craven, one question appears not to have been asked of him, and I just can't understand why. Since this whole thing blew up, Craven has gone on about, 'not having initiated the discussion' like a badge of honour, as if it was somehow wrong that this discussion had taken place. Don't want to bore anybody too much with the Laws, but one of the linesmans duties is for incidents that go unseen by the referee, or where a mistake has been made, PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE PENALTY AREAS, he MUST bring this to the attention of the referee. This is exactly what happened, yet at no time did Craven, who had an uninterrupted view across the park, and who quite obviously saw Pernis get hands on the ball because he admitted it, at no time did he raise his flag, or as he said, initiate any discussion, it was only because McDonald had an instant gut feeling that something was wrong, and had the guts to go over and get confirmation that the penalty kick decision was recinded.

Or to put it more simply, why did an assistant referee who knew 100% that it was'nt a penalty, simply accept it, stand by the corner flag, which is where assistants go if they agree with the award, and at no time assist the referee by getting him over immediately to correct an error, this has been completely glossed over, and is at the heart of this whole thing. Far from Craven being the victim here and being hung out to dry by McDonald, if you analyze how this thing has panned out, I have to say it rather appears to me to be pretty much the other way around, and until Mr. Craven answers this one vital question, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

[Andy74]

I've read loads on this but must be dumber than I thought.
I thought the linesman called macdonald over.And if he didn't and Macdonald decided to go over to ask his opinion...So what?
Between them I reckon they got it right. What's the big issue here?:confused:

Because they lied to make it 'look better'.

He did go over to speak to the linesman which was his own decision because he thought he had just got it wrong and the linesman agreed that the keeper got the ball.

They decided after the game though to say that that the linesman had called him over as the ref obviously thought it would look daft for him to have changed his mind all by himself or take another opinion.

Stupid, because he woukld probably have looked better with the real story!

The Dallas thing is from what I can tell, rubbish. Dallas started the call to the linseman by saying 'so tell me what happened after you called the ref over' or words to that effect. Natural as that is the story they had put in their report. When selling this to the paper he has twisted this phrase to suggest that Dallas was pressuring him to stick to this story.

[delbert]

If what you are suggesting here is that Craven may just have another agenda, can I just say well done, as you are not a million miles from the truth (and the cash from the newspaper story will come in mighty handy too, won' it ?)

[Andy74]

So... It seems Mcdonald's gone over for a second opinion. Between them they've got it right.From what I can now make out the "conspiracy" was that Macdonald said that the linesman called him over??
If that's the case I can't see how that's any more plausible than what actually happened. :confused:
That's the point though. They lied about the events and it's not any better than the truth would have been.

McDonald wanted to save face by saying the error was brought to his attention instead of him realising all by himself he was wrong then trying to get himself out of it.

[JimBHibees]

That's the point though. They lied about the events and it's not any better than the truth would have been.

McDonald wanted to save face by saying the error was brought to his attention instead of him realising all by himself he was wrong then trying to get himself out of it.

I thought it was to save the linesman's appraisal rating not McDonalds as they get a set figure if they change their decision.