Stokes

[Mikey09]

Expecting him to be cited for grabbing Jack by the throat. If so, fair enough. Think he was lucky there. However. If that is the case will Dorrans be cited for doing exactly the same thing to Slivka for the tackle that led to the whole incident?

[Future17]

Think the chat is he can't be as it was dealt with by the ref at the time.

[Fergos]

Expecting him to be cited for grabbing Jack by the throat. If so, fair enough. Think he was lucky there. However. If that is the case will Dorrans be cited for doing exactly the same thing to Slivka for the tackle that led to the whole incident?

Good point Mikey09, I would certainly hope so.......but wouldn't hold my breath.......

GGTTH

[madabouthibs]

I don't think Stokes will be cited, if he is, then there's gonna be a lengthy queue on the naughty step at Hampden from just one game. :greengrin

[madabouthibs]

Think the chat is he can't be as it was dealt with by the ref at the time.

Yes he was booked for flooring Tavernier, but that was a separate incident.

[lapsedhibee]

Think the chat is he can't be as it was dealt with by the ref at the time.
That bit wasn't.

[Billy Whizz]

When is Jack's hearing
Think also Hearts are appealing Concalves sending off

[CallumLaidlaw]

From what I can work out, Stokes was booked for the incident with Tavernier, but wasn't punished for the incident with Jack. I think he'll get pulled up for that.

Dorrans was booked in that incident wasn't he? In which case I cant see any further action taken against him.

And then there's Jack, Rangers have appealed but I honestly can't see how they'll win it. They probably will tho :rolleyes:

[Mikey09]

From what I can work out, Stokes was booked for the incident with Tavernier, but wasn't punished for the incident with Jack. I think he'll get pulled up for that.

Dorrans was booked in that incident wasn't he? In which case I cant see any further action taken against him.

And then there's Jack, Rangers have appealed but I honestly can't see how they'll win it. They probably will tho :rolleyes:


Not sure if Dorrans was booked for that Callum.

[Billy Whizz]

From what I can work out, Stokes was booked for the incident with Tavernier, but wasn't punished for the incident with Jack. I think he'll get pulled up for that.

Dorrans was booked in that incident wasn't he? In which case I cant see any further action taken against him.

And then there's Jack, Rangers have appealed but I honestly can't see how they'll win it. They probably will tho :rolleyes:
I know you can give a retrospective red, but can you give a retro yellow?
Jack committed 2 fouls in the same incident, hands round McGeough and then head butt on Stokes

If you look again at the 1st incident with Stokes early doors where he was booked, Cardosa practically stamps on him, then grabs him round the neck, and didn't get booked for the incident.
If they cite Stokes, Cardosa should get the same

[makaveli1875]

jacks red card will stand and stokes will get banned for grabbing him

[Billy Whizz]

Not sure if Dorrans was booked for that Callum.

He was along with Dylan

[Heisenberg]

So, did Dorrans get booked for his part in the Ryan Jack incident? If he did then fair enough. But then surely that means that Stokes can only get a retrospective yellow for doing exactly the same thing? They wouldn't be able to justify a longer ban than one game for him if Dorrans only got off with a yellow.

[CallumLaidlaw]

So, did Dorrans get booked for his part in the Ryan Jack incident? If he did then fair enough. But then surely that means that Stokes can only get a retrospective yellow for doing exactly the same thing? They wouldn't be able to justify a longer ban than one game for him if Dorrans only got off with a yellow.

Doesn't tend to work like that unfortunately. If you are caught diving in a game, you get a booking. If you get cited retrospectively for diving you get a match ban.

[Smartie]

I have no idea where you start and where you finish punishing folk for these skirmishes.

By the letter of the law, should you not get into big trouble as soon as you raise your hands? If so, it should have ended up about 3 a side.

That was a difficult game to referee. The referee called it as he saw it at the time, but with the benefit of multiple replays from multiple angles you can see he got some decisions wrong.

Stokes will be very lucky to avoid punishment though imo.

[brog]

I have no idea where you start and where you finish punishing folk for these skirmishes.

By the letter of the law, should you not get into big trouble as soon as you raise your hands? If so, it should have ended up about 3 a side.

That was a difficult game to referee. The referee called it as he saw it at the time, but with the benefit of multiple replays from multiple angles you can see he got some decisions wrong.

Stokes will be very lucky to avoid punishment though imo.

I posted earlier this is one of those sayings that lazy pundits ( no criticism of you intended ) regularly trot out & has become a "fact". There is no basis for this at all & there is no definition for what constitutes "violent conduct". Re Stokes I don't believe there's any mechanism to award a retrospective yellow. He either gets a red or nothing. If he gets a red then so does Dorrans, Jack gets 2 & even the other guy who squared up to Stokes in the initial incident could be in trouble. Maybe the police team still searching for criminals who ran on a pitch could be diverted to the important task of analysing every gesture by NL & every tackle by a Hibs player!

[Smartie]

I posted earlier this is one of those sayings that lazy pundits ( no criticism of you intended ) regularly trot out & has become a "fact". There is no basis for this at all & there is no definition for what constitutes "violent conduct". Re Stokes I don't believe there's any mechanism to award a retrospective yellow. He either gets a red or nothing. If he gets a red then so does Dorrans, Jack gets 2 & even the other guy who squared up to Stokes in the initial incident could be in trouble. Maybe the police team still searching for criminals who ran on a pitch could be diverted to the important task of analysing every gesture by NL & every tackle by a Hibs player!

Thanks for correcting me.

I genuinely didn't know.

So - the raising of hands and "handbags" (which happens from time to time) is ok - it must be deemed violent conduct for a red card to be shown?

[Onion]

Think the chat is he can't be as it was dealt with by the ref at the time.

Exactly, the ref was within 3 feet of the incident, looking right at it. Dealt with it. Nothing will happen - simply after-shock noise from the Huns.

Very different if it was off the ball and out of sight.

[Iggy Pope]

I posted earlier this is one of those sayings that lazy pundits ( no criticism of you intended ) regularly trot out & has become a "fact". There is no basis for this at all & there is no definition for what constitutes "violent conduct". Re Stokes I don't believe there's any mechanism to award a retrospective yellow. He either gets a red or nothing. If he gets a red then so does Dorrans, Jack gets 2 & even the other guy who squared up to Stokes in the initial incident could be in trouble. Maybe the police team still searching for criminals who ran on a pitch could be diverted to the important task of analysing every gesture by NL & every tackle by a Hibs player!

Spot on. Someone in a frenzy comes at you, the least you are going to do is lift your arms (your hands being on the end of each) to fend him off. A long time since I seen any footballer worth his salt play the game with his arms fixed to his sides (although.....there was one notable exception that a lot of Leithers may recall from a particularly good amateur and his prosthetic arm back in the mists....and he would have had Dorrans head off).

[brog]

Thanks for correcting me.

I genuinely didn't know.

So - the raising of hands and "handbags" (which happens from time to time) is ok - it must be deemed violent conduct for a red card to be shown?

There are 7 offences for which you could receive a red card, including a 2nd yellow, spitting & denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. Violent conduct & serious foul play are the only 2 which could possibly apply in this instance & serious foul play, as it says, tends to be for really bad tackles. I'm not saying raising hands is acceptable but like me I'm sure you've seen many English games where a mass brawl has broken out & the ref has given yellows only ( unless someone's really been banjoed :wink: ) to the original protagonists. As you said originally we could end up with games being abandoned if refs didn't apply some common sense.

[superfurryhibby]

Spot on. Someone in a frenzy comes at you, the least you are going to do is lift your arms (your hands being on the end of each) to fend him off. A long time since I seen any footballer worth his salt play the game with his arms fixed to his sides (although.....there was one notable exception that a lot of Leithers may recall from a particularly good amateur and his prosthetic arm back in the mists....and he would have had Dorrans head off).

Now that jogs the memory a bit. I remember the guy and think i played against him, late 80's maybe. Very good player indeed.


As for the Stokes thing. You're right, it's human nature to want to protect oneself against someone coming at you like raging bull. No further punishment for Stokes. All seem by the ref during the course of the game.

[lord bunberry]

If they were going to be pulled up for it then it would've happened by now surely.

[CallumLaidlaw]

If they were going to be pulled up for it then it would've happened by now surely.

They are dealing with the fast track appeals first. Jack, Goncalves and 2 of the Motherwell players have all appealed.

[Robinho08]

They are dealing with the fast track appeals first. Jack, Goncalves and 2 of the Motherwell players have all appealed.

Motherwell wasting their time with the keeper. He was outside his box. Should never have been a penalty though, so that appeal should be upheld.

[JDT]

After the initial tussle between Stokes and Taviener you can see Ryan Jack getting involved and grabbing Stokes by the throat on the BBC highlights. Its exactly on the 56 second mark. Jack got involved first and thats why Stokes and him came together the second time. Nobody has commented on the from The Rangers side have they......imbeciles!

[tamsonsbairn]

Spot on. Someone in a frenzy comes at you, the least you are going to do is lift your arms (your hands being on the end of each) to fend him off. A long time since I seen any footballer worth his salt play the game with his arms fixed to his sides (although.....there was one notable exception that a lot of Leithers may recall from a particularly good amateur and his prosthetic arm back in the mists....and he would have had Dorrans head off).

Is the guy you are talking about, first name Franny, i can't for the love of me remember his second name. was at school with the guy and when playing against him if you got the stump of his arm in your back you would know all about it, Ahh, franny martin seems to ring a bell. :agree:

[Ozyhibby]

Doesn't he have to be cited by Tuesday if it's going to happen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Borderhibbie76]

They are dealing with the fast track appeals first. Jack, Goncalves and 2 of the Motherwell players have all appealed.It said in EEN earlier that if Stokesy was cited it had to be lodged by 3pm this afternoon..so I guess he is clear now hopefully??

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Doesn't he have to be cited by Tuesday if it's going to happen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




It said in EEN earlier that if Stokesy was cited it had to be lodged by 3pm this afternoon..so I guess he is clear now hopefully??

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

That's for fast-track cases, whatever they are. They have until Thursday, AFAIK.

[ancient hibee]

The referee will say that he did deal with it at the time and sent the other guy off.

[The Falcon]

From what I can work out, Stokes was booked for the incident with Tavernier, but wasn't punished for the incident with Jack. I think he'll get pulled up for that.

Dorrans was booked in that incident wasn't he? In which case I cant see any further action taken against him.

And then there's Jack, Rangers have appealed but I honestly can't see how they'll win it. They probably will tho :rolleyes:

A lot of talk on twitter suggesting that the Sevco tactic is to make the next ref think twice before sending a Sevco player off. Refs are only human and i would agree that this whole sorry mess could be to intimidate them.

Equally Lennon was an easy scapegoat which deflected criticism away from the poor performance of Pedro's People. Reporting another manager to the cops during a game for celebrating? What an absolute pussy.

Sending off should stand as it was (I didn't think so at the time) the correct decision. Chaos reigns if it's overturned. A win win for the huns either way. If its rescinded then it vindicates them, if it's not it's proof absolute that they are being cheated.

[Firestarter]

Stokes won't be cited. Lennon faces a charge though.

[Firestarter]

A lot of talk on twitter suggesting that the Sevco tactic is to make the next ref think twice before sending a Sevco player off. Refs are only human and i would agree that this whole sorry mess could be to intimidate them.

Equally Lennon was an easy scapegoat which deflected criticism away from the poor performance of Pedro's People. Reoprting another manager to the cops during a game for celebrating? What an absolute pussy.

Of course it is, it's the first time against a club apart from Celtic they haven't had the rub of the green at Ibrox i can remember in my life. The glory seeking entitled bigots really really can't take it. They grew up on them on top, the media pandering and them getting every decision and they really can't take or understand how ***** they are now.

[SanFranHibs]

A lot of talk on twitter suggesting that the Sevco tactic is to make the next ref think twice before sending a Sevco player off. Refs are only human and i would agree that this whole sorry mess could be to intimidate them.

Equally Lennon was an easy scapegoat which deflected criticism away from the poor performance of Pedro's People. Reoprting another manager to the cops during a game for celebrating? What an absolute pussy.

When I watched the first half replay on Rangers TV thought their commentators sidekick was somewhat careless revealing he thought it was good that the referee never took action against McGeough because it meant late in the game one of their players could hammer a Hibs player and would get away with it.

The beautiful game indeed :)

[SanFranHibs]

Of course it is, it's the first time against a club apart from Celtic they haven't had the rub of the green at Ibrox i can remember in my life. The glory seeking entitled bigots really really can't take it. They grew up on them on top, the media pandering and them getting every decision and they really can't take or understand how ***** they are now.

That's all they're asking !!

I am going to stop calling them The Rangers and from now on call them Rangers 2012. That will piss them off big time. Of course they might start calling us Hibs 1892 but that's ok. A lot older than 2012

[HoboHarry]

That's all they're asking !!

I am going to stop calling them The Rangers and from now on call them Sevco 2012. That will piss them off big time. Of course they might start calling us Hibs 1892 but that's ok. A lot older than 2012
Fixed that for you......

[Firestarter]

That's all they're asking !!

I am going to stop calling them The Rangers and from now on call them Rangers 2012. That will piss them off big time. Of course they might start calling us Hibs 1892 but that's ok. A lot older than 2012

Haha. You can imagine not even a blink of an eye all year every year they get decisions. I always thought bad winners were the worst but a bad hun loser is the worst in mankind.

[emerald green]

Stokes might face a ban if SFA compliance officer Tony McGlennan decides on disciplinary action against Stokes for his role in Saturday's events.

McGlennan is due to lodge charges by 3pm today (Tuesday).

Same will apply to Neil Lennon.

[xyz23jc]

Stokes might face a ban if SFA compliance officer Tony McGlennan decides on disciplinary action against Stokes for his role in Saturday's events.

McGlennan is due to lodge charges by 3pm today (Tuesday).

Same will apply to Neil Lennon.

Did you just say 'lodge' charges? :greengrin:agree::duck:

[emerald green]

Did you just say 'lodge' charges? :greengrin:agree::duck:

Oh s***! 6 game ban then. :greengrin

[JimBHibees]

Surely if there was to be a retrospective ban it would have happened before now given that we play on Saturday and wouldn't give us much time to prepare if he is banned.

[BegbieHSC]

Surely it's too late for anything to be raised now? If it was, it would seriously impact on our ability to appeal ahead of this weekend, thus undermining the fairness and transparency of the process...

[Ozyhibby]

A lot of talk on twitter suggesting that the Sevco tactic is to make the next ref think twice before sending a Sevco player off. Refs are only human and i would agree that this whole sorry mess could be to intimidate them.

Equally Lennon was an easy scapegoat which deflected criticism away from the poor performance of Pedro's People. Reporting another manager to the cops during a game for celebrating? What an absolute pussy.

Sending off should stand as it was (I didn't think so at the time) the correct decision. Chaos reigns if it's overturned. A win win for the huns either way. If its rescinded then it vindicates them, if it's not it's proof absolute that they are being cheated.

Your crediting them with more intelligence than they actually have. This just how they react. It's instinctive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[O'Rourke3]

Spot on. Someone in a frenzy comes at you, the least you are going to do is lift your arms (your hands being on the end of each) to fend him off. A long time since I seen any footballer worth his salt play the game with his arms fixed to his sides (although.....there was one notable exception that a lot of Leithers may recall from a particularly good amateur and his prosthetic arm back in the mists....and he would have had Dorrans head off).


Now that jogs the memory a bit. I remember the guy and think i played against him, late 80's maybe. Very good player indeed.


As for the Stokes thing. You're right, it's human nature to want to protect oneself against someone coming at you like raging bull. No further punishment for Stokes. All seem by the ref during the course of the game.


Is the guy you are talking about, first name Franny, i can't for the love of me remember his second name. was at school with the guy and when playing against him if you got the stump of his arm in your back you would know all about it, Ahh, franny martin seems to ring a bell. :agree:
We are all of a similar age so must be the same guy. Played against him a couple of times in the BBs and then again in boys football till about 77. I'm sure he played for Royston BC but wasn't around when I played there a couple of years.

[Hibee87]

Stokes might face a ban if SFA compliance officer Tony McGlennan decides on disciplinary action against Stokes for his role in Saturday's events.

McGlennan is due to lodge charges by 3pm today (Tuesday).

Same will apply to Neil Lennon.With a name like that we will be fine :wink:

[Diclonius]

The 3pm deadline has passed, does that mean we're fine?

No press conference to announce the charges?

[Hibee87]

Has Ryan Jacks red been overturned? Otherwise this makes no sense:

Top flight referees John Beaton and Craig Thomson will drop into the Championship this weekend after receiving flak for dishing out red cards at Ibrox and McDiarmid Park, respectively. (Sun) (https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/1423624/john-beaton-craig-thomson-ryan-jack-rangers-motherwell/)

[Danderhall Hibs]

Radio last night (BBC) never mentioned anything about retrospective charges against stokes.

Also said the appeals are heard on Thursday and that they don't expect Jack's appeal to be upheld.

[Sean1875]

Has Ryan Jacks red been overturned? Otherwise this makes no sense:

Top flight referees John Beaton and Craig Thomson will drop into the Championship this weekend after receiving flak for dishing out red cards at Ibrox and McDiarmid Park, respectively. (Sun) (https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/1423624/john-beaton-craig-thomson-ryan-jack-rangers-motherwell/)

In fairness it could potentially be to take them out the limelight a little bit following the amount of eyes that would be watching them after all the media coverage of their red cards last weekend?

[Smartie]

In fairness it could potentially be to take them out the limelight a little bit following the amount of eyes that would be watching them after all the media coverage of their red cards last weekend?

Which would be a good idea.

I seem to remember Alan Muir having an absolute howler last season, and following it up with an even worse performance the following week when all eyes were on him.

[JimBHibees]

The 3pm deadline has passed, does that mean we're fine?

No press conference to announce the charges?

That appeared to indicate Tuesday 3pm?

[JimBHibees]

Which would be a good idea.

I seem to remember Alan Muir having an absolute howler last season, and following it up with an even worse performance the following week when all eyes were on him.

Not sure with that ref it really mattered how many were watching him. :greengrin

[--------]

That appeared to indicate Tuesday 3pm?


Yup. It would appear that we're all OK.

Which must be very irritating to the Morlocks ...

They did it to themselves -



bating Neil Lennon non-stop or the first 20 minutes of the game
singing their filthy songs before KO,
going after Beaton demanding not only that he be disciplined but that he apologise publicly to The Rangers for his misdemeanours ("Please, O mighty mob of King Willie the Orange's finest, forgive me and cast me not out from the circle of your approbation ...")
starting a hate against Stokes (sorry, RESUMING their hate against Stokes)
reporting Neil to the polis who must surely now be getting tired of being used as SEVCO's Private Vigilante Squad
appealing a perfectly reasonable red card and demanding a replay on grounds of referee's failure to officiate in their favour as per usual
and then some plonker goes public with death threats ...


Oh yes - and their management team trying to get Neil arrested during the game - "Please Mr Polis, that bad wee man was standing on oor bit o gress an he frightened us ..."

And all because Neil cupped his ears at them ... :rolleyes:

[JimBHibees]

Yup. It would appear that we're all OK.

Which must be very irritating to the Morlocks ...

They did it to themselves -



bating Neil Lennon non-stop or the first 20 minutes of the game
singing their filthy songs before KO,
going after Beaton demanding not only that he be disciplined but that he apologise publicly to The Rangers for his misdemeanours ("Please, O mighty mob of King Willie the Orange's finest, forgive me and cast me not out from the circle of your approbation ...")
starting a hate against Stokes (sorry, RESUMING their hate against Stokes)
reporting Neil to the polis who must surely now be getting tired of being used as SEVCO's Private Vigilante Squad
appealing a perfectly reasonable red card and demanding a replay on grounds of referee's failure to officiate in their favour as per usual
and then some plonker goes public with death threats ...


Oh yes - and their management team trying to get Neil arrested during the game - "Please Mr Polis, that bad wee man was standing on oor bit o gress an he frightened us ..."

And all because Neil cupped his ears at them ... :rolleyes:

Agree quite incredible really.

[--------]

Agree quite incredible really.


Sadly not, Jim.

This is perfectly normal on Planet Billiboyz. All makes perfect sense to them.

One of them once told me in all seriousness, "Of course, you DO know that all five of the Famous Five were Rangers supporters?" And that Willy Waddle was a better footballer than Gordon Smith ...

:faf:

Sorry - that's "Willie Waw-dell".

[Billy Whizz]

Think I'm correct in saying, that they can only charge a player, if the referee didn't see it. As this was right in front of the ref, he can hardly say he didn't see it!

[ACLeith]

Sadly not, Jim.

This is perfectly normal on Planet Billiboyz. All makes perfect sense to them.

One of them once told me in all seriousness, "Of course, you DO know that all five of the Famous Five were Rangers supporters?" And that Willy Waddle was a better footballer than Gordon Smith ...

:faf:

Sorry - that's "Willie Waw-dell".

WOW! never heard anyone spew that out before. My dad used to rant that WW wasn't fit to lace Gordon's boots yet he got picked for Scotland because he was a Hun. OK he didn't use the H word back then but I got the drift

[Tornadoes70]

WOW! never heard anyone spew that out before. My dad used to rant that WW wasn't fit to lace Gordon's boots yet he got picked for Scotland because he was a Hun. OK he didn't use the H word back then but I got the drift

The old firm would normally be placed in front of players who deserved caps. Alex Edwards to name just one such player who was constantly overlooked and certainly deserved to be capped.

[--------]

WOW! never heard anyone spew that out before. My dad used to rant that WW wasn't fit to lace Gordon's boots yet he got picked for Scotland because he was a Hun. OK he didn't use the H word back then but I got the drift


Nor had I. The occasion wasn't appropriate for a proper response - I just said that I thought he had been badly misinformed, but he insisted that it was so.

I think his mind couldn't accept the idea that anything or anyone considered legends of the Scottish game (as the FF certainly were) could possibly NOT have had a firm connection with Rangers. After all, Rangers and their supporters are THE PEEPUL, are they not?

So since none of Smith, Johnstone, Reilly, Turnbull, & Ormond played for them, they all must have supported them.

Otherwise the universe would be all wrong ...

I did manage to mention (later on) that my father's cousin by marriage Bobby Combe once scored 4 goals in one game against them (an 8-1 victory at ER during WW2) - and then the only goal in the return at Ibrox three weeks later. He didn't appreciate that morsel of historical data, I'm afraid.

Dad was at the 8-1, lucky so-an-so.

[West lower]

Which would be a good idea.

I seem to remember Alan Muir having an absolute howler last season, and following it up with an even worse performance the following week when all eyes were on him.

Alan Muir had a howler ? Surely no'.

[Smartie]

Alan Muir had a howler ? Surely no'.

2 in 2 weeks.

I can't remember the specifics, but I'm sure he made an awful decision in a Celtic game then the following week he may have been refereeing us, maybe even one of the Falkirk debacles.

Some had put the horrific performance in the second game down to the scrutiny from the previous week.

I think Muir has since gone on to prove though that he is just an utterly pish referee.

[Firestarter]

The best part is when they have kept claiming he could have caused a riot - aye only because you bunch of bigoted ****s can't handle it.

[ACLeith]

Dad was at the 8-1, lucky so-an-so.

So was mine. He told me that as he was going home afterwards someone stopped him to ask him the score, he told them and was threatened for being cheeky. It was only someone else walking past who confirmed it that saved him.

Obviously the aggressive guy was a jambo as even 75 years ago they couldn't accept the truth!!!!!!

[500miles]

For all the talk of Stokes being lucky to get away with a yellow for the wrestling with Tavernier, the hun tried to hit him in the face, which would've seen them both sent off.

Jack's grab at Mcgeough and headbutt at Stokes were both yellows, so a red was definitely fair.

[AK86]

Stokes should have been sent off, it would be deluded to claim anything else.
But he wasn't , and we humped them , again. We've been told often enough these things even themselves out over a season, well we've been waiting decades so hopefully we have a lot more decisions to come, we are well overdue them .

[JimBHibees]

For all the talk of Stokes being lucky to get away with a yellow for the wrestling with Tavernier, the hun tried to hit him in the face, which would've seen them both sent off.

Jack's grab at Mcgeough and headbutt at Stokes were both yellows, so a red was definitely fair.

No way a head butt would ever be a yellow.

[SirDavidsNapper]

Stokes should have been sent off, it would be deluded to claim anything else.
But he wasn't , and we humped them , again. We've been told often enough these things even themselves out over a season, well we've been waiting decades so hopefully we have a lot more decisions to come, we are well overdue them .

Nail on head

[500miles]

No way a head butt would ever be a yellow.

If it's interpreted as a "head to head" it may be.

[OxoHibby]

No way a head butt would ever be a yellow.

Thought jack was a straight red for the head butt

[West lower]

2 in 2 weeks.

I can't remember the specifics, but I'm sure he made an awful decision in a Celtic game then the following week he may have been refereeing us, maybe even one of the Falkirk debacles.

Some had put the horrific performance in the second game down to the scrutiny from the previous week.

I think Muir has since gone on to prove though that he is just an utterly pish referee.

I genuinely don't remember ever seeing Muir have a good game. He seemed to always influence the result of a game with shocking howlers. Glad to see the back of him.

[Sammy7nil]

Stokes should have been sent off, it would be deluded to claim anything else.
But he wasn't , and we humped them , again. We've been told often enough these things even themselves out over a season, well we've been waiting decades so hopefully we have a lot more decisions to come, we are well overdue them .

I agree and difficult as it will be for Lennon to say do as I say not as I do, he must give Stokes a warning it is not good enough.

[Iggy Pope]

Now that jogs the memory a bit. I remember the guy and think i played against him, late 80's maybe. Very good player indeed.


As for the Stokes thing. You're right, it's human nature to want to protect oneself against someone coming at you like raging bull. No further punishment for Stokes. All seem by the ref during the course of the game.

Stevie McNally. He even took a throw in better than me.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Nail on head

I do believe that move - if pulled off - would mean jail-time ;)

[Tornadoes70]

Stokes should have been sent off, it would be deluded to claim anything else.
But he wasn't , and we humped them , again. We've been told often enough these things even themselves out over a season, well we've been waiting decades so hopefully we have a lot more decisions to come, we are well overdue them .

Good post.

I thought Stokesy was a wee bit fortunate not to be sent off along with Jack. How many times has it went against us though, its countless the number of times strange decisions have gone against us especially against the huns. Though the rule of thumb for a ref should be extra leniency shown for the team playing against the huns as the other teams have to put up with the endless bigotry and prejudice being spat out from the neanderthals in the stands.

:greengrin