blonde poker forum

For those who don't know who he is, Eddie Smith is the referee who awarded Celtic a penalty on Sunday then sent off the St Mirren defender involved in the penalty incident. Firstly I will point out that from the referee's position it's easy to see why a penalty was awarded and I accept this happens in football.

Watching the replay it seems clear that there was no foul apart from Venagoor of Hesslink having a handful of the St Mirren defenders jersey, also there was no claim from the striker, but as I said the ref didn't see it from that angle so again I have no problem with his decision at that time.

St Mirren appeal against the red card, the SFA give the ref the chance to review the tv pictures of the incident, he does this and then stands by his decision to send the player off. In my opinion this referee should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute, he is being made to look a laughing stock in every report I've read, highlights show I've watched, and radio show I've listened to. Everyone who has seen this knows this red card should be overturned.

This is the sort of decision which makes life so difficult for all referees, how can they get respect from players and fans if they deny what everyone else can see.

Haining had a grip of Vennegour's wrist though - if the striker's got in front of him he's an idiot to grab his wrist, there's always a chance of a penalty.

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44912000/jpg/_44912643_penalty226.jpg)

It's the usual press nonsense - the decision was soft, but there was contact - as there was in the free kick for Nakamura last season. For some reason these are being used as some kind of witch-hunt. Amazingly I've seen no mention in the papers or from St. Mirren about the stonewaller we were denied before we got the pen.

Rod, I'm not complaining about the penalty being awarded even if I think it was highly dubious. The point I'm making is that the St Mirren player should not have been sent off, he was and there's nothing that can change that.

What I do have a problem with is that the referee gets the chance to review the TV footage and do the right thing, he chooses not to. This red card should have been overturned and St Mirren are punished again as they are now deprived of this player for a game in which he should be available.

With regards to the hand on the wrist it's a natural reaction to someone having a hold of your jersey, hardly warrants a red card, but again I point out it's an excusable decision during the game but not with the benefit of a replay.

The previous penalty shout was much more of a penalty but the fact it wasn't given is completely irrelevant to the point I am making.

It was a fould and he was the last man.  Straight red card.  No?

would have been funnier if the rev was in charge of our game and the same thing happened, the full tic cave recruits would have been out , even scottish dave

But it was a penalty, certainly soft but a foul nontheless.

[  ] You will get a Celtic Fan to agree with you.

[ X ] You will get the rest of Scotland to agree with you.

I thought the first claim was a definite penalty, and it wasn't given. Nobody made an issue about it. Scott Booth actually justified NOT giving a penalty by saying the ball was well gone when there was contact between keeper and striker. I thought when the ball was well gone that made it MORE of a foul, not less.

The second one was definitely soft, but once the decision to give a penalty is made, the only punishment available to the ref was a red card. Consequently he got it right.

I have much more respect for a ref who makes a difficult decision and follows it through to it's logical conclusion, than for a ref who, to quote Craig Levein, might 'bottle it', and think oh I've just given a penalty, that's punishment enough so I won't send the guy off.

Once you say you aren't complaining about the penalty being awarded, you've effectively defeated your own argument.

I think you are missing my point, I have no problem with the decision in real time during the game. I have a problem with a referee who reviews the video footage from all available angles and stands by that decision.

Are you a Celtic fan by any chance, I need to know as it may decide a prop bet.

I don't think there's a person yet contributed to this thread who hasn't agreed the penalty was soft. In your own words it was 'highly dubious'.

That's not the same as saying it wasn't a penalty. A soft penalty is still a penalty. A dubious decision could go either way.

If the ref DOESN'T give a penalty, looks back at it and thinks 'hmmm that was kinda dodgy', would you expect him to then say it should have been a penalty?

If not, then why should he change his mind when he DOES give a penalty, looks back at it, and probably thinks exactly the same thing?

Have a read at this (http://pokerdiv.blogspot.com/2006/02/donald-mcvicar-whistleblower-and-me.html) and see if you can work out whether I am a Celtic fan  ;D

Div, I read it and it's top quality, I can't believe the Record or the Sun wouldn't want to follow that up. Absolute class from Mr McVicar. I would have thought a certain Radio Scotland show which prides itself on being petty and ill informed would have loved this too.

I'm guessing I've won my prop bet though, told a guy at work about my initial post, he said a maximum of two Celtic fans would post to defend the decision, I said at least three and specified within 48 hours of my post and the bet was agreed.

We're not defending the decision, there is no defence needed!

There was a foul, yes it was soft but it was still a foul. 

Ironic that Rangers fans moan about dodgy decisions by referees, just ask Craig Levein.

The establishment team get more dubious decisions than any other club in Scotland.

 ::)

 ;hattip; Free money!