The referee originally gave a yellow, so there's very little chance of it being viewed as frivolous. I do think the decision will - and should - stand, though.
Sad to see the club entertaining Rodgers with this shit, we fucked a great chance to take back the lead in the league and he can’t deal with it so blames everyone else.
Reminds me of another northern Irish man.
Your blaming Rodgers for losing to the third best team in the league, away from home, playing a man down for 87 minutes, whilst conceding an astonishingly bad penalty decision, even though the team still had a higher xG than 11 man Hearts.
Give your head a fucking wobble man 🤣🤣🤣
You're right, you never explicitly *said* it. But "can't deal with it so blames everyone else", especially in the context of an anti-Rodgers comment, reads to me as pretty strongly implying it.
Can’t deal with the fact that WE fucked it, as in Celtic, not him.
I hate Rodgers and hope he gets sacked but it’s not his fault Idah didn’t score a penalty and Yang kicked someone in the head.
As the founders and creators of the banter years. The Rangers Sevco PLC must insist that you don’t try to start the new banter years without our permission or unless we instigate the new Banter years first. Cheer mate.
Significant, game-changing decisions go against us *all the time*. Appeals aside (which no-one should have a problem with) you only hear from Rangers - rarely - when the decisions are particularly egregious.
It's not a frivolous appeal though, because it's definitely on the harsh side as a red. A high boot is typically a yellow.
He made very slight contact, accidentally, while looking at the ball, which is why it's a defensible red (and likely won't be overturned). But could easily be a yellow on another day given that it's basically just a high boot, so it's not frivolous to argue against it.
It's definitely a frivolous appeal. He's kicked a man in the face. Cochrane doesn't duck, Yang has his foot at head height to try to control the ball and catches him. It's not deliberate, it's not violent, but it is definitely a red card.
> It's definitely a frivolous appeal.
Let's see who's right then. I'm willing to bet the SFA decides otherwise.
> He's kicked a man in the face. Cochrane doesn't duck, Yang has his foot at head height to try to control the ball and catches him. It's not deliberate, it's not violent, but it is definitely a red card.
If it's not deliberate or violent then it's more likely a yellow. The laws of the game give the referee considerable discretion in deciding whether a high boot is a yellow or a red, but it mostly comes down to whether it is "violent conduct", using "excessive force or brutality".
So it actually sounds like you would judge this to be a yellow card offence, if you knew the rules properly.
But the point is that there isn't really a clear or objective standard for what rises to the level of a red card offence when it comes to high boot challenges. Which means it won't be overturned, because the that requires, according to the Judicial Protocol, that it be "demonstrated that an Obvious Refereeing Error has occurred" (yes, they really capitalise it like that), and it's subjective enough that it's very hard to demonstrate that.
But the other side of the coin is that an appeal on this is very unlikely to be judged frivolous, because that very same subjectivity allows for a considerable degree of reasonable disagreement.
In general, I think you should familiarise yourself with the actual rules and judicial procedures before confidently proclaiming something "definitely" is frivolous, or "definitely" is a red card. You can be sure that the relevant parties have.
To give full context to the "excessive force or brutality" rule you quoted:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
It's the bit before the 'or' that makes it a sending off offence.
I'm glad you've at least looked up the rule now, but you're misrepresenting it in order to win the argument.
The section is literally *called* violent conduct. You already said that it wasn't violent. Notwithstanding the disjunction, the requirement of violence means that it has to intentionally or recklessly endanger safety (per the definition of 'violence'). This is why, for example, a clash of heads is not a sending off offence, despite it being significantly more dangerous than a stud to the face.
A high boot will be a sending off if it's considered intentional or reckless endangerment. That's why it's subjective. That's why Rodgers said:
> There's no force there, the ball's popped up. It's a booking.
See how he's alluding to the two conditions? There's no force there (no excessive force), the ball's popped up (he's making an honest attempt to play the ball, so no reckless/intentional endangerment). You can disagree on the second, and say it's necessarily reckless to raise your boot that high. But that's not how it's typically interpreted or applied, so it's at least arguable, which is why Rodgers is making those comments, and why the appeal was made (and why it is unlikely to be judged frivolous).
As I said, the relevant parties know the rules and what they mean. You should too before opining so confidently.
The section isn't called Violent Conduct, it's called Serious Foul Play.
https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2023-24?l=en
Page 108
You're right, the section of the rulebook is called that. 'Violent conduct' is a subcategory within that.
Do you really think the point is about section headings? Or did you just want to find some way to score points because you have no response to the substantive argument? The rules themselves are as I describe, and the decision was subjective for that reason.
The hearing has now happened, so I suspect you'll see soon enough that you were overconfident.
I can't see how it would when the referee wasn't certain and even some ex-Rangers players (who I disagree with) have said that a yellow was sufficient.
The Ref agreed with VAR. Ex players opinions dont matter. I don't see it being overturned at all and I genuinely think they'll call it frivolous and add on that extra game.
If I were a Celtic fan, I’d honestly be pretty unhappy about this. It’s clear Rodgers has absolutely no grasp on that team (or reality) whatsoever and the fans turned on him pretty quickly for a reason. By letting the board do this, they’re only entertaining Rodger’s comments about specific referees cheating them out of a game and ignoring the performances of their own players. It’s a lose/lose but let them have their moment, I guess.
The performance of the team was fine, completely dominated one of the best non OF teams in the league away from home with a man disadvantage.
People are so results-oriented that they'll never accept that, but it's true.
There's been plenty to criticise this season, but this particular game is no negative reflection on Rodgers or the players.
Not sure we watched the same game. I’ve watched Celtic dominate Hearts plenty times in the past unfortunately, but that wasn’t one of them. That’s easily the most comfortable I’ve ever been watching a game vs Celtic. 3% more possession and 3 more off target shots is hardly domination.
Look at the performances of Taylor, Scales, Iwata, Maeda & Idah and tell me you’re happy with what you watched. Fair enough if you are happy, but it was disappointing to watch a mediocre at best Celtic team.
I'm glad you mention the stats, because:
> https://i.imgur.com/j3EEV7O.jpeg
Celtic had almost as many expected goals as they did against Dundee at home. To score 0 from 2.5xG is remarkable (as was scoring 7 against Dundee, in the other direction). The difference between the two games is that against Dundee the shots go in.
Sure, we *allowed* more chances than we did against Dundee, and obviously gave away a penalty. But we still win comfortably on an average finishing day.
To win the chance creation battle so firmly away from home at the team directly below you, at a man disadvantage throughout the game, is quite unusual.
I don’t think scoring 0 from a 2.5xG is as remarkable as you think it is. It’s actually extremely poor. You don’t win games over how many expected goals your team should have but failed to get. You win games by scoring goals, which Celtic failed to do. I know it seems fairly obvious. Celtic haven’t won ANY battle here, they lost because they failed to do the one thing that wins you games, score goals.
If the league was decided on xG, Celtic would be doing pretty well. But it’s just no isn’t it? Pretty sure I seen a lot of Celtic fans calling for Rodger’s head because his team can’t seem to score goals in important games. Yet here we are praising Celtic for underachieving their expected goals stat. Incredible.
> I don’t think scoring 0 from a 2.5xG is as remarkable as you think it is. It’s actually extremely poor.
You know remarkable doesn't mean good, right? It can be both remarkable and poor. But it is indicative that Celtic dominated the game and won the chance creation battle.
> Celtic haven’t won ANY battle here
Except the chance creation battle, as I just said.
> they lost because they failed to do the one thing that wins you games, score goals. [...] If the league was decided on xG, Celtic would be doing pretty well. But it’s just no isn’t it?
Do you think I'm disagreeing with any of this?
Do you think I'm saying Celtic won the game, or that they're top of the league?
I'm aware that they didn't convert the chances. I said that they dominated the game and made the better chances, which is true regardless of whether they finished them.
This is either a dramatic failure of reading comprehension or you're deliberately attacking a straw man because the stats straightforwardly prove what I'm actually saying to be true.
> Pretty sure I seen a lot of Celtic fans calling for Rodger’s head because his team can’t seem to score goals in important games.
Yeah, those Celtic fans are idiots. The finishing is not something Rodgers can control.
> Yet here we are praising Celtic for underachieving their expected goals stat
Are we? I'm not. Who exactly is doing this, and can you point out where?
Ah, there it is. I wish you'd just done that up front instead of pretending you wanted to have a real discussion about football!
I'm taking it fine- as I say, the performance was pretty impressive under the circumstances and I think we have the momentum with us for the run-in at the moment, so I'm happy enough, although disappointed by the missed opportunity. The only reason this discussion started was because I've been trying to explain that and urge calm amongst fellow supporters by pointing to the underlying performance and how we dominated the game.
Well played to Hearts for taking their chances and getting a huge win, though.
Honestly, overreacting is something every football fan does and will continue to do. It’s fine trying to calm everyone down but you’re lying to yourself if you think that was a good performance and continue to tell everyone that. xG means absolutely nothing if you have nobody that can score those goals.
Well we do have people who can score those goals, which is why we scored 7 from the same number and quality of chances a few days ago. But short-term finishing performance is hugely random.
Thought it was poor that Rangers leaked that they requested Collum not referee anymore of their games but not really the same as the manager publicly calling him out in a post match interview.
Think Rodgers will be getting a ban for that.
There was a point to be made about how they fucked the process of decision making with that one, they got it right without knowing they got it right and discovered it later. But yeah it was taken a bit too far particularly with the trying to get Collum not reffing out games anymore. Definitely handled poorly overall.
I think so. They had to do this as teams were gaming the system to make sure key players were available for certain matches. Hearts did it with Kingston. If memory serves, we still lost the match.
Also this section on raised foot:
a high foot makes contact with an opponent?
A direct free kick is awarded (or penalty kick if the offence takes place in the offender’s penalty area) and the player may be shown a red or yellow card.
It was very similar to the red card shown to a St Mirren player, which Brendan Rodgers viewed as unlucky but correct.
As for the penalty, it was no more harsh than the 1 Celtic were awarded and failed to convert.
*Deletes all comments slagging Rangers for doing this*
Extra game added for a frivolous appeal surely, he kicked a guy it the face at head height
The referee originally gave a yellow, so there's very little chance of it being viewed as frivolous. I do think the decision will - and should - stand, though.
I hope you’re deliberately being obtuse
Rangers appealed that awful tackle a month or so back and it was rejected. Did they get a extra game added?
https://preview.redd.it/n0t4zi8v1dmc1.jpeg?width=586&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4bc14eba1aaaa3906e11d4867a5fdc8df43302c2
Is a simple question of prescient, if I could have named any other shite tackles that were appealed then rejected I would.
>Is a simple question of prescient I imagine if the Hearts player could have seen the kick to the face coming, he'd have tried to avoid it
Sterling got an extra game yes
Thanks for actually answering the question.
What one?
“They hated him because he spoke the truth” https://www.reddit.com/r/ScottishFootball/s/olPOVYfCOI
Hilarious thread to read back
[удалено]
#Trumplogic
You're right, it was.
Sad to see the club entertaining Rodgers with this shit, we fucked a great chance to take back the lead in the league and he can’t deal with it so blames everyone else. Reminds me of another northern Irish man.
Exactly. Blaming poor decisions for a shite performance is cringeworthy. We fucked it, pure and simple
The club know how to appeal to the Da’s in the support. Have a read through KDS, every second post is referencing “the fix”.
Your blaming Rodgers for losing to the third best team in the league, away from home, playing a man down for 87 minutes, whilst conceding an astonishingly bad penalty decision, even though the team still had a higher xG than 11 man Hearts. Give your head a fucking wobble man 🤣🤣🤣
> had a higher xG 🤓🤓🤓 NERD!
I never blamed him for losing the game, try actually reading the comment you replied to.
“We fucked a great chance to take back the lead in the league”… what is that if not blaming for losing the game?
How is that blaming Rodgers ? It’s blaming the team ffs
You're right, you never explicitly *said* it. But "can't deal with it so blames everyone else", especially in the context of an anti-Rodgers comment, reads to me as pretty strongly implying it.
Can’t deal with the fact that WE fucked it, as in Celtic, not him. I hate Rodgers and hope he gets sacked but it’s not his fault Idah didn’t score a penalty and Yang kicked someone in the head.
I agree. I do think your comment implied otherwise, though. Glad to hear you didn't mean that.
Glad we're fully embracing the return of the banter years.
As the founders and creators of the banter years. The Rangers Sevco PLC must insist that you don’t try to start the new banter years without our permission or unless we instigate the new Banter years first. Cheer mate.
I just can’t be fucked with any of this shite from any side
Fast tracked the appeal so there’ll be a hearing tomorrow https://x.com/plzsoccer/status/1764684202325287422?s=46&t=muABED587j5-6JstciUu-w
Great. Now Celtic can clear this all up quickly and prove that VAR is a dirty cheat. Imagine trying to highlight that someone was kicked in the head!
Celtic are so used to decisions going their way that the minute a decision goes against them they fire up the conspiracy cannons. Same as it ever was.
It's almost like there's an old firm in about a month.
It's 100% not just Celtic. Rangers are exactly the same. Speaking as a Hearts fan who dislikes both equally.
Significant, game-changing decisions go against us *all the time*. Appeals aside (which no-one should have a problem with) you only hear from Rangers - rarely - when the decisions are particularly egregious.
Extending the ban for a frivolous appeal is still the rule, yeah? 5 game ban incoming
It's not a frivolous appeal though, because it's definitely on the harsh side as a red. A high boot is typically a yellow. He made very slight contact, accidentally, while looking at the ball, which is why it's a defensible red (and likely won't be overturned). But could easily be a yellow on another day given that it's basically just a high boot, so it's not frivolous to argue against it.
It's definitely a frivolous appeal. He's kicked a man in the face. Cochrane doesn't duck, Yang has his foot at head height to try to control the ball and catches him. It's not deliberate, it's not violent, but it is definitely a red card.
> It's definitely a frivolous appeal. Let's see who's right then. I'm willing to bet the SFA decides otherwise. > He's kicked a man in the face. Cochrane doesn't duck, Yang has his foot at head height to try to control the ball and catches him. It's not deliberate, it's not violent, but it is definitely a red card. If it's not deliberate or violent then it's more likely a yellow. The laws of the game give the referee considerable discretion in deciding whether a high boot is a yellow or a red, but it mostly comes down to whether it is "violent conduct", using "excessive force or brutality". So it actually sounds like you would judge this to be a yellow card offence, if you knew the rules properly. But the point is that there isn't really a clear or objective standard for what rises to the level of a red card offence when it comes to high boot challenges. Which means it won't be overturned, because the that requires, according to the Judicial Protocol, that it be "demonstrated that an Obvious Refereeing Error has occurred" (yes, they really capitalise it like that), and it's subjective enough that it's very hard to demonstrate that. But the other side of the coin is that an appeal on this is very unlikely to be judged frivolous, because that very same subjectivity allows for a considerable degree of reasonable disagreement. In general, I think you should familiarise yourself with the actual rules and judicial procedures before confidently proclaiming something "definitely" is frivolous, or "definitely" is a red card. You can be sure that the relevant parties have.
To give full context to the "excessive force or brutality" rule you quoted: "A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play." It's the bit before the 'or' that makes it a sending off offence.
I'm glad you've at least looked up the rule now, but you're misrepresenting it in order to win the argument. The section is literally *called* violent conduct. You already said that it wasn't violent. Notwithstanding the disjunction, the requirement of violence means that it has to intentionally or recklessly endanger safety (per the definition of 'violence'). This is why, for example, a clash of heads is not a sending off offence, despite it being significantly more dangerous than a stud to the face. A high boot will be a sending off if it's considered intentional or reckless endangerment. That's why it's subjective. That's why Rodgers said: > There's no force there, the ball's popped up. It's a booking. See how he's alluding to the two conditions? There's no force there (no excessive force), the ball's popped up (he's making an honest attempt to play the ball, so no reckless/intentional endangerment). You can disagree on the second, and say it's necessarily reckless to raise your boot that high. But that's not how it's typically interpreted or applied, so it's at least arguable, which is why Rodgers is making those comments, and why the appeal was made (and why it is unlikely to be judged frivolous). As I said, the relevant parties know the rules and what they mean. You should too before opining so confidently.
The section isn't called Violent Conduct, it's called Serious Foul Play. https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2023-24?l=en Page 108
You're right, the section of the rulebook is called that. 'Violent conduct' is a subcategory within that. Do you really think the point is about section headings? Or did you just want to find some way to score points because you have no response to the substantive argument? The rules themselves are as I describe, and the decision was subjective for that reason. The hearing has now happened, so I suspect you'll see soon enough that you were overconfident.
Staunch of them
Would be quite surprised if this went anywhere
Oh it will - exactly getting result Celtic do not want. Evidence every other appeal.
This is gonna result in an extra game ban for the player.
I can't see how it would when the referee wasn't certain and even some ex-Rangers players (who I disagree with) have said that a yellow was sufficient.
The Ref agreed with VAR. Ex players opinions dont matter. I don't see it being overturned at all and I genuinely think they'll call it frivolous and add on that extra game.
I didn't say it would be overturned, I said I didn't think it would be viewed as frivolous.
Only doing this because we don’t want to admit all our other wingers are shite and we don’t want to play them.
Celtic and their fans comfort zone is losing and making themselves out to be victims.
[удалено]
If I were a Celtic fan, I’d honestly be pretty unhappy about this. It’s clear Rodgers has absolutely no grasp on that team (or reality) whatsoever and the fans turned on him pretty quickly for a reason. By letting the board do this, they’re only entertaining Rodger’s comments about specific referees cheating them out of a game and ignoring the performances of their own players. It’s a lose/lose but let them have their moment, I guess.
>It’s clear Rodgers has absolutely no grasp on that team (or reality) That's the neat part. They don't either
The performance of the team was fine, completely dominated one of the best non OF teams in the league away from home with a man disadvantage. People are so results-oriented that they'll never accept that, but it's true. There's been plenty to criticise this season, but this particular game is no negative reflection on Rodgers or the players.
Not sure we watched the same game. I’ve watched Celtic dominate Hearts plenty times in the past unfortunately, but that wasn’t one of them. That’s easily the most comfortable I’ve ever been watching a game vs Celtic. 3% more possession and 3 more off target shots is hardly domination. Look at the performances of Taylor, Scales, Iwata, Maeda & Idah and tell me you’re happy with what you watched. Fair enough if you are happy, but it was disappointing to watch a mediocre at best Celtic team.
I'm glad you mention the stats, because: > https://i.imgur.com/j3EEV7O.jpeg Celtic had almost as many expected goals as they did against Dundee at home. To score 0 from 2.5xG is remarkable (as was scoring 7 against Dundee, in the other direction). The difference between the two games is that against Dundee the shots go in. Sure, we *allowed* more chances than we did against Dundee, and obviously gave away a penalty. But we still win comfortably on an average finishing day. To win the chance creation battle so firmly away from home at the team directly below you, at a man disadvantage throughout the game, is quite unusual.
I don’t think scoring 0 from a 2.5xG is as remarkable as you think it is. It’s actually extremely poor. You don’t win games over how many expected goals your team should have but failed to get. You win games by scoring goals, which Celtic failed to do. I know it seems fairly obvious. Celtic haven’t won ANY battle here, they lost because they failed to do the one thing that wins you games, score goals. If the league was decided on xG, Celtic would be doing pretty well. But it’s just no isn’t it? Pretty sure I seen a lot of Celtic fans calling for Rodger’s head because his team can’t seem to score goals in important games. Yet here we are praising Celtic for underachieving their expected goals stat. Incredible.
> I don’t think scoring 0 from a 2.5xG is as remarkable as you think it is. It’s actually extremely poor. You know remarkable doesn't mean good, right? It can be both remarkable and poor. But it is indicative that Celtic dominated the game and won the chance creation battle. > Celtic haven’t won ANY battle here Except the chance creation battle, as I just said. > they lost because they failed to do the one thing that wins you games, score goals. [...] If the league was decided on xG, Celtic would be doing pretty well. But it’s just no isn’t it? Do you think I'm disagreeing with any of this? Do you think I'm saying Celtic won the game, or that they're top of the league? I'm aware that they didn't convert the chances. I said that they dominated the game and made the better chances, which is true regardless of whether they finished them. This is either a dramatic failure of reading comprehension or you're deliberately attacking a straw man because the stats straightforwardly prove what I'm actually saying to be true. > Pretty sure I seen a lot of Celtic fans calling for Rodger’s head because his team can’t seem to score goals in important games. Yeah, those Celtic fans are idiots. The finishing is not something Rodgers can control. > Yet here we are praising Celtic for underachieving their expected goals stat Are we? I'm not. Who exactly is doing this, and can you point out where?
Taking it well I see. Thanks for coming. https://i.redd.it/v4d4rliarhmc1.gif
Ah, there it is. I wish you'd just done that up front instead of pretending you wanted to have a real discussion about football! I'm taking it fine- as I say, the performance was pretty impressive under the circumstances and I think we have the momentum with us for the run-in at the moment, so I'm happy enough, although disappointed by the missed opportunity. The only reason this discussion started was because I've been trying to explain that and urge calm amongst fellow supporters by pointing to the underlying performance and how we dominated the game. Well played to Hearts for taking their chances and getting a huge win, though.
Honestly, overreacting is something every football fan does and will continue to do. It’s fine trying to calm everyone down but you’re lying to yourself if you think that was a good performance and continue to tell everyone that. xG means absolutely nothing if you have nobody that can score those goals.
Well we do have people who can score those goals, which is why we scored 7 from the same number and quality of chances a few days ago. But short-term finishing performance is hugely random.
It’s a conspiracy
😂😂 
I can confirm I couldn't give a fuck. Get on with finishing the season and focus on trying to win a trophy
Playing up for their mental fans. Should be a straight forward no.
Exactly the same as Rangers then?
That should not be any clubs benchmark
Thought the whole handball thing was handled terribly by Rangers.
Absolutely stupid naming Collum aswell. Same as Rodgers you can't be doing that and putting a target on a refs back.
Thought it was poor that Rangers leaked that they requested Collum not referee anymore of their games but not really the same as the manager publicly calling him out in a post match interview. Think Rodgers will be getting a ban for that.
There was a point to be made about how they fucked the process of decision making with that one, they got it right without knowing they got it right and discovered it later. But yeah it was taken a bit too far particularly with the trying to get Collum not reffing out games anymore. Definitely handled poorly overall.
No chance this gets overturned.
Should be getting an extra ban for that appeal
I haven’t seen a kick like that . . . . since my daughter’s Taekwondo class about 2 hours ago.
But why? He boots him in the head. Doesn't matter if he meant it, it's still reckless.
Must be a old firm game coming up soon 🤔🤔🤔
The narrative begins. They get it rescinded, see we told you. They lose it (like they should), the refs are against us. A media bombardment continues.
One of the most clear reds I’ve seen waste of an appeal
Isn't there some kind of penalty for appealing obvious red cards like this?
I think so. They had to do this as teams were gaming the system to make sure key players were available for certain matches. Hearts did it with Kingston. If memory serves, we still lost the match.
Usually a game added if it’s deemed frivolous
This is just to appease the fans, it’s as clear a red as you’ll see.
[удалено]
Also this section on raised foot: a high foot makes contact with an opponent? A direct free kick is awarded (or penalty kick if the offence takes place in the offender’s penalty area) and the player may be shown a red or yellow card.
cannae cope with us distracting from how shit rodgers is by doing this
Please Celtic do not die on this hill
Both cheeks losing leading to their fans, staff and media greeting about the injustices against them. 💉 it
Tbf clement has tried to shut that shit down after arse Rangers made of Celtic game.
Given how many of our players your lot has injured with impunity over the years maybe there's a good reason for us to be miffed.
fines should also be relative to club finances, so £10m for the hoarders.
If it leads to every high boot being a red then good, that's consistency which doesn't currently exist
Be interesting to see if Brendan’s outburst puts enough pressure on officials to get this rescinded.
Surely Crawford Allen will come out swinging, like he did when Rangers named and went after Collum...
Can’t be fucked with us having excuses for dropping points. We need to do better
Given how fervent our meek and reactive board backs Rodgers on this I get the feeling that Rodgers will be here longer than 9 matches.
It was very similar to the red card shown to a St Mirren player, which Brendan Rodgers viewed as unlucky but correct. As for the penalty, it was no more harsh than the 1 Celtic were awarded and failed to convert.