Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

    Search       Member List      Official United Site     ArabZone      ArabTRUST       BBC Sport     Twitter
Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum.

New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join The Arab League!


If you're already a member please log in:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7
United V The Celtics; Next match - Sun 17th Oct.
Topic Started: Oct 2 2010, 06:06 PM (4,162 Views)
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 10:05 AM
It just seems to be getting more and more complicated. I can understand Celtic not wanting to let go of an issue where they think they've got something more concrete than the usual conspiracies. Sure someone like Levein would have done the same. But I'm sure there'll be enough confusion that nothing will happen.

Hm. They've got two officials blaming each-other for making a correct decision, presumably in fear of the hysteria that correct decision would evoke.

That's f*cked up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Nov 1 2010, 11:38 AM
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 10:05 AM
It just seems to be getting more and more complicated. I can understand Celtic not wanting to let go of an issue where they think they've got something more concrete than the usual conspiracies. Sure someone like Levein would have done the same. But I'm sure there'll be enough confusion that nothing will happen.

Hm. They've got two officials blaming each-other for making a correct decision, presumably in fear of the hysteria that correct decision would evoke.

That's f*cked up.

I think the correct decision is irrelvant now. It's the fact that the reason given for it being changed was supposedly changed. If a linesman said they lied to united, I'd be a bit annoyed.

But since it's one offical on one side, and the rest of them on the other, it'll probably pass.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anybody
Paul Sturrock
[ *  * ]
Is Lennon actually allowed to go into the ref's room and question his decisions? I always thought that was an out of bounds area for all teams.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 10:46 AM
I think the correct decision is irrelvant now. It's the fact that the reason given for it being changed was supposedly changed. If a linesman said they lied to united, I'd be a bit annoyed.

Why? Why would you be annoyed? Genuine question.

It seems to me quite important that the decision was correct. So a lie was told. What was the lie for? To blame someone else for a bad decision? No -- it was to blame someone else for a good decision.

So we have a legislature that can't face the opprobrium of being right. That, I repeat, is f*cked up.

Sure - the SFA end up looking weak. When confronted by THE MIGHTY CELTICS, they're left quivering and pointing at each other. "He did it sir, he made you angry, it wasnae me sir." But whose behaviour is worse here? The bullies or the bullied?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Nov 1 2010, 02:54 PM
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 10:46 AM
I think the correct decision is irrelvant now. It's the fact that the reason given for it being changed was supposedly changed. If a linesman said they lied to united, I'd be a bit annoyed.

Why? Why would you be annoyed? Genuine question.

It seems to me quite important that the decision was correct. So a lie was told. What was the lie for? To blame someone else for a bad decision? No -- it was to blame someone else for a good decision.

So we have a legislature that can't face the opprobrium of being right. That, I repeat, is f*cked up.

Sure - the SFA end up looking weak. When confronted by THE MIGHTY CELTICS, they're left quivering and pointing at each other. "He did it sir, he made you angry, it wasnae me sir." But whose behaviour is worse here? The bullies or the bullied?

It was still a lie though.

There's different versions, some biased, but if a manager asked a question - why was the penalty overturned?

If the ref said it was because the linesman called me over and told me the decision was wrong, but that wasn't true, then I'd be annoyed.

Annoyed because in other circumstances, the decision might not have been correct, but ref's and linesmen are liying to protect themselves and their decisions no matter what the actual truth was. That shouldn't happen, obviously.


In this case, I don't know whose version of events are truthful or not, but the idea of refs hiding behind lies to protect their potentially bad decisions isn't good for United, or scottish football. There's enough untrue conspiracies already about bias.







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The key question here, as naebody quite rightly points out, is how have Celtic been prejudiced in this scenario? Or, to put it another, what the f*ck has it got to do with them?

The events appear uncontentious:

1. McDonald makes a bad call and immediately changes his mind;
2. He goes to check with his linesman who confirms that the decision was indeed wrong;
3. He acknowledges his mistake and the game restarts with a drop ball.

[Now, this is where Dougie starts to make a fool of himself]

4. The referee's assessor asks him what happened and in order to cover up his embarassment he pretends that his pal helped him out with the decision.
5. For whatever reason his pal doesn't want to take the credit for help McDonald make the correct decision and lets slip that Dougie has been telling porkies.

Now, I can see why the SFA might be a bit irritated by one of their staff telling lies to them but I can't for the live of me imagine what this all has to do with Celtic.

Unless Dougie's lies are symptomatic of a massive protestant/establishment/masonic/illimunati conspiracy against them. Which is pretty much what they're implying, I believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ivan
Nov 1 2010, 04:02 PM
The key question here, as naebody quite rightly points out, is how have Celtic been prejudiced in this scenario? Or, to put it another, what the f*ck has it got to do with them?

The events appear uncontentious:

1. McDonald makes a bad call and immediately changes his mind;
2. He goes to check with his linesman who confirms that the decision was indeed wrong;
3. He acknowledges his mistake and the game restarts with a drop ball.

[Now, this is where Dougie starts to make a fool of himself]

4. The referee's assessor asks him what happened and in order to cover up his embarassment he pretends that his pal helped him out with the decision.
5. For whatever reason his pal doesn't want to take the credit for help McDonald make the correct decision and lets slip that Dougie has been telling porkies.

Now, I can see why the SFA might be a bit irritated by one of their staff telling lies to them but I can't for the live of me imagine what this all has to do with Celtic.

Maybe because they were told a lie?

As above, I think it's an issue for everyone, not just Celtic, even if they're complaining as usual for any old reason.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anybody
Paul Sturrock
[ *  * ]
I don't think Celtic or many other teams really, are in a position to condemn anyone for telling, what was, at the start, a little white lie. I know two wrongs don't make a right an all that crap. But players cheat the referee on many occassions. How many times has Lennon made such a fuss about the ref getting a wrong decision in their favour after one of their players has deliberately cheated?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes yes yes. He told a lie. The lie was a bit silly, but it shouldn't have hurt anyone and didn't have any bearing on either the events or their interpretation.

Augustine of Hippo rates lies by severity, one being high and eight being low. Number eight is a lie that harms no one and that helps someone. Number four he defines as lie "told to please others in smooth discourse". Either way, Augustine of Hippo seems pretty chilled about this level of lie so I reckon we should be too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 04:19 PM
Maybe because they were told a lie?

As above, I think it's an issue for everyone, not just Celtic, even if they're complaining as usual for any old reason.

Surely it's the SFA who were told a lie. McDonald doesn't report to Celtic.

And let's face it. It was an entirely harmless lie. What difference does it make if the linesman pointed out the mistake rather than Dougie realising it himself. The first scenario makes the officiating team look strong and cohesive; the second makes McDonald look a little indecisive. So, he chose to portray a version which makes him look responsive to his colleagues rather than indecisive. So what?

What bothers me about this whole incident is not the fact that McDonald told a peculiar but ultimately harmless lie but rather the constant stream of innuendo coming out of Celtic Park. I wish they'd just have the courage to say what they mean: THIS SORT OF SEEMINGLY INNOCENT LIE BETRAYS A DEEPER CONSPIRACY AGAINST CELTIC IN PARTICULAR AND CATHOLICS IN GENERAL.

Of course they won't say it because it's ridiculous and they'd look like paranoid fools. So instead they continue the drip drip drip of innuendo. The boring cunts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ivan
Nov 1 2010, 04:59 PM
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 04:19 PM
Maybe because they were told a lie?

As above, I think it's an issue for everyone, not just Celtic, even if they're complaining as usual for any old reason.

Surely it's the SFA who were told a lie. McDonald doesn't report to Celtic.

And let's face it. It was an entirely harmless lie. What difference does it make if the linesman pointed out the mistake rather than Dougie realising it himself. The first scenario makes the officiating team look strong and cohesive; the second makes McDonald look a little indecisive. So, he chose to portray a version which makes him look responsive to his colleagues rather than indecisive. So what?

According to one version it was both - Lennon asked as was told the dodgy version.

Would your opinon be the same if rather than the correct decision being made, the wrong one was, and the justification given for making that was a lie?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 05:08 PM
According to one version it was both - Lennon asked as was told the dodgy version.

Would your opinon be the same if rather than the correct decision being made, the wrong one was, and the justification given for making that was a lie?

1. I don't see what difference that makes? Was this at the point when Lennon was running around throwing his hands in the officials faces, ranting and raving?

2. Yes.

And, with respect Setenza, you're fundamentally missing the point.

The justification for changing the decision wasn't a lie, just the sequence of events. The justification for changing the decision is that the decision was wrong. Whether the linesman called McDonald over or McDonald took it upon himself to approach the linesman is neither here nor there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Has anybody considered that the real reason Dougie reversed his decision was he suddenly realised he had just awarded another very dodgy penalty against Dundee United, and, after his double gift to Rangers in the cup last year it would look very much like he had it in for us? Nothing to do with Sellick, secret handshakes or the Act of Settlement at all?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ivan
Nov 1 2010, 05:17 PM
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 05:08 PM
According to one version it was both - Lennon asked as was told the dodgy version.

Would your opinon be the same if rather than the correct decision being made, the wrong one was, and the justification given for making that was a lie?

1. I don't see what difference that makes? Was this at the point when Lennon was running around throwing his hands in the officials faces, ranting and raving?

2. Yes.

And, with respect Setenza, you're fundamentally missing the point.

The justification for changing the decision wasn't a lie, just the sequence of events. The justification for changing the decision is that the decision was wrong. Whether the linesman called McDonald over or McDonald took it upon himself to approach the linesman is neither here nor there.

See I think that's fundementally missing the point...


But I can't think of how to say it other than I've already done...





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 05:57 PM
Ivan
Nov 1 2010, 05:17 PM
Setenza
Nov 1 2010, 05:08 PM
According to one version it was both - Lennon asked as was told the dodgy version.

Would your opinon be the same if rather than the correct decision being made, the wrong one was, and the justification given for making that was a lie?

1. I don't see what difference that makes? Was this at the point when Lennon was running around throwing his hands in the officials faces, ranting and raving?

2. Yes.

And, with respect Setenza, you're fundamentally missing the point.

The justification for changing the decision wasn't a lie, just the sequence of events. The justification for changing the decision is that the decision was wrong. Whether the linesman called McDonald over or McDonald took it upon himself to approach the linesman is neither here nor there.

See I think that's fundementally missing the point...


But I can't think of how to say it other than I've already done...

Okay, you think the point is that he told a lie however harmless?

Or that he told a lie which prejudiced someone?

Or that he told a lie which betrayed a deeper conspiracy?
...


I think we can all agree that he told a lie but my opinion is that the lie didn't hurt anyone except, ultimately, himself. So, what's the big deal? Is this the way that Scottish football reacts when anyone tells a lie, however inconsequential?

It seems to me that people are tying the lie (after the event) in with the honesty of the original event and I can't for the life of imagine what connection they are trying to make (crazy paranoid delusions aside).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.