Family bam
Well-Known Member
Could be debated either way. He was off the ground with both feet so technically "out of control".
What does your Guide dog think though??
Could be debated either way. He was off the ground with both feet so technically "out of control".
Exactly how I saw it as well. Strong challenge but nothing more.The clips clearly show him with one foot extended, studs down and winning the ball cleanly. The fact he made the tackle, got immediately to his feet and kept the ball prove he was not out of control.
You can say none of those things about Porteus’ tackle.
Wasn't even a free kick, don't see how it could have been a yellowHow is that strange?
All I said was I was surprised he wasn't booked... it was a strong challenge, he was off the ground, so it could be argued he was "out of control". That's all, I think he got away with one.
It's truly pathetic people on here calling people a tim for quite simply having a slightly different view from them.
That's because it was a great tackle that won the ball cleanly and also allowed him to collect and come away with it. There may be an argument that he was off his feet and could be considered a foul but IMO its an extremely spurious one.
How is that strange?
All I said was I was surprised he wasn't booked... it was a strong challenge, he was off the ground, so it could be argued he was "out of control". That's all, I think he got away with one.
It's truly pathetic people on here calling people a tim for quite simply having a slightly different view from them.
I’m buying shares in inflatable sharks !!Amazing how Rangers winning has them in meltdown.
56 will be fckin epic.
Did you write the same big wordy sentence to the posters with similar views/comments in the thread on the tackle? Or are they all tims too?!Actually, your view is more of being diametrically opposite to the posters on this site rather than having a slightly different view.
I completely agree with you and he [Lundstram] doesn't foul the ball either like the examples you've cited did. Porteous's challenges on Borna, Roofe etc over the last couple of seasons show that he is prone to fouling the ball by either missing it completely, catching it with the trailing leg and/or landing on it. Anyone that has ever played the game even at amateur level can tell you that these tackles were an attempt to take both man and ball. Now if you look at the tackle on Aribo its only Joe lengthening his stride that saves him from being completely wiped out and possibly badly injured.He was never out of control, as the full incident shows.
When a player jumps to header a ball both his feet are off of the ground, but he’s rarely out of control.
And Lundstram is in control.
If they want comparisons Power & Cosgrove red cards at the Gadd Arena can be used. None of them were reversed, and none involved touching the opponent IIRC.
I completely agree with you and he [Lundstram] doesn't foul the ball either like the examples you've cited did. Porteous's challenges on Borna, Roofe etc over the last couple of seasons show that he is prone to fouling the ball by either missing it completely, catching it with the trailing leg and/or landing on it. Anyone that has ever played the game even at amateur level can tell you that these tackles were an attempt to take both man and ball. Now if you look at the tackle on Aribo its only Joe lengthening his stride that saves him from being completely wiped out and possibly badly injured.
There isn't really a discussion to be had on whether Walsh made the correct decision or not. The discussion should be why we here in Scotland think that these types of challenges are legitimate and not reckless?
Really poor formHa. What a prat.
So because I said that I was surprised that he didn't get a yellow, that makes me a tim?
Grow up and open yourself up to reasoned debate.
These questions where the mhedia attempt to create controversy only ever occur when it's Rangers Grigo...and still they say they're impartial, oh my aching sides.Your last paragraph is absolutely spot on.
If people were objective with respect to Rangers there would be no discussion.
These questions where the mhedia attempt to create controversy only ever occur when it's Rangers Grigo...and still they say they're impartial, oh my aching sides.
I do. Was a great tackle.Don’t think anyone did m8.
It's embarrassing calling anyone on here we disagree with Tims. Just looking to rile folk up. Saying someone on here actually supports our bitter rivals is hardly the same as a blue tinted specs comment.Really poor form
Throws out the blue tinted specs line. Someone tosses green tinted back and you start calling them a prat and to grow up or be open to reasoned debate.
Embarrassed yourself there
Did you write the same big wordy sentence to the posters with similar views/comments in the thread on the tackle? Or are they all tims too?!
I enjoyed it. I couldn't give a flying %^*& what Hugh Keevins thinks about it either, or anyone else who supports a team other than Rangers. There isn't a controversial incident to worry about when you ignore these tits.Exactly eeboh.
It’s really frustrating not being able to enjoy a good win without controversy.
Mind you, imagine being one of them carrying so much hatred about in their lives. I’m glad I’m not them mate.
The difference is quite plain to see.
Right you are.Really poor form
Throws out the blue tinted specs line. Someone tosses green tinted back and you start calling them a prat and to grow up or be open to reasoned debate.
Embarrassed yourself there
Right you are.
We all wear blue tinted specs because it’s the nature of the game. We tend to see things 99.99% of the time from a pro-Rangers perspective.
Saying take them off in regards to having a reasonable debate about the opinions on a tackle is hardly the same as saying I’ve got green specs on because of a difference of opinions.
Gonna just shush, we are trying to mock slavering tims here.Right you are.
We all wear blue tinted specs because it’s the nature of the game. We tend to see things 99.99% of the time from a pro-Rangers perspective.
Saying take them off in regards to having a reasonable debate about the opinions on a tackle is hardly the same as saying I’ve got green specs on because of a difference of opinions.
He would’ve been going in about 3 feet in front of the hibs player when he started the tackle. He landed in front of the ball and the player. There was no danger at all that he’d take the player out and even if he hit the player his feet were low. There was no straight leg or studs up.Could be debated either way. He was off the ground with both feet so technically "out of control".
You questioned his objectivity, he questioned yours. You threw the toys out the park and called him a prat. You over reacted. if you don’t like such accusations being thrown around, don’t be the first to cast them.Right you are.
We all wear blue tinted specs because it’s the nature of the game. We tend to see things 99.99% of the time from a pro-Rangers perspective.
Saying take them off in regards to having a reasonable debate about the opinions on a tackle is hardly the same as saying I’ve got green specs on because of a difference of opinions.
You suggesting he’s correct.Alex Rae is not the buffoon here.
Not tonight.Will spew mention the Tim’s going to court or blank it.
Normally Dalziel and Hannah IIRC?Not tonight.
I think someone else does the Tuesday gig.
Ryan Jack and Fernando RicksenJust heard Keevins say that you can’t judge by previous??????
Tell that to Alfie ffs
What was he said that he had to apologise for? Was it calling Alfie a nasty piece of workMy thoughts exactly. That auld bastard has a selective memory. He continually brought up Alfie's previous yellow/red cards to "try" him by media. Big Bad Alfie, poor wee Porteous. We all know his hatred of anything to do with Rangers!
It took fifteen minutes on stv news for a twenty second puff piece.Biggest story in British Football today and not a mention on sport sound. Shocker…
What about the National news?It took fifteen minutes on stv news for a twenty second puff piece.
Sadly there’s a few in Scotland would pick wee Nic.Switched it on sitting in traffic and heard them saying Steven Clarke has a choice at the weekend, Nathan Patterson or o’Donnell…… that’s like asking do u want to go on a date with Jessica Alba or Nicola Sturgeon
I could literally punch the radio at his voice , incidentally , what qualifies him to talk about Scottish football ? He talks utter drivelHannah is surpassing himself as an official Celtc FC mouthpiece. He has literally stated as fact why Giamakis (sp?) hasn’t been playing and how he will be pushed to the max in training. It was like listening to a manager’s press conference.
Would love to know how much they are paying him.
Sturgeon = Seaweed "even the tide won't take her out".Switched it on sitting in traffic and heard them saying Steven Clarke has a choice at the weekend, Nathan Patterson or o’Donnell…… that’s like asking do u want to go on a date with Jessica Alba or Nicola Sturgeon
It's Hannah and Daziel on a Tuesday night it won't be mentioned and it hasn't been so far. Their news channel is commenting on it which is a surprise given their head of news Herbison is married to the Hollicom dude that the tims brought into try make it go away.Will spew mention the Tim’s going to court or blank it.
Their news bulletins are bending over backwards though to emphasise that the boys club weren’t affiliated. Fully complying with their poety paymasters bidding.It's Hannah and Daziel on a Tuesday night it won't be mentioned and it hasn't been so far. Their news channel is commenting on it which is a surprise given their head of news Herbison is married to the Hollicom dude that the tims brought into try make it go away.
Their news bulletins are bending over backwards though to emphasise that the boys club weren’t affiliated. Fully complying with their