Clyde 1 Clown Call-In Clinic thread * MERGED *

Northampton_Loyalist said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly how I saw it as well. Strong challenge but nothing more.
 
kensington blue nose said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wasn't even a free kick, don't see how it could have been a yellow
 
I'm So Bored With The MSM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kensington blue nose said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, your view is more of being diametrically opposite to the posters on this site rather than having a slightly different view.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
I'm So Bored With The MSM said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your last paragraph is absolutely spot on.

If people were objective with respect to Rangers there would be no discussion.
 
kensington blue nose said:
Ha. 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.
Click to expand...
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
 
eeboh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
There was a great first time caller.
From N.I. A true bear.
I wonder if he in here?

I don’t know if I can tell your story and do it justice.
He sadly last Christmas, I think due to Covid …was in a coma for about a month or so, and when he awoke he had a bunch of texts from family and friends telling him about the games he had missed and Rangers related news.
Anyway he made a couple of good points.

Like from early February I think it was 14 game period on, he reminded me …at least, how we drew 3 and won 10? Many just by 1 goal margins.We certainly were just grinding out results, much like now, and certainly not playing with the swagger we displayed in the first half of the last season.

He went on to remind …that we also had the 5 sub rule, which we don’t have this season.Which meant Gerrard could ask all the players that started the games, to ‘not leave anything out there’ in the first part, whilst knowing with we could still make 5 telling subs, as we had such a strong squad.

He also went onto make another point again I totally agree with.
We were so ring rusty against Malmo, not having played any European games at all.Whilst they had already played 17 league games in their season.It’s so valid this point, but never gets trotted out when ever our failing is brought up.

Mate if you are in here, you were like a huge breath of fresh air with your views @nd points of view, and I sincerely hope you make a full, complete and speedy recovery from your illness.

Don’t listen that often,,, but it was pleasure listening to you.
 
Tailwind said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Hugh Keevins :))
 
DJ Blue said:
FA2tV4bXsAEw1tw
Click to expand...
The difference is quite plain to see.

One is ignoring the ball, the other is focussing on it.
 
Tailwind said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
kensington blue nose said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly but maybe cause your opinion was so f.uckin stupid, no??
 
kensington blue nose said:
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.
Click to expand...
Gonna just shush, we are trying to mock slavering tims here.
 
kensington blue nose said:
Could be debated either way. He was off the ground with both feet so technically "out of control".
Click to expand...
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.
 
kensington blue nose said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Saracen N.S. said:
My 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!
Click to expand...
What was he said that he had to apologise for? Was it calling Alfie a nasty piece of work
 
Last edited:
Hannah 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.
 
Blue Lew said:
Hannah 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.
Click to expand...
I could literally punch the radio at his voice , incidentally , what qualifies him to talk about Scottish football ? He talks utter drivel

As for Gordon dalziel , he just sounds like a bumbling old fool out of father Ted or something . The Motherwell village idiot - I can’t quite believe he was employed by Rangers !!!!
 
It’s weird that Hannah constantly bigs up the scum considering his son is a big Rangers fan. Just shows these guys are scared to upset their paymasters or face a backlash from scum supporters.
 
Fourladshadadream said:
Will spew mention the Tim’s going to court or blank it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
bkerr72 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Their news bulletins are bending over backwards though to emphasise that the boys club weren’t affiliated. Fully complying with their poety paymasters bidding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top