Boli Bolingoli was eligible to play but the issues is he was not allowed to play under agreed government guidance

“Eligibility

section 12. A Club participating in an official match must ensure that those of its Players Playing in the match are eligible to play in such a match.”

section 16. Any club which (I) Plays a player who is not eligible to play.

shall Be in breach of these regulations.”

section 16 (ii) and 16. (iii) talk about player registrations and other such like contraventions within the document. 16 (I) does not take any context from the rules and is open.

Where does it state this? What is the full rule?
 
Yes I know. Thew laws of the game as far as SFA/SPFL are one thing but Scottish law/legislation supersedes all of that. Are you suggesting that a player who is unavailable for selection because of adherence to the law of the country of residence, but is selected regardless, isn't a matter for dispute?
What I am suggesting is the paragraph that was quoted doesn't cover the scenario it is being used to cover. Of course the law of the land states that he cannot play and the punishment in those regulations has been applied however noone has actually came up with a specific SFA/SPFL regulation that would equate to a punishment that would involve a points deduction.

Just because you want it to be true and feel that it should be doesn't mean that it is.

They have tried in the past to do it to us re EBTs and transfer embargoes but it failed miserably as it wasn't in the rules. They only got the transfer embargo in the end because we agreed to it.

Feel free to provide a specific SFA/SPFL rule that means that they can deduct points otherwise this will become our version of resolution 12.
 
Page 142/143 of the SPFL Rule Book. Straight off their Website.

EDIT - Found it:

16. Any Club which (i) Plays a Player who is not eligible to Play; (ii) Plays a Player in circumstances which are not in accordance with the Rules and/or Regulations; and/or (iii) applies to Scottish FA Register a Player without the consent of the Board where such consent is required by the Rules or Regulations, shall be in breach of these Regulations.

I would disagree with your assertion right off the bat.

It takes context into consideration because it is part of the rules. A player is only not eligible to play if he doesn't meet the eligibility criteria within the rules. You need to show a rule which defines eligibility within the rules of the SPFL as extending beyond the requirements to meet eligibility in the first place to make that case IMHO - and I would think in any defendants' argument.
 
the sfa/spfl and the scottish government sat down and agreed the rules for scottish football to start back.and playing a player who should have been isolating is the same as playing a player who is suspended.get the points docked.
 

Cheers mate, found it myself (should've just done that to be fair instead of being a lazy bar steward and asking in the first place) :D

See above though. I think the poster is misinterpreting it. Section 16 is about clubs' being held accountable on those three basis. Only 16(i) is relevant in terms of eligbility and is therefore in context of the SPFL's own definition of eligible.
 
EDIT - Found it:

16. Any Club which (i) Plays a Player who is not eligible to Play; (ii) Plays a Player in circumstances which are not in accordance with the Rules and/or Regulations; and/or (iii) applies to Scottish FA Register a Player without the consent of the Board where such consent is required by the Rules or Regulations, shall be in breach of these Regulations.

I would disagree with your assertion right off the bat.

It takes context into consideration because it is part of the rules. A player is only not eligible to play if he doesn't meet the eligibility criteria within the rules. You need to show a rule which defines eligibility within the rules of the SPFL as extending beyond the requirements to meet eligibility in the first place to make that case IMHO - and I would think in any defendants' argument.
And I would say straight off the bat, only 16 (ii) and 16(iii) relates to context written in the rules. What other rules are there written in context that applies only to 16(I) If you can find it, I stand corrected. If there is no other context that can be drawn, why does 16(I) exist as all rules are covered under 16(ii) and 16(iii)
 
And I would say straight off the bat, only 16 (ii) and 16(iii) relates to context written in the rules. What other rules are there written in context that applies only to 16(I) If you can find it, I stand corrected. If there is no other context that can be drawn, why does 16(I) exist as all rules are covered under 16(ii) and 16(iii)

Because 16(i) refers specifically to player eligibility, which places it in the context of the rule book.

16(ii) and (iii) are nothing to do with eligibility and are to do with playing eligible players but in breach of regulations/rules and for incorrectly attempting to register players outwith the rules.
 
Cheers mate, found it myself (should've just done that to be fair instead of being a lazy bar steward and asking in the first place) :D

See above though. I think the poster is misinterpreting it. Section 16 is about clubs' being held accountable on those three basis. Only 16(i) is relevant in terms of eligbility and is therefore in context of the SPFL's own definition of eligible.
Look at point 17. Isn't this whole pandemic protocol. A "Prohibition." His travel ban has rendered him under a "Prohibition"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prohibition

of not being eligible to play. Both the the club and the player are in "breach of these regulations"

Since Celtic have profited from such an administrative lapse in the past, in the interests of sporting integrity, they should admit their wrongdoing and forfeit this game.

And there's the word they can't argue with, he wasn't ineligible with registration - but was under a Prohibition which is identical to being suspended in terms of the SPFL's own rules.
 
Look at point 17. Isn't this whole pandemic protocol. A "Prohibition." His travel ban has rendered him under a "Prohibition"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prohibition

of not being eligible to play. Both the the club and the player are in "breach of these regulations"

Since Celtic have profited from such an administrative lapse in the past, in the interests of sporting integrity, they should admit their wrongdoing and forfeit this game.

"If a Player Plays whilst subject to suspension or other prohibition from Playing by the Scottish FA and/or the League..."

Again, this requires the SFA/SPFL to have applied a the prohibition (ie have the fecking rule in place)

PS - I wholeheartedly agree with the forfeit/integrity bit :)
 
The
"If a Player Plays whilst subject to suspension or other prohibition from Playing by the Scottish FA and/or the League..."

Again, this requires the SFA/SPFL to have applied a the prohibition (ie have the fecking rule in place)

PS - I wholeheartedly agree with the last bit :)
The SFA or SPFL can't circumvent the law. If they could, why not say " %^*& it," and have the stands full.
 
I think if this fight is going to continue to be fought, the 'ineligible' being exclusively linked to a player being 'registered' needs nipped in the bud pronto.

Of course the boy is registered. I think it's Hugh Keevins that's started that narrative going by on here.

He was absolutely and 100% ineligible to play in the same sense if he played while serving a suspension and played.
 
I think if this fight is going to continue to be fought, the 'ineligible' being exclusively linked to a player being 'registered' needs nipped in the bud pronto.

Of course the boy is registered. I think it's Hugh Kevins that's started that narrative going by on here.

He was absolutely and 100% ineligible to play in the same sense if he played while serving a suspension and played.

A short few years ago this specifically helped avoid them stealing our titles. It wasn't started by Keevins.
 
It's an interesting argument over what the definition of "eligible" means.

I've read through the Rules & Regs and whilst there is nothing specific which applies to this situation, there is equally nothing that specifically applies to a lot of situations where a player would most certainly be "ineligible".
Just for example, a properly registered player breaking the law and (say) being incarcerated, then escaping and playing for his club.

It sounds ridiculous I know -- however those Rules & Regs that have been picked over by many on here DON'T mention anything about that situation.

So (for example) Griffiths could be locked up, walk out of an open prison and then turn out for CFC.
And apparently he would still be "eligible" ???!!

No.
The Rules & Regs being so forensically examined refer to the defining of the players and the teams within this private little get-together.
The Laws of the nation over-ride all that.
 
It's a tough one but we know how things would be if it had been Rangers.
The problem is that the SFA rule covers SFA law/rules.
The 14 days quarantine is the law of the land. So, Bolingo was ineligible to be out of his house. Does that make him ineligible to play in a game at Rugby Park under the SFA rules?
That call will be made by the SPFL/SFA and I expect it to have all the teeth and meaning of a UN Binding Resolution.

Unless there is clear provision for players being deemed ineligible on the basis of actions outwith the scope of the SFA/SPFL, then celtc won't be getting points deducted. They have to be absolutely bullet proof on this because you can bet your last penny the mentally challenged will be getting the lawyers involved otherwise.
 
They don't have to circumvent the law. They didn't. But they never prohibited him from playing either.

Off the top of my head.

A person / team committing a match fixing criminal offence and the result that came from it, wasnt specifically stopped from going ahead and executing it. But would certainly be sanctioned for it at both a sporting and criminal level.

Bolingoli committed a criminal offence leaving his house to play the match. He wasnt stopped from deciding to do so as nobody knew he was going to do it. There has only been criminal sanction, no sporting sanction as yet.

We still await the SFA rulebook for 20/21 which I hope will have the answer.

Trying hard here. Been a good night.
 
It's an interesting argument over what the definition of "eligible" means.

I've read through the Rules & Regs and whilst there is nothing specific which applies to this situation, there is equally nothing that specifically applies to a lot of situations where a player would most certainly be "ineligible".
Just for example, a properly registered player breaking the law and (say) being incarcerated, then escaping and playing for his club.

It sounds ridiculous I know -- however those Rules & Regs that have been picked over by many on here DON'T mention anything about that situation.

So (for example) Griffiths could be locked up, walk out of an open prison and then turn out for CFC.
And apparently he would still be "eligible" ???!!

No.
The Rules & Regs being so forensically examined refer to the defining of the players and the teams within this private little get-together.
The Laws of the nation over-ride all that.

In terms of the rules he actually would be eligible. This is the fundamental point. The SPFL/SFA rules sit within their jurisdiction and context of the rules and criteria if the game. So unless they define such that outside factors like these are considered, their definition of eligbility remains only as per their specified crieria.

It's not a common sense or general word definition argument. I think that's why the debate is even happening.

If a player escaped jail and got played by his club while on the run there'd be a very interesting argument to be had afterwards, but the appropriate punishment wouldn't be based on the eligibility argument in these terms.
 
Off the top of my head.

A person / team committing a match fixing criminal offence and the result that came from it, wasnt specifically stopped from going ahead and executing it. But would certainly be sanctioned for it at both a sporting and criminal level.

Bolingoli committed a criminal offence leaving his house to play the match. He wasnt stopped from deciding to do so as nobody knew he was going to do it. There has only been criminal sanction, no sporting sanction as yet.

We still await the SFA rulebook for 20/21 which I hope will have the answer.

Trying hard here. Been a good night.

Both the gambling and match fixing elements of that would be covered within the rules of the game though. There are rules around gambling and of course sporting conduct.
 
Pointless arguement since they run the game in Scotland. Absolutely no use getting worked up about it. We already know how the story would go if it was one of ours.

It's out-with our control. Let's get on to the authorities about shite refs like tonight. At least we may be able to have some influence there, maybe not.
 
In terms of the rules he actually would be eligible. This is the fundamental point. The SPFL/SFA rules sit within their jurisdiction and context of the rules and criteria if the game. So unless they define such that outside factors like these are considered, their definition of eligbility remains only as per their specified crieria.

It's not a common sense or general word definition argument. I think that's why the debate is even happening.

If a player escaped jail and got played by his club while on the run there'd be a very interesting argument to be had afterwards, but the appropriate punishment wouldn't be based on the eligibility argument in these terms.

Again there is a specific prohibition (quarantine) of any worker returning from Spain. The SFA or SPFL or Celtic cannot choose to ignore this. The football authorities have already set precedent with the Aberdeen 8 banned due to possible exposure. Did the Dons players have a pandemic or don't go to the pub clause in it? What if the Aberdeen board said, %^*& you, and played those players as there wasn't a published rule. Under what clause in the rule book were they banned? The Celtic player is under this COVID prohibition and this is covered by rule 17. He is in effect, "suspended" (the same paragraph and in "natural justice" (again the HMRC phrase) both club and player should be sanctioned in the same manner as playing a suspended player.
 
Again there is a specific prohibition (quarantine) of any worker returning from Spain. The SFA or SPFL or Celtic cannot choose to ignore this. The football authorities have already set precedent with the Aberdeen 8 banned due to possible exposure. Did the Dons players have a pandemic or don't go to the pub clause in it? What if the Aberdeen board said, %^*& you, and played those players as there wasn't a published rule. Under what clause in the rule book were they banned? The Celtic player is under this COVID prohibition and this is covered by rule 17. He is in effect, "suspended" (the same paragraph and in "natural justice" (again the HMRC phrase) both club and player should be sanctioned in the same manner as playing a suspended player.

It’s not covered mate. This is straw clutching. “Natural justice” and “in effect” don’t come into it.

What players received a prohibition or suspension from the SPFL/SFA in the Aberdeen team? Not aware of this happening. They tested positive or were contact traced as I believe and went into isolation in line with government regulations and under club orders.

Their game was going ahead until the JRG ordered it postponed. Nobody was suspended by the SPFL or SFA from playing.
 
yes a play on words but we need to be clear and concise on this matter

this is the issue he was not ineligible.

He was not allowed to play under the current government agreed guidance signed by all the clubs the Scottish government and Public Health Authority

last night on SSB (i know) this was getting batted back by keviens and its a play of words but that is why he is good at his job

this is the line we must use the ineligible bit is not true and the argument will be batted back down every time
He wasn’t ineligible
“He was not allowed to play”
would not being allowed to play not mean exactly that?
 
He wasn’t ineligible
“He was not allowed to play”
would not being allowed to play not mean exactly that?

Exactly.

This is where the phrase "in effect" DOES apply.

I can't see any actual strict SFA/SPFL (nor FA) defintion of "eligible" in their documents (which I find surprising tbh).
If that strict definition is indeed NOT there, then it goes to what we take from the dictionary definition:

If you aren't allowed to, then you are ineligible.
 
Exactly.

This is where the phrase "in effect" DOES apply.

I can't see any actual strict SFA/SPFL (nor FA) defintion of "eligible" in their documents (which I find surprising tbh).
If that strict definition is indeed NOT there, then it goes to what we take from the dictionary definition:

If you aren't allowed to, then you are ineligible.
Did the SFA or SPFL say he wasn’t allowed to play?

It’s really this simple. They do not enforce the law of the land. They do not supersede it, but they don’t enforce it or deal with breaches of it.

That is not in their remit. They can only enforce their own rules and punishments.

If a player breaks the law, it is dealt with by the Police and courts. This has happened.

If a player/club breaks a footballing regulation or rule, the football authorities deal with it.

I’m genuinely amazed that so many are determined to keep hitting their heads against a clear brick wall with this failed argument when there are other much more valid ways to attack this. I’ll just reiterate that this is a big part of why our support is so poor at fighting these battles. Flog dead horses when there’s a barrel of fish right in front of us.
 
I don’t see where the argument is, Legia Warsaw for instance didn’t realise the player shouldn’t play, and they lost the tie. Saying you didn’t know is no excuse.

that’s a different scenario as the Legia player in question was ineligible under the football regulations, the scenario here is that it appears the player in question was eligible to play as far as the football regulations are concerned but shouldn’t have been there as regards the law of the land - there doesn’t appear to be anything in the football regulation to cover such a scenario arising.
 
Did the SFA or SPFL say he wasn’t allowed to play?

It’s really this simple. They do not enforce the law of the land. They do not supersede it, but they don’t enforce it or deal with breaches of it.

That is not in their remit. They can only enforce their own rules and punishments.

If a player breaks the law, it is dealt with by the Police and courts. This has happened.

If a player/club breaks a footballing regulation or rule, the football authorities deal with it.

I’m genuinely amazed that so many are determined to keep hitting their heads against a clear brick wall with this failed argument when there are other much more valid ways to attack this. I’ll just reiterate that this is a big part of why our support is so poor at fighting these battles. Flog dead horses when there’s a barrel of fish right in front of us.

I 100% agree with your first three points. The problem for me on your last point is we simply don't know if or what amendments have been made to this years rules handbook. The world has changed so much with this pandemic and IMO it would be grossly negligent of the SFA/SPFL not to include amendments they have worked on with Government that cover this particular state. I completely understand your pragmatism since all we have to work with is the previous years rules handbook which obviously did not foresee such a scenario. Of course it does not mean that we should not be pressing them for the NEW rules hand book ASAP which should have already been in circulation in order to avoid as much ambiguity as possible.


EDIT
Feel free to provide a specific SFA/SPFL rule that means that they can deduct points otherwise this will become our version of resolution 12.

I've edited you in to this post as I feel the last part of my reply to BN1979' covers my view on this particular discussion. We simply cant point to anything specific at the moment as the SFA/SPFL prefer their rules etc to be an enigmatic document where many rulings there in are shrouded in mystery.
 
Last edited:
I 100% agree with your first three points. The problem for me on your last point is we simply don't know if or what amendments have been made to this years rules handbook. The world has changed so much with this pandemic and IMO it would be grossly negligent of the SFA/SPFL not to include amendments they have worked on with Government that cover this particular state. I completely understand your pragmatism since all we have to work with is the previous years rules handbook which obviously did not foresee such a scenario. Of course it does not mean that we should not be pressing them for the NEW rules hand book ASAP which should have already been in circulation in order to avoid as much ambiguity as possible.

I completely agree with this. It's essentially what I've said all along.

I genuinely believe they haven't provisioned specific amendments into the laws of the game for this year to cover CoVid regulations. We don't know because they haven't published them, but there's no evidence to suggest they exist - which is essential if claiming a rule has been broken, you kind of need to actually have that rule to break.

Negligence is exactly how I'd describe it and I can't imagine anyone would be even slightly surprised by it.

As I've said before, they SHOULD have the rules written and defined to specifically cover what was supposedly agreed with Nippy.

They SHOULD make them public for transparency.

They SHOULD then enforce them from whenever they came/come into effect.

Pressing for this SHOULD be a priority for all clubs and supporters now.

As for this specific debate that has been raging. In the simplest terms, my point remains that player eligibility for that game is the wrong angle to attack.

My opinion on what SHOULD have happened:

- Nippy has decreed that as a result of breaches of the protocols supposedly agreed between ScoGov and the SFA/SPFL, Celtic and Aberdeen are prohibited by the Government from taking part in football matches for the agreed period.
- As a result, both clubs must declare themselves to the footballing authorities of being unable to fulfil the fixtures occurring during that period.
- They are then accountable under the existing football rules and regulations for that and can be penalised by forfeiture of those ties (3-0 wins to opposition)

Now, under those points I would suspect (would need to look up) that there is scope for wiggle room in terms of agreeing postponement if all parties inc. opponents accept.

That sounds like a get out, but I would think what it actually allows is for clubs that are unable to fulfil fixtures due to a CoVid outbreak in their squad that was genuinely caused by accident (which could potentially happen) to be given the benefit of the doubt, versus clubs/players who find themselves in the scenario through clear breaches such as Bolingoli/The Sheep.

Under these circumstances opponents can rightfully say "no, we'll take the points, we're not to blame, we don't want a fixture pile-up later and we shouldn't suffer any punishment/penalty for the actions of other clubs/players".

Given the UEFA Linfield example, it seems reasonable to think the show must go on because if we accept that any time a team has a CoVid situation we are allowing games to be backlogged, there's a real threat to the footballing schedule in general and a genuine ongoing penalisation of innocent clubs' own fixture lists.

We come back to the fundamental issue of not having this defined upfront and then them setting the precedent by allowing Aberdeen's game to be postponed after their players' breach. First step then should have been to make them play the game without the affected players or declare themselves unable to fulfil and award the points to St Johnstone.

Instead? The usual pull it out of the arse response from the SPFL which creates a knock-on havoc effect.
 
Last edited:
The government has set rules we all adhere to, this player has gone against these rules and had potentially put teammates and opposing players at risk, 14 days self isolation and them around him and contact with should also isolate I believe for 10 days, the government should be ripping 666fc and the spfl a new one and set an example of them and Aberdeen.
 
that’s a different scenario as the Legia player in question was ineligible under the football regulations, the scenario here is that it appears the player in question was eligible to play as far as the football regulations are concerned but shouldn’t have been there as regards the law of the land - there doesn’t appear to be anything in the football regulation to cover such a scenario arising.

I've quoted your post mate because it is short and sharp enough to address the main point here -- eligibility.

The football Rules & Regs don't cover this scenario.
But ... as we've said, those Rules & Regs also don't cover the hypothetical "escaped prisoner who is still a registered player who then plays for his team."
There may be plenty of other scenarios that are NOT covered by those fotballing Rules & Regs.

The point I and others are making is that EVEN if the foootballing Rules & Regs don't cover it and some people try to state that he was STILL "eligible" --
He's not.

Because the term "eligible" (and its roots) is not defined in the Rules & Regs, you have to refer to dictionary definitions.

He wasn't allowed because the law of the land required him to NOT play.
The law of the land defined his "eligibility" for the game (check the dictionaries for defintions).

So ... not eligible.
 
I've quoted your post mate because it is short and sharp enough to address the main point here -- eligibility.

The football Rules & Regs don't cover this scenario.
But ... as we've said, those Rules & Regs also don't cover the hypothetical "escaped prisoner who is still a registered player who then plays for his team."
There may be plenty of other scenarios that are NOT covered by those fotballing Rules & Regs.

The point I and others are making is that EVEN if the foootballing Rules & Regs don't cover it and some people try to state that he was STILL "eligible" --
He's not.

Because the term "eligible" (and its roots) is not defined in the Rules & Regs, you have to refer to dictionary definitions.

He wasn't allowed because the law of the land required him to NOT play.
The law of the land defined his "eligibility" for the game (check the dictionaries for defintions).

So ... not eligible.

Because that isn't something they have jurisdiction over. It is not the footballing authorities remit to enforce the law. Already covered. they only enforce their own rules.

If a player escapes jail and shows up and plays, he'll get arrested again. There may be other folk arrested for aiding him during his escaped period.
 
Well they certainly ain't bright. One of their players left the country, in a pandemic, and they didn't even know??
Probably more arrogance than stupidity right enough. They are untouchable and they know it.
How would they know? My work don’t know what I do when I’m not there, thankfully.
 
No matter what the outcome is here it is baffling as to why no one from the sfa/spfl has made a statement. Are they worried in case liewell doesn't like it or more realistically is liewell not letting them say anything until he and their lawyers are happy with the situation. Corruption sfa/spfl/celtic go hand in hand.
 
Because the term "eligible" (and its roots) is not defined in the Rules & Regs, you have to refer to dictionary definitions.

Page 68: SPFL Rules "at July 2020"

F Players Registration and Eligibility

F1 Subject to these Rules and the Player Regulations, to be eligible to Play for a Club a Player must be League Registered with that Club in accordance with these Rules and the Player Regulations.

F2 A breach of or failure to comply with the Player Regulations shall constitute a breach of these Rules.
 
So sturgeon says this is the yellow card.Surely aberdeen players was the yellow card.Don't really know what she can do but bolingoli must be the red card in this fiasco.So what are the going to do. My guess is they'll wait for an easy target till they take action Sfa/spfl shit scared and owned by liewell and snp polluted with friends of celtic. Where is the condemnation from the football authorities? The wee tramp bigot from Alloa couldn't get in there quick enough when rumours regarding Rangers breaking covid rules were on the go a couple of weeks ago. The silence tells it all.Corrupt and owned by celtic
If boli was the red card we would not be playing either.
 
Is it a government guideline though?

If a McDonald's worker has been in Ibiza and arrived back yesterday, and a few staff phone in with food poisoning, can they decide that their need for staff allows them to phone in an employee quarantined for 14 days, as they are stuck and its only a guideline?
 
Exactly.

This is where the phrase "in effect" DOES apply.

I can't see any actual strict SFA/SPFL (nor FA) defintion of "eligible" in their documents (which I find surprising tbh).
If that strict definition is indeed NOT there, then it goes to what we take from the dictionary definition:

If you aren't allowed to, then you are ineligible.
we’re at the point where people are trying to convince us words just don’t exist anymore.
“it’s not that he was ineligible per se, it’s just celtic no longer recognise that word. In fact just last week somebody mentioned that we should start removing it from all our own stuff”
“A big pat on the back from the sfa on their foresight”

I’m all for criticising them but if he’s been given time off how are they supposed to know if he’s fucked off to Spain for a day or two?
because their player would’ve told them if they had control of him. Are we to believe individual players hold their passport? I can’t remember of a high profile one forgetting his.
 
I’m all for criticising them but if he’s been given time off how are they supposed to know if he’s fucked off to Spain for a day or two?
Mate jebus wept. Don’t know if your serious. Do you have any idea how football clubs work.
 
So sturgeon says this is the yellow card.Surely aberdeen players was the yellow card.Don't really know what she can do but bolingoli must be the red card in this fiasco.So what are the going to do. My guess is they'll wait for an easy target till they take action Sfa/spfl shit scared and owned by liewell and snp polluted with friends of celtic. Where is the condemnation from the football authorities? The wee tramp bigot from Alloa couldn't get in there quick enough when rumours regarding Rangers breaking covid rules were on the go a couple of weeks ago. The silence tells it all.Corrupt and owned by celtic
Firstly. As already stated, that would have meant us not playing, so I'm certainly not wishing for any red card.
Secondly. As I've said elsewhere, you can hardly give a red card for an incident that happened BEFORE you gave the yellow. Can you?
I'm pretty sure Boli Bolingoli was sunning in Málaga when Herr Sturgeon wash flashing the yellow.

It would be the equivalent of booking Alfie on 48 minutes and deciding to red card him because he made a borderline challenge on 44 that at the time you deemed just on the side of no yellow, but in hindsight is now a red after the second challenge.
 
Last edited:
we’re at the point where people are trying to convince us words just don’t exist anymore.
“it’s not that he was ineligible per se, it’s just celtic no longer recognise that word. In fact just last week somebody mentioned that we should start removing it from all our own stuff”
“A big pat on the back from the sfa on their foresight”

That is a whole lot of silly.

People are trying to convince themselves that rules exist or don't exist to suit their own point of view.

Stubborn refusal to drop a dead-end argument is a lot less valuable than actually taking time to understand the rules and how they are/can be applied.
 
Secondly. As I've said elsewhere, you can hardly give a red card for an incident that happened BEFORE you gave the yellow. Can you?
I'm pretty sure Boli Bolingoli was sunning in Málaga when Herr Sturgeon wash flashing the yellow.

It would be the equivalent of booking Alfie on 48 minutes and deciding to red card him because he made a borderline challenge on 44 that at the time you deemed just on the side of no yellow, but in hindsight is now a red after the second challenge.


Taking that analogy a stage further, were Rangers not "done" for a breach of tax rules which were applied retrospectively?
 
Back
Top