The Celtic Match Thread

[J an]

I would happily sing something like ooh ah Up the Celts or ooh ah Tiocfaidh Ar La but I dont think it is fair that we are getting fined and embarrassed for doing something that dozens of others do on a weekly basis.

Would rather drop the song all together than change the lyrics, even though it's easily my favriote song, and probably the most influential and motivating song we have at Celtic Park. For the record, 'Up The Ra' is not an add on, it's a perfectly legit lyric to the Celtic Symphony. Chants about 'The 'RA' 'PIRA' and the like, that belong in a pub down the Gallowgate rarely see the light of day within the masses at Celtic Park or any away ground.

Personally I didn't expect Celtic to lodge an appeal against the fine, I mean why would they? They do next to nothing in backing the fans up when it comes to head on collisions with the police. It would also 'disgrace' Liewell and co's public image. "Celtic Board Back Terrorist Supporting Hardcore Hooligan Fan Group." Enough to make you weep. Bit of a late reply in regards to all this.

Can't exactly take the moral high-horse route on those broken tiles. Exact same things happen when we play them at Castle Greyskull, win lose or draw.

 

[davidar]

Just a reminder for everyone that bigoted remarks will not be tolerated on our forums.

I'm just wondering but where was the bigoted remark?

 

[Kris]

One of the least disgusting things they done at the game last night..........

Imagine if we sung about Ibrokes falling down? Stupid huns anyway, thier broke club (or Aluko) will be paying for the damages.

I'm just wondering but where was the bigoted remark?

As highlighted above.


Words as such are highlighted are now earmarked on social networking sites as well as Scottish football forums. Time to stamp it out here as well.

This thread should be focussing on football

'Celtic were good today because...'

'We sucked today after....'

'Did you hear? We are being linked with...'

Anything non football related will be removed.

 

[Shay Given]

Cant beleive I got banned for that, meh.

Anyway the Docs fear Beram could now be out for 4months minimum.

I hope you're not blaming the player for the injury, it was a 50/50 ball that they both got to clean, but the way they struck the ball at the same time, meant the ball sprung off and his foot rolled up into the ankle. Both players were rightly committed both got there at the same time. No one's fault Kayal was just unlucky

The distance Elbows was away from the ball compared to Kayal. Never a 50-50

Even if we pretend that it was a 50-50. It stops being a fair challenge when McElbows lifts his foot to knee height with the studs very much on show. No doubt that will get him a new contract.

 

[Mike.]

Cant beleive I got banned for that, meh.

Anyway the Docs fear Beram could now be out for 4months minimum.

The distance Elbows was away from the ball compared to Kayal. Never a 50-50

Even if we pretend that it was a 50-50. It stops being a fair challenge when McElbows lifts his foot to knee height with the stud very much on show.

Shay i watched the game, i dont need pictures that dont tell the full story. No one disputed it was a 50-50, except you, which isnt surprised

And yes you deserved to be banned for that

 

[Shay Given]

So you are just going to dismiss the pictures

Anyway on a better note, 8:10 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60jX7dL2H9I&feature=youtu.be


What a legend!

 

[Mike.]

So you are just going to dismiss the pictures

Anyway on a better note, 8:10 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60jX7dL2H9I&feature=youtu.be


What a legend!

yes, becase they show a few frames without the rest of the context, and not the hundreds in a video... thought that would be pretty obvious

You have picked 3 randomly different pictures, in an effort to turn a 50-50 into a terrible rangers foul.

 

[Shay Given]

Well a video would show the same only at greater speed and in less detail. The fact the ref gave us the free kick shows that McCulloch was in the wrong.

The first pic clearly shows McCulloch had to cover X3 the distance. How is it a 50-50? It isnt.

 

[Mike.]

Well a video would show the same only at greater speed and in less detail. The fact the ref gave us the free kick shows that McCulloch was in the wrong.

The first pic clearly shows McCulloch had to cover X3 the distance. How is it a 50-50? It isnt.

and yet they reached the ball at the same time. You stick to your agenda, like i said i watched the game, pretty no one was anything untoward about it, just you. which isnt suprising given the way you talk about rangers.

Lennon called it a proper tackle between two committed players, which is what most people thought

 

[Shay Given]

They didnt reach the ball at the same time. Kayal got there first.

The ref gave us a free so surly McCulloch was in the wrong or the ref just doesnt like him.

My other to pics show that he went in with the studs showing an his leg up unnecessarily high. This cant be seen in videos/live as it is too far away form the incident and going to fast. So they have a relevance. Are you actually saying (with the benefit of being able to see the pics) that, that was not a dangerous tackle?

 

[Mike.]

They didnt reach the ball at the same time. Kayal got there first.

The ref gave us a free so surly McCulloch was in the wrong or the ref just doesnt like him.

My other to pics show that he went in with the studs showing an his leg up unnecessarily high. This cant be seen in videos/live as it is too far away form the incident and going to fast. So they have a relevance. Are you actually saying (with the benefit of being able to see the pics) that, that was not a dangerous tackle?

Your pictures are random and oujt of context, and why would i use them having looked at the video. it can be seen in the video, as i just watched it again they reach the ball at the same time. its not a dangerous tackle, its a very unlucky one because the bounce out of the ball as the players collide means his foot rides up. Both players are diving in to win it, Lennon called it a proper challenge between two committed players. Kayal came off worse so refs gives a free kick, notice no talking to or booking. A dangerous tackle would have seen red, no one thought he should have been off.

strawman argument there

 

[The Bath Manager]

Yes McCulloch was late with his tackle. Celtic got a free-kick. A late tackle isn't always a red-card and your photographic "evidence" is ridiculous and out of context.

 

[Shay Given]

Yes McCulloch was late with his tackle. Celtic got a free-kick. A late tackle isn't always a red-card and your photographic "evidence" is ridiculous and out of context.

No one mentioned a red. I said it was Elbows fault that Kayal is out, which is disappointing as he shouldnt have been allowed to play.

 

[manutdfc]

No one mentioned a red. I said it was Elbows fault that Kayal is out, which is disappointing as he shouldnt have been allowed to play.

im a celtic fan and i sit in the green brigade had a season ticket for 9 years i hate the manky mob as much as the rest but it was never a straight red or a horror tackle it was a 50-50 and it was either elbow or kayal was coming out hurt and it just happened to be kayal

and as far as he shouldnt have been playing its bollocks the appeal is there to be used it happens both ways i'm sure there has been a time when a celtic players appealed a decision and shouldnt be playing the rules r there to be broken

 

[Athe~]

the rules r there to be broken

Actually, no - the rules are there to be followed, and appealing happens to be part of the rules.

 

[manutdfc]

yes true but they r only supposed to appeal if they think its the wrong decision appealing so they can play in the next match is not what its there for

take suarez they done it the other way they think he is innocent but theyre not appealing because if they do and lose then he misses the tottenham and united games and if they just accept it he will only miss 3 premiership games against weaker teams it works both ways but thats not what its there for

 

[manutdfc]

it goes both ways if u think you need him for 1 game but can afford to lose him in the next games after that use the appeal

i know thats not what its for but its the rules of the game and its a loop hole round about the whole situation everyone uses it at one point or another

liverpool just decided not to because not doing it suited them better

and clearly rangers did need him so they used it so as far as him playing in the old firm game goes if thats the rules theres a loop hole round it (it just so happened to be the old firm game) but they clearly felt they needed him and dont the next few games after it everyone uses it at some point

 

[Shay Given]

If the SFA wasnt such an amateur organisation he wouldnt have been playing, simple. So he shouldnt have been playing but did.

You dont really sound like the die heart Celtic fan with a name like "ManUtdFC" but it is your opinion that it was 50-50. That doesnt mean it was. Lenny also said it was 50-50 but I feel that it wasnt. Realistically Elbows was never going to reach that ball.

 

[Athe~]

One way or the other, what's done is done. There's no point arguing about that now.

 

[manutdfc]

If the SFA wasnt such an amateur organisation he wouldnt have been playing, simple. So he shouldnt have been playing but did.

You dont really sound like the die heart Celtic fan with a name like "ManUtdFC" but it is your opinion that it was 50-50. That doesnt mean it was. Lenny also said it was 50-50 but I feel that it wasnt. Realistically Elbows was never going to reach that ball.

what difference does it make what my fm name is its time u took off your green glasses and looked at the bigger picture i am a die hard celtic fan but its ***** like you that gee us a bad name on sites like this moaning 24/7 we won the game and yer still complaining he shouldnt have been playin oh boo hoo big ******* deal as if celtic have never appealed a decision just so the player can play the next game.

and as far as the sfa ar concerned its no just the sfa it happens everywhere liverpool could have appealed so suarez could have played against man city the other night and the game after that but if the lost he would have missed the spurs liverpool game and it wasnt a risk worth taking so he misses wolves n a few other ****** games they should be winning anyway its a loop hole in the system thats there to be used too your favour if you can.

does it matter if mcculloch was playing or if it was anyone else it was a 50/50 tackle n kayal came out worse its 4 weeks off big deal keeps premiership teams away from him untill the summer thats the way a see it