Willie Miller - Intellect of the year !!!!!

[Stirlish]

28 minutes ago, Garvis said:

Aye was he only had one brush his full career, think he changed the head 3 times and the shaft twice. 

Ok Trigger!

[kilMARKnock]

8 hours ago, Killieboyd said:

Met Chick Young over in Olomouc the night before the game.  In reality a very decent bloke who had plenty of time to talk to all of us.  He does get what it is like to support a non old firm team.

Mmmm, met Chic the night before that in Prague chasing a hooker down the street that had just told him to do one 

[historyman]

15 hours ago, kfc_superteam said:

I actually quite like Willie Miller. Don't actually think he has it in for Killie. Listen most days to Sportsound and he has actually been quite positive about killie sometimes even pre Clarke. Obviously he has the blinkers on when it comes to Aberdeen but that is with every team. Find his droning on quite humerus. Pat Bonner annoys me because he rambles on and on about Celtic. So boring, how anyone can go on about the best Celtic midfield when they were winning every week was beyond me. I like Chick Young as well. Generally has nice things to say about killie! Craig Paterson for being an ex killie player is so negative about us. Rob McLean is the worst commentator.

I quite like him as well. As a player he was superb and as a pundit I find him quite funny too. He must look at the quality of some of the defenders and think it's hilarious how bad they are. He might not be an intellectual giant but he is there for his knowledge of the game which is sound, and unlike Bonner, he does know the names of players. I don't know how Bonner, who is the worst of all current pundits by a mile, got the gig. I assume it was because they needed some more ex-Tic players to even up the balance and they couldn't afford anyone else. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by historyman

[Bonbon19]

Or Willie needs to be retired , I listen to his “ commentary “ on whatever match theyve parked his bath chair at and just know that if it isn’t Aberdeen mistakes will be made 

[Killieboyd]

20 hours ago, killie1961 said:

I REMEMBER that to was in a bar he went downstairs to check out the local ladies

It was indeed!

[killie1961]

1 minute ago, Killieboyd said:

It was indeed!

Met him at a meat loaf concert at hydro with his ex girlfriend asked him if he remembered olomuc for some reason he left quickly

[Candygram for mongo]

13 hours ago, Garvis said:

Aye was he only had one brush his full career, think he changed the head 3 times and the shaft twice. 

Trying your hand at alternative comedy?

[Garvis]

1 minute ago, Candygram for mongo said:

Trying your hand at alternative comedy?

Just trying to lighten the mood some folk are over serious on here.

[Candygram for mongo]

4 minutes ago, Garvis said:

Just trying to lighten the mood some folk are over serious on here.

Agreed 

[Prahakillie]

On 2/24/2018 at 7:55 PM, zinger said:

 He argued against our penalty today on the grounds that as the shot was off target, it should not be given and then went on to query Lennon's dismissal for simply facing up the referee.

 

Lennon seems to think the same:

"Lennon’s reaction to the spot-kick saw him sent to the stand, which further irked and he sarcastically applauded the whistler.

He added: “It’s impossible for him to say it is ball to hand and the ball is going 10 yards wide, so he has guessed."

[gdevoy]

12 minutes ago, Prahakillie said:

Lennon seems to think the same:

"Lennon’s reaction to the spot-kick saw him sent to the stand, which further irked and he sarcastically applauded the whistler.

He added: “It’s impossible for him to say it is ball to hand and the ball is going 10 yards wide, so he has guessed."

I would not have given the penalty either but then I would have ruled their first goal offside. Much of what happens during a game is not back and white which is what allows the "pundits" so much room to dissect an incident. However we have all agreed to allow the guy in the black shirt with

a) The best view that can be afforded to any individual in real time
b) The widest possible knowledge of the rules
c) Good long experience of similar incidents

to have the final say. Somebody has to make a decision and we have all agreed it should be him.

Losing the plot when his decision goes against your interests, calling competence into question and more seriously impartiality (note, not a whimper when a dodgy call goes your way) can only damage your own reputation, that of the team you represent and negatively affect your own health and wellbeing.      

[Prahakillie]

I agree but I don't see what relevance of the direction the ball was heading in has to do with the decision to award a penalty.

Unless we are supposed to believe the defender would never have deliberately handled it unless it was heading into the net.

 

[KillieBus]

6 minutes ago, Prahakillie said:

I agree but I don't see what relevance of the direction the ball was heading in has to do with the decision to award a penalty.

Unless we are supposed to believe the defender would never have deliberately handled it unless it was heading into the net.

 

There is no relevance in what direction the ball is going in. As we all know, pundits say stuff just and then try to make it relevant.

In my view, although you can argue it was a bit unlucky for the player, it was a penalty all day long. He turn his back, his arm is sticking out, the ball hits the arm. Penalty.

[Bullitt]

16 minutes ago, KillieBus said:

There is no relevance in what direction the ball is going in. As we all know, pundits say stuff just and then try to make it relevant.

In my view, although you can argue it was a bit unlucky for the player, it was a penalty all day long. He turn his back, his arm is sticking out, the ball hits the arm. Penalty.

I agree. They both felt Kipri should have had a penalty against him in the Motherwell game when he was less than a foot away from the ball and his arms were in at his chest. They both felt Russel Martin giving a penalty away against Hamilton for a hand ball from 2 yards whilst he was making a slide tackle was a correct decision.

Yet inexplicably, a player who turns his back on a shot and throws his arms out in an unnatural position, handling it from 10 yards, is not worthy of any decision against him. Boggles the mind.

Also this chat that it has to be intentional is nonsense. If I'm in a wall, and I jump star fish with my eyes closed and it hits my hand it's a free kick or penalty. How many people intentionally handle a ball in the box? Very few unless it's to prevent a goal on the line.

[All the Wine]

50 minutes ago, KillieBus said:

There is no relevance in what direction the ball is going in. As we all know, pundits say stuff just and then try to make it relevant.

In my view, although you can argue it was a bit unlucky for the player, it was a penalty all day long. He turn his back, his arm is sticking out, the ball hits the arm. Penalty.

It's didn't hit his arm that was raised tho, I think the referee thought it did  and that's why it was given. It wasn't a stonewaller but neither was it a 'definite no' penalty. One of those that you sometimes get. 

The fact it turned the wee ginger tosser into a froth at the mouth maniac, pleases me 

[Estragon]

I don't think it was a penalty.  In fact, I'd even argue it was less of a penalty than Gary Dicker's against Dundee - which also wasn't a penalty.

There genuinely has to be a review of what does and does not constitute a handball.  It shouldn't be the case as it is now, whenever there's a rebound in the box, attackers and supporters alike are howling at the referee.  We've lost our way a bit.

On the subject of Willie Miller, he's an absolute bawbag - and it frankly disgusts me that the license payer has to fork out any cash whatsoever to fund his opining on radio.  We've taken the piss out of him for years for his manner of speaking, but to start putting over an opinion on a penalty decision he 'hasn't saw' is just outrageous.  Get in the f**king bin.

[gdevoy]

14 minutes ago, Estragon said:

There genuinely has to be a review of what does and does not constitute a handball. 

IMO If a ball hits any part of an arm it should be treated like it has hit any other part of a players body. The only exception to this rule should be where a player actively moves his arm away from his body and into the path of the ball. So this exception would not include raising arms to protect a face.

I don't buy this "un-natural position" waffle. If an attacker can see a defender's arm position, it is up to him to guide the ball around it. If the defender moves his arm into the flight of the ball its a penalty. 

 That is my view but I am happy to go along with the SFA definition if they make it clear what it is.

[Wrangodog]

10 minutes ago, Estragon said:

I don't think it was a penalty.  In fact, I'd even argue it was less of a penalty than Gary Dicker's against Dundee - which also wasn't a penalty.

There genuinely has to be a review of what does and does not constitute a handball.  It shouldn't be the case as it is now, whenever there's a rebound in the box, attackers and supporters alike are howling at the referee.  We've lost our way a bit.

On the subject of Willie Miller, he's an absolute bawbag - and it frankly disgusts me that the license payer has to fork out any cash whatsoever to fund his opining on radio.  We've taken the piss out of him for years for his manner of speaking, but to start putting over an opinion on a penalty decision he 'hasn't saw' is just outrageous.  Get in the f**king bin.

Gary Dicker's was a penalty, a deliberate movement of arm to ball. I was howling at the referee at the game for giving it, but it was clear on the tv showing. I thought we got lucky on Saturday when Clancy gave a penalty, but I can see why he gave it. Miller completely lost the plot on Saturday, but the point he was trying to get across was a valid one, why was Lennon sent to the stand ? Presumably for something he said to the fourth official because verbally abusing and sarcastically clapping Clancy came after he had been sent to the stand. Anyway, if Andy w****r said it was a penalty, it was a penalty.

[Prahakillie]

17 minutes ago, gdevoy said:

IMO If a ball hits any part of an arm it should be treated like it has hit any other part of a players body. The only exception to this rule should be where a player actively moves his arm away from his body and into the path of the ball. So this exception would not include raising arms to protect a face.

I don't buy this "un-natural position" waffle. If an attacker can see a defender's arm position, it is up to him to guide the ball around it. If the defender moves his arm into the flight of the ball its a penalty. 

 That is my view but I am happy to go along with the SFA definition if they make it clear what it is.

so star jump position etc ok as long as the defender adopts and holds their position? make yourself big.

[KillieBus]

1 hour ago, All the Wine said:

It's didn't hit his arm that was raised tho, I think the referee thought it did  and that's why it was given. It wasn't a stonewaller but neither was it a 'definite no' penalty. One of those that you sometimes get. 

The fact it turned the wee ginger tosser into a froth at the mouth maniac, pleases me 

I didn't give that arm a thought, as it was nowhere near the ball (relatively speaking) but it hit the other arm that was also not behind his body. To me, it doesn't matter if an arm is raised, held out horizontally or reaches down to be hit a low ball. If you haven't done enough to get your arms behind your body then you are risk of the ball hitting your arm and giving the ref a decision to make.

[gdevoy]

39 minutes ago, Prahakillie said:

so star jump position etc ok as long as the defender adopts and holds their position? make yourself big.

Just my view of what is easiest to referee. Where does a natural arm position stop and an un-natural one begin? As I said I am happy to go along with the SFA definition whatever it is because it will apply to everyone.

[TheeOhSee]

Stone Wall Penalty. 

 

[gdevoy]

13 minutes ago, TheeOhSee said:

Stone Wall Penalty. 

 

There is no doubt it hit the defenders arm.

His arm is lifted out and away from his body so, as I understand the current rules the ref had every right to award a spot kick. I am not saying "stonewall" but there is absolutely no case to be made that the ref got it wrong.

I do not believe whether the shot is on target or not is in any way relevant. (The Chic Young / Willie Millar arguament)

However both the Scotsport pundits were of the opinion that a penalty should not have been awarded. Whether this is because they felt there was nothing the defender could have done to get out of the way or because they are best mates with Lenny I could not say. We all seemed to be in agreement that his reaction to the decision was unacceptable. 

I once watched Lenny, when he was managing Ceptic, nearly have a cardiac arrest when a throw in went against his team on the halfway line. He really needs to lighten up a bit.   

 

 

[Fankle]

Certainly more of a penalty than Dundee's was...

 

[mathematics]

He has used as many limbs as possible in order to make himself a larger target, hence: PENALTY!

Shocking shot, mind you!