We might make it 1 year on the road undefeated in the leagues without playing if this strike goes ahead.

Lookey Lookey

I now see why people don't like the red/green dot system. Could who ever red dotted me please explain which part of my post was to your dislike and why. Don't get me wrong. You are perfectly entitled to dis-agree with what I've posted but if you could be man enough to post your reasons then at least it would give me the same opportunity to agree or not with you. I might also be able to explain what ever it was so that you understand where I'm coming from.

Thank you

I don't think we have really asked the question Why would D M lie about getting his decsiion right.

I believe it was nothing to do with Mr Lennon I think it was about pressure from the supervisor sitting in the stand. It is his account of how the referee performed that weighs on the mind of the match official. These people have alot of power over the ref. They see it from a totally different perspective, and at times the officals can loose track of whats happening because they wonder how does it look.

I know I have been a victim of this system.

Spot on Big MAN!

There's not a set of laws for the SPL and SFA and the rest of the planet. Have a look at Law 5

No ref, no game. I heard Stuart Dougal saying that he wouldn't referee games abroad if the same situation happened elsewhere.

If people no longer trust the referee and want technology, the whole of the game suffers from Albania to Zambia. The referee is, in the eyes of the game "the sole arbiter of fact" because someone has to take a definitive stance on a matter of perception. Lennon has a perception about the tannadice penalty, so has Peter Houston. The referees statement should be the final and incontrovertable fact. It's the same at the bught park, with the important factor of no cameras, inflated egos, audience ratings, advertising or vast wages at stake. And yet the referee will still get the same amount of stick for doing what the laws of the game require him to do. The reason is that the agenda in this case has nothing to do with football. It is about a club that feels it is bigger than the scottish game attempting to drive an agenda based on innuendo and whispers because it is driven by the same imperatives as above. A protestant conspiracy? Please. Dougie MacDonald still has to go, even if his "lie" is as trivial as mine is every night when I'm asked if I did the dishes yet. But not now, as the purveyors of the major untruths in this will scent blood and feel that they are above the laws of the game. Scottish football deserves better.

I wonder if the SFA have confirmed that these Welsh, Irish and/or English Refs are happy to come here and officiate matches or if it's just an assumption? I know if it was me I wouldn't be heading out to step on the toes of colleagues by crossing, what is effectively, their picket line.

I wonder if the SFA have confirmed that these Welsh, Irish and/or English Refs are happy to come here and officiate matches or if it's just an assumption? I know if it was me I wouldn't be heading out to step on the toes of colleagues by crossing, what is effectively, their picket line.

It does make you wonder if the powers that be have thoroughly thought this one through.

As I said yesterday I wouldn't be finalising travel plans for Parkhead just yet.

I now see why people don't like the red/green dot system. Could who ever red dotted me please explain which part of my post was to your dislike and why. Don't get me wrong. You are perfectly entitled to dis-agree with what I've posted but if you could be man enough to post your reasons then at least it would give me the same opportunity to agree or not with you. I might also be able to explain what ever it was so that you understand where I'm coming from.

Thank you

It was me. My defence counsel has made this statement below:

"The post used a comparison that bore no relation to the topic in question, and my client felt that any point discussed on ICT, when compared to such serious matters as death, would naturally pale in comparison, thus making it a moot point."

You have 28 days to appeal. :)

I now see why people don't like the red/green dot system. Could who ever red dotted me please explain which part of my post was to your dislike and why. Don't get me wrong. You are perfectly entitled to dis-agree with what I've posted but if you could be man enough to post your reasons then at least it would give me the same opportunity to agree or not with you. I might also be able to explain what ever it was so that you understand where I'm coming from.

Thank you

I gave you a red dot as well. Krishima pretty much nailed the reason why i didn't reply in a more eloquent manner than i could mange so we'll just leave it at that. The post in question currently has a rating of +2 though, so i wouldn't get too upset about it.

Caley Stan/Kirishima,

As I pointed out in my last post, you are of course entitled to your opinion and to express it by posting little red dots if you so wish.

In my defence, I do believe it is relevent in that I was merely pointing out that there are more high pressure jobs than reffing. Jobs that cause people to be abused by others verbally and physically. For the most, these people get on with it and don't strike. So IN MY OPINION the refs should just get on with it. Yes, put in a complaint to the SFA but why cause so much inconvenience to others by causing games to be postponed?

The defence rests.

PS: Red dots do not bother one bit, I just like to have the chance to debate the subject instead of just having people hide behind a keyboard, so thank you for having the decency to reveal yourselves.

Edited November 23, 201015 yr by Oz647

anyone know the ledgends line up tonight?

Caley Stan/Kirishima,

As I pointed out in my last post, you are of course entitled to your opinion and to express it by posting little red dots if you so wish.

In my defence, I do believe it is relevent in that I was merely pointing out that there are more high pressure jobs than reffing. Jobs that cause people to be abused by others verbally and physically. For the most, these people get on with it and don't strike. So IN MY OPINION the refs should just get on with it. Yes, put in a complaint to the SFA but why cause so much inconvenience to others by causing games to be postponed?

The defence rests.

PS: Red dots do not bother one bit, I just like to have the chance to debate the subject instead of just having people hide behind a keyboard, so thank you for having the decency to reveal yourselves.

I too gave you a red dot. You don't go to referee a game and expect to be showered with obscenities and threats of physical violence, or threats of and / or having your car vandalised, your family threatened, your windows smashed or hit with coins. This issue is about respect. Comparing it to someone joining the armed forces seems a bit abstract to me. People sign up to the armed forces in the knowledge that you might get injured. People sitting the 30 hour referee course, taking the exam and then going out to referee games on public parks is a completely different scenario entirely. The vast majority of people who are referees (not your ?800 a match ones) do it to help young players improve and help the club, youth development or school which they work with. The actions of certain people in the SPL does have an effect on youngsters playing the game. Pushy parents who think that their child is a great prospect act like a school / youth game is the champions league final. There's an inherent lack of respect which must be addressed here. Players don't barrage other players with criticism like this. Mangers don't do it to other managers. Chairmen don't do it to other chairmen. But it's ok for everyone to have a go at the referees? This is far bigger than what is happening at present and I support the cat 1s who are taking this action.

Caley Stan/Kirishima,

thank you for having the decency to reveal yourselves.

Caley Stan/Kirishima,

As I pointed out in my last post, you are of course entitled to your opinion and to express it by posting little red dots if you so wish.

In my defence, I do believe it is relevent in that I was merely pointing out that there are more high pressure jobs than reffing. Jobs that cause people to be abused by others verbally and physically. For the most, these people get on with it and don't strike. So IN MY OPINION the refs should just get on with it. Yes, put in a complaint to the SFA but why cause so much inconvenience to others by causing games to be postponed?

The defence rests.

PS: Red dots do not bother one bit, I just like to have the chance to debate the subject instead of just having people hide behind a keyboard, so thank you for having the decency to reveal yourselves.

I too gave you a red dot. You don't go to referee a game and expect to be showered with obscenities and threats of physical violence, or threats of and / or having your car vandalised, your family threatened, your windows smashed or hit with coins. This issue is about respect. Comparing it to someone joining the armed forces seems a bit abstract to me. People sign up to the armed forces in the knowledge that you might get injured. People sitting the 30 hour referee course, taking the exam and then going out to referee games on public parks is a completely different scenario entirely. The vast majority of people who are referees (not your ?800 a match ones) do it to help young players improve and help the club, youth development or school which they work with. The actions of certain people in the SPL does have an effect on youngsters playing the game. Pushy parents who think that their child is a great prospect act like a school / youth game is the champions league final. There's an inherent lack of respect which must be addressed here. Players don't barrage other players with criticism like this. Mangers don't do it to other managers. Chairmen don't do it to other chairmen. But it's ok for everyone to have a go at the referees? This is far bigger than what is happening at present and I support the cat 1s who are taking this action.

There you go, isn't that much better than hiding behind a little red dot? Don't you feel as if you've got it out of your system now?

As I have already stated, my post is my opinion, to which I am perfectly entitled as are you to yours.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly. I am not comparing the forces to reffing. I am merely pointing out there are more high pressure jobs than reffing and giving the forces as an example. As for not signing up for abuse. In this day and age any ref that thinks he will not suffer from some sort of abuse is sadly misled. YES, I know it's wrong but so are a lot of things in all walks of life. It is at this point we make a decision. Get on with it or strike. Unfortunately I am against strikes, as all they seem to do is cause chaos and nobody wins really. I am a firm believer in talking it through and coming to an amicable outcome. Striking IN MY OPINION is merely holding people to ransom. In every company there is a chain of command, this is there for a purpose. The refs complain to whoever is the point of contact at the SFA. If nothing is done, go above his head and so on until the problem is sorted. There are procedures to deal with idiots that abuse refs at all levels. Wether it be on a Sunday morning under 10s match or the world cup final. If the abuse happens during a game, the ref puts it in his report and the SFA have to have the balls to do something about it as in bans, fines etc.

If it is outwith, by morons in the street, report it to the police and let them deal with it.

Last but by no means least, I do not condone abuse of any sort given to match officials. I merely think it should be dealt with in a different manner.

If you wish to red dot this, no probs. I can assure you that I will not lose any sleep over it.

Have a nice day.

I'm Brian. And so's my wife!

It is at this point we make a decision. Get on with it or strike. Unfortunately I am against strikes, as all they seem to do is cause chaos and nobody wins really. I am a firm believer in talking it through and coming to an amicable outcome. Striking IN MY OPINION is merely holding people to ransom. In every company there is a chain of command, this is there for a purpose.

Are you saying you are against strikes all together or just in this instance? If you mean all together (regardless of circumstance) then that is utterly ridiculous. And of course striking is holding people to ransom, there wouldn't be much point to it other wise, but it is nearly always a last resort.

Also what do you think would have happened in this instance if the referees had just complained to the SFA and stuck within the 'chain of command' as you put it? I'm going with nothing, same as with most companies. Are you in the army by any chance?

Abuse of referees isn't a new issue. In 2008, I think, the managers and players agreed to not criticise officials publicly, a pact which lasted all of 5 minutes if I remember right.

I think this strike is a last resort as some of the Referees are now genuinely fearing for their safety. Celtic officials effectively endorsing the paranoid fringe in their club to react against perceived institutionalised injustices has just brought it to a head. Most Referees I know or have met, admittedly not Category 1 ones, expect and accept criticism as part of the the modern game, although no one appreciates it...

The whole situation is embarrassing for Scottish Football. It's been allowed to go unchecked for far too long and now it's gone too far, the SFA have to shoulder a huge amount of blame for not protecting their employees better. Referees are just as important than the players on the pitch and you can't have one without the other. Other sports manage to respect officials without issue, why should football be any different?

It is at this point we make a decision. Get on with it or strike. Unfortunately I am against strikes, as all they seem to do is cause chaos and nobody wins really. I am a firm believer in talking it through and coming to an amicable outcome. Striking IN MY OPINION is merely holding people to ransom. In every company there is a chain of command, this is there for a purpose.

Are you saying you are against strikes all together or just in this instance? If you mean all together (regardless of circumstance) then that is utterly ridiculous. And of course striking is holding people to ransom, there wouldn't be much point to it other wise, but it is nearly always a last resort.

Also what do you think would have happened in this instance if the referees had just complained to the SFA and stuck within the 'chain of command' as you put it? I'm going with nothing, same as with most companies. Are you in the army by any chance?

"that is utterly ridiculous" please elaborate.

"there wouldn't be much point to it otherwise" so it's ok to cause chaos to possibly thousands of other people as long as you get what you want?

"I'm going with nothing, same as with most companies" so you go to the next rung on the promotional ladder, this is why it is a chain of command. It doesn't stop at the first port of call. He has a boss who in turn has a boss. You get the idea.

"Are you in the army by any chance?" I recently retired after 22 years in the army which I'm very proud of. Your point is?

Too many people threaten to go on strike for the least little thing now days (No I'm not belittling the refs abuse).

This thread is beginning to look like a debate between Cellic FC and the Referree's Committee !!

Just out of curiosity, how many of those who back the Ref's decision to strike will go along to the game if a Ref from another association is brought in to officiate in their place?

They aren't actually going on strike, on radio Scotland today the presenter got corrected that thay are..... revoking there labour..

Edited November 23, 201015 yr by Georgeios

Ok, you are tecnically correct....as they are not employees and have no union they can't actually refer to it as a Strike.

All amounts to the same thing and my question stands.

When the firemen went on strike not one person stopped me putting out fires in north yorkshire but they still peeped there horn in support for the striking firemen, any hoo I think its fair enough they feel the need to make the point however I have my season ticket n don't want to miss a second of The Mighty Caley Jags.

Being willing/able to go out and save a life isn't really comparable to going to a football match.

Not saying people are right or wrong to attend under the circumstances I described, just trying to establish how much those backing the Ref's decision are really going to support them or if, in reality, it's all hot air and no willingness to back it with action.

I'm all hot air then ;-)