EISTnWAST

@Carlos I don't really follow tennis, but in my view it's completely different. The rules of tennis are very simple. All you're really talking about there is ball in and out of play. I'm sure the day will come soon when hawk-eye is capable of working in real time, thus eliminating the requirement for umpires. In football what would the 3 calls allow the manager to question? For some teams a free kick from 20 yards is almost as good as a penalty. Can they ask for that to be looked at again? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the 3 calls in tennis not just because it's a very high tempo game? Any more than 3 calls and players could use them tactically to gain an advantage. MiM has already stated that football is of a stop start nature. There is less advantage to be gained from a short stoppage in play. Players already create their own stoppages by lying on the grass "injured" for a minute or two, so the I don't see why there would need to be a limit on replays. Same old story here, it ends up with me saying it should be all or NOTHING.

@shetlandbairn I did realise (with you being one of the few real football supporters on here) that you just wanted to vent some frustration. I was just asked the question to make a point to others. So many people say "Would love to hear the referee's explanation for not giving it", and actually think there is an answer that they don't already know. This could be why the Whistleblower is mainly used for referees to defend themselves against uneducated media reports. People need to get real when questioning a referee's decision.There really are only 2 answers a ref will give. Its either - I was right, or I made a mistake. The only information you could really get from him is how he came to that decision. If you are really that interested in knowing then why not take a referee course? Even read this strange thing called 'The Laws Of the Game'. I would be willing to wager all the tea in China that less than 5% of people on Shetlink know all the laws of the game. Just so you all know that I'm not on the payroll at the SFA - I complain about referees as well. The difference is that when I do it I say "that **** is a bad ref". There are a lot of bad refs in the game, but with the attitude towards them it is becoming harder and harder to recruit new blood. [the part where I get back on topic] None of you supporters of technology should worry though. When we are left with officials who know the laws of the game but can't ref (yes the 2 are entirely different) then you will have what you want. There will be no alternative.

Well that's fixed now. Question answered. I know you weren't questioning the decision, but obviously you think if they add the youtube link then they are being hypocritical and unprofessional., and I'm sure you don't want that. I can see the small hint of irony - now that you explained what you mean - but still don't think the SFA did anything too wrong in using the link on their website. It's not as though they were using video evidence to change a decision which was made during a game (which 99.9% of fans have forgotten ). I would have to agree with you about using video evidence AFTER a game to punish players who have cheated. It can only make the game better. I do believe the SFA have already started trials for this. So in the future a dirty Welsh cheat won't get away totally unpunished, but it still won't change the result. Shouldna be sittin up so late efter coming hame fae da pub

Well my initial though was training information should be Secret, maybe only Restricted if it's fitness training. I now realise that it depends on what information is being divulged. In the instance of penfold leaking information about your non attendance at training, we can clearly tell there has been no security breach. BALLACK - MIA - Last seen losing a battle to regain fitness and form - Unclassified

Strach should sack all his scouts, buy a copy of FM, and spend an hour looking for players on there. Up, down, left, right, ABC, Start, and Celtic will have Ronaldinho on a free transfer on 100 quid a week I did my research (I confess it was after posting) but even after reading all the reports about how much potential he has, I still don't think he is - or will be - any better than the players we already have. Although I would love to be proved wrong. I mean FFS this guy can't get on the park before Alliadiere, and we all know how good he was for Celtic. Did you even read the report from the link you posted JAS? Rangers won the youth cup LAST YEAR for the FIRST TIME IN 5 YEARS. So clearly they have the best youth set-up in Scottish football Are you even aware of the number of youth players who make the grade at the Old Firm teams? Even if Dundee United won the youth cup for 20 years in a row there would be damn all chance of them winning the SPL. To answer your question about who Strachan should sign (sure this works in FM so.....) , I think it's out of his hands. My opinion is that the board need to change their policy. That means doing away with the current wagee structure. Clearly we can't compete with English teams (Halifax Town included) when it comes to transfer fees, but we can afford to compete with the top sides when it comes to wages. Champions League football is a big factor in signing quality players, and Celtic can provide that every season. Bosman signings are the way forward for a club like Celtic. Paying a quality player 50k a week after him signing for free is the same outlay as Tragic Zurawski has cost the club. I do realise that very few quality players will be available on a free, but if we were to break the wage structure now and sign a couple of players on free transfers every summer, then in 5 years we would have the best Celtic side since 1967.

What an absolute joke http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_3082796,00.html Another second rate striker signed by Strachan. Actually he's letting some guy called John Park make his signings for him by the looks of it When J. VOH was signed I thought things were looking up, but obviously he was a one-off to make fans think the club have some ambition Why does a team making the knock-out stages of the champions league, with 60,000 fans for every home game continue to sign rejects from **** teams? I'm certain that in the summer we will sign one player who has a couple of caps for a half decent country, followed by the current policy of scouring reserve teams for free-agents Celtic are already producing guys like this. Lets see how good my memory is........ Gerry Creaney, Simon Donnelly, Mark Burchill, Craig Beattie. And at least Maloney actually went to a decent side. There are many more besides. Lets not even start on other positions and guys like Colin Healey and Stephen Crainey. All these guys were decent players who would have flourished at Celtic had we bothered to keep hold of them. Oh, and I love the part where Strachan says John Park has done a lot of work on the deal. How much effort can it take What does he need to say except "You can't get a game for a **** team like Middlesborough. So sogn this contract to play for Celtic". ******* done deal. Show me one player in that situation who would say no

MiM, what do you want as the evidence that the decision was correct? Is the ref saying "yes, I was right" enough for you, or would a link to Sky's website be more to your liking? I'm sure they must have Scottish Junior Cup footage of Pollack v Montrose on there somewhere Anyway, I've finally worked up the motivation to do this...... On the whole the SFA Whistleblower page does seem to be an opportunity for referees to defend themselves against media reports of poor refereeing. It is obvious to any sane person that referees don't like to admit that they made a bad decision. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that there is no technology used in football. The refs don't want their decisions called into question more than they already are. Lets say we start using technology. Now put yourself in the shoes of the referee. You have just awarded or denied a penalty or offside. You are 99% sure your decision was right. Your assistant referee is 99% sure you were right. The crowd and players are screaming because they think you are wrong. Do you stick with your decision and leave yourself with some respect? Or use the video replay to confirm to everyone what you already know? I suspect that very few people would choose to stick with their decision. And therein lies the biggest problem with the use of technology. As soon as a ref fails to use it, and it's that 1 time in 100 when he's wrong, then fans and players alike will expect it to be used for every single decision. It will only encourage people to question the refs decision more than they already do, knowing that they have that small chance of it being changed in their favour. Now onto the restart of play. First of all for instances when the ref has blown his whistle to give a decision. After checking the video replay he would award the freekick or penalty to the correct team. For an incorrect penalty award then the defending side would restart play with a freekick from where the (now fair) tackle was made. Unfortunately we will have to punish the attacking team for the bad call by the referee, but nevermind, technology is all about fairness right? For offside decisions, the ref would give an indirect freekick to the attacking team, because he incorrectly awarded the decision to the defending team. Just a little unfortunate that the incident occured just outside the box, and now Ronaldinho, Messi and Henry are standing over the ball. What about decisions that aren't given? Is play brought back to where the freekcik penalty should have been awarded? It would be very interesting to see the reactions to a goal being chopped off for something that happened a few minutes earlier. Boyd scores for Rangers but it's disallowed and McDonald lines up to take a penalty for Celtic. I'm sure there would be no complaints, because technology is 100% correct. Where do we put a stop to using technology? Surely it can be applied to decisions for ball out of play as well? Incorrectly awarded corners can be just as crucial as penalty or offside decisions. Is a goal scored from a corner that wasn't, any less important than a penalty that wasn't? Maybe the referees would like this situation. They could even have a look to check which colour of card a foul deserved. No more complaints from anyone about a bad referee costing their team the game. Now remember what I said earlier about every decision being checked of video replays? If you do then you will realise that fans are now getting their money's worth. 30 or 40 pounds doesn't seem that bad for a game which lasts at least 2 hours. The end of such high tempo games will mean players like 'Gazza' would have longer careers. Well it looks like I've almost convinced myself that technology is a good thing. If only I wasn't against having 2 hour games with stoppages every few minutes.

Credit must be given to our No.1 whistler for his honesty here...http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/whistleblower.cfm?newsid=3236 He is saying he made a mistake. Is this what you're looking for with the Caldwell incident shetlandbairn? You want an explaination, so let me tell you what the ref would say.... a) It wasn't handball. It didn't look like handball at the time. Both myself and the assistant referee didn't have a clear enough view at the time to award a penalty kick. After studying television replays then I realise the wrong decision was made. For others reading I'm sorry for not providing the option you would like of c) I am loyal to my beloved Celtic. I would never award a penalty against them. Not even if Caldwell pulled out a gun and shot the entire opposition inside his own penalty area. So after one of the serious explanations then where does that leave you shetlandbairn? a) Feeling the same as you do at the moment - cheated by a dodgy ref. Feeling a little better - knowing that everyone makes mistakes. c) Still feeling cheated - everyone makes mistakes, but technology would eliminate the problem.

Disagree with what BALLACK? And..... What's your opinion? (on everything ) Also how about using the Shetlink Ness United User Group for discussing training. SNUUG can help prevent classified information from falling into enemy hands

Nah nah min. Honky Tonk is right. Don't you know that Greek people are posting on forums demanding for the dismissal of Otto Rehhagel. His boring style of football is so frustrating for them [like the pic spencey, just surprised you didn't save it for a Yell/Unst argument ]

Are you going to the AGM penfold? If so how about putting this idea forward? I can't envisage the attendance at the AGM being very good this year, as there has been little talk of starting the league up again. I'm starting to agree with you about one step at a time, and this would seem to be a small enough step to get things up to running speed again in the future.

A variation on my suggestion Frankie, and possibly a much better idea for this season. It would be good to get Burra involved, but that would depend on the outcome of their application to join the Works League. The only problem is that it is still going to take more than one Iain Pundie to arrange any form of Southern/South Mainland League football. Juvenille football in da Ness is so well catered for at the moment, with more volunteers than you can shake a stick at. It's a shame we don't have the same situation at senior level. The beauty of Frankie's idea is that it wouldn't take much effort on the organising sides part. For example, when the football was to be held in Cunningsburgh, then the manager could ask a couple of players to help him out to arrange things. That could be a good way to encourage more people to get involved in running things. Then when it comes to next year's AGM, the Managers' could say "boy du did a splendid job o sorting things oot last year. Whit aboot gyain tae da AGM and pittin desell forward as fixtures secretary?". And so my fellow South Mainlanders............. Ask not what South Mainland football can do for you, ask what you can do for South Mainland football.

Ok, maybe I portrayed Mr Roscoe in a dark light. However, if you "don't recall him ever needing to bring strikers down" then "I blame the fact" you're "nearer 50 than 40"

Yeah, once again the AGM is the biggest problem. I'm sure it has the support to be run in some format, but getting folk to the AGM.......

Weel I'll stick my neck oot here penfold, and suggest that Ness B don't have suitable players to pass on knowledge and skills. It wis da sam whan I played B's. I learned nothing from the "experienced players". They are a bunch o sharggin auld B's, or guys that have never played A's (unless da team has been struggling). I always found SL had the right type of player you could learn something from. Guys such as Roscoe who ocassionaly turned out for B's, but didn't really want to travel any distance for a game. I hope yun's enough fur you tae get da jist o whit I mean. I would suggest this is a huge problem the manager would do weel tae address. What can you learn from Roscoe? Well, he was a cool head at the back. Maybe lacked a yard of pace, but had great positional sense. On the odd occasion when he did get caught out he was always close enough, and calm enough, to bring the striker down before he got into the box. I blame the professional foul rule for his demise from the game. Edited to protect the identity of the innocent.

I know you care penfold. I care too. How many others do?

With Burra dropping out of the SFA set-up, surely it's now time to bring back the coveted Southern League. Today could be the day the pheonix rises from the ashes, and returns to it's former glory. It would be back to the 4 team league that was respected throughout SouthMainlandWorld football. Actual quote from my source in an important position at NUFC regarding player numbers for Ness B........ "should be plenty of players". Proposal for 2008 Southern League Burra are struggling for numbers, as would other sides if you stopped A league players from playing. To get round this problem, the league would be run in a more friendly spirit than before. If a team turns up with 9 players for example, the opposition have 2 choices. 1 - Play the game as 9 a-side. 2 - Give the opposition enough players to make up the 11. In the spirit of the league, there would be no players cup-tied for helping out another team. Now onto the A league players issue. An A league player is someone who was named in the starting 11 for an A team, on the Friday previous to the Saturday fixture. This means no complaints from the Ness A team about their players being tired. It also gives players the chance to get a game when coming back from injury. There is no reason for clubs to waste 100-200 pounds a season on referee fees. The home side should provide the referee, and he (or she) should referee the game in the spirit of the league. Now this is usually the point where people start saying a B team is much better. However, I must ask the questions - How is it better? Will B's get more people playing? What do you hope to achieve from having a B team?

Weel weel bairns. So much for my talk of done deals. My pitch fork is ready for a witch hunt. We just need to get Mr JW Laurenson on here to explain his "Unst approached us" remarks in The Shetland Times. Maybe he - like many others - is organising the future of Shetland football in the pub after 10 pints. [and I can only presume BC Benvie was on a wind-up when he said Bunst training had started in Scalloway] I am now wondering how much the people posting on here actually have to do with the running of their clubs. I also wonder how many people who were at the SFA AGM actually hold a positon at their club (other than player or supporter). Anyway, how many people actually really care that Burra have been forced out of the SFA set-up?

^ Nail on the head Carlos. I don't think MiM and dB have gone off topic at all. They have proved the point that technology would ruin football for them. What will you say MiM when Hearts finish 8th in the league? Will it be "well done to the teams who are clearly better than us", or " I wish there was no technology, so we could get more decisions our way than Motherwell, Kilmarnock, St Mirren etc."? dB (although you probably realise this) you said the ball is in the net anyway so play stops. If the ball is in the net a goal would be awarded. Technology could be used when the ball isn't in the net, but possibly crossed the line and play continued. Would it be a good idea to study replays while play continues? Would be very interesting to see the fans reaction when their team goes up the other end and scores, only to see a goal awarded to the other team for something that happened a couple of minutes earlier. The only way I can see technology being used for this situation is to have an electronic chip in the ball, that gives an instant decision. As for offsides being decided by replays, that is opening a can of worms. Does that mean that every close offside decision that isn't given would be looked at again on a replay? Or only when a goal is scored? What if a team wins a corner or a free-kick after a close offside decision? That could also lead to a goal. You did mention a period of play, but how long would that period be? And does the clock get put back to the time it was at when the offside offence initially occured? It doesn't seem as simple to me as you make it sound. (I'm guessing that you may be a fan of a certain American sport )

MiM's comment on the Old Firm thread made me want to post this. IMO Refs recieve far more & far better training than ever before. So they can't possibly be worse now than in the past. Take a look at this clip from about 1993 and ask yourself if you think this could happen nowadays. I for one seriously doubt it. So what do all these people screaming for technology want? Robots for refs? Flawless decisions for the full 90 minutes plus time added on for stopages and extra-time and penalties if required? Great. When our team loses we can congratulate the opposition for being the better team. Refs are a huge part of the game, take out human error and football will no longer be the people's game, but the namby pamby's game. The only think I wouldn't mind too much would be a chip in the ball to say when it crossed the line, but I'm not even very keen on that. Start looking at replays and there is little need to have officials on the pitch at all. They can just sit in a room with several tv screens and announce the decisions from there.

From 24th October........ But my other purpose in posting (get it right up ya being the obvious one), is to say Stoichkov get my pint ready, and penfold i hope you changed the year on your Ness bet after my initial error. This is clear evidence that I am the fountain of all knowledge, and a better tipster than the legendary Angus "Statto" Loughran

I'm in agreement apart from the Swiss > Greeks issue. How about a bet on it Stoichkov? A pint for the winner. If they both do the same then we both lose, and everyone's a winner.

Spain 6/1 Probably cut from 16/1 or 60/1 after the draw. Greece look good value at 25/1, but Switzerland's 20/1 is insane. Does Mr Hill really think Switzerland have more chance than Greece? If you're backing France or Italy do it now. Better odds because of their tough group, but remember they will have an easier route to the final.

@JAS When Denmark won in 92 it was only an 8 team competition. Remember they were only there because Yugoslavia couldn't compete because their country was at war. I agree that was a bit of a farce, but for me with 16 teams it's the second best football competition in the world. Would you rather a Champions League style format, which is designed to favour the best sides? Although I didn't want Greece to win EURO 2004, for me it restored my faith in supporting Scotland. Play the right system, choose the right players, and anything is possible. The only thing that spoils the tournament is bureaucracy from UEFA. If they really had to have two weak countries in the finals because they are hosting it, then they needed to make radical changes to the seeding system. I hope the days are gone where Germany and Italy are the dominant European sides. Let them continue to focus on the "empty and crappy" Champions League, and the real fans will have more chance of seeing their country lift a major trophy. I reckon for most fans the European Chapionships is more important than the so called Champions League.

I'm just disappointed it was Romania instead of Germany or Spain Well done UEFA Now somebody can get a few under the table payments, for employing somebody to come up with a better system for the next draw. Why didn't they just use the FIFA rankings This is how the seedings were decided http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/624370.pdf I think it was the last two WC and EURO qualifiers that were used, but there seems to be a typo in that document. Not like UEFA to make mistakes I'm not sure if Germany fully understood the draw either. After qualifying first, they proceeded to throw their remaining games. They even let Wales draw with them in Germany, which put them down to the third pot. Mr Beckenbauer obviously didn't realise that Greece, as well as Austria and Switzerland, would be guaranteed top seeds. Holland were in fact the only team to be put in pot one based on their qualifying record. So Greece are told "Sorry, you're not good enough to get automtic qualification. However, if you qualify then you are the best in Europe." All of a sudden Spain and Portugal look better bets for winning EURO 2008. Just a shame all the bookies will have already slashed their odds after the draw.