News from moorkymadwan



























  1. feel bad for May there ref would have given that as a foul anywhere else on the pitch. Not because it was a foul just because he's a wank.

  2. thats a fantastic pass, Jota is running rampant today

  3. The video to the Aston Villa Wolves game was your literal first response and the only actual piece of hard evidence you've linked to.

  4. sorry, not in any of the highlights but I'll take your word for it.

  5. Jota miles off there, but obvs Celtic TV comms have a go at VAR. I fucking hate VAR and Scottish referees but ffs I’d be at the pub with my uncles if I wanted this patter

  6. the most bizarre part was him claiming inconsistency because of the Rashford goal... that happened in a completely separate league under a completely separate FA

  7. why are the commentators saying Starfelt stumbled when he's clearly shoved?

  8. This is a very basic failure of empathy.

  9. He's also treating it like her reaction is just to this one off event when in reality it's likely a culmination of her long and already documented battle against being sexualized without her consent.

  10. I've honestly got no clue how that challenge isn't deemed a red.

  11. I am perfectly happy with these sort of challenges not being red cards. His studs only go up and into the player because they flick up off the ball which he won. I didn’t think he was out of control or reckless in his challenge that won the ball.

  12. Think this is a spot on take. I think it would be a fair red if Clark was going in with a full head of steam or if he completely missed the ball, but I just don't think players should be sent off for grazing someone accidentally on the follow through of a successful tackle. Just goes against the spirit of the game for me.

  13. I just don't see by what standards it is a red. It's reckless yeah, but it's a pretty light tackle, clearly accidental, and is not excessively forceful or brutal (which is the criteria for a straight red). Strong yellow card is the only decision I think you can argue.

  14. Looks like the Ross County player at the back there is coming in with both hands up. I do think keepers need to be less protected but a couple of hands on the back is a foul anywhere else on the pitch. Bit ludicrous to me it's not been overturned.

  15. Tbh I don't think it's an obvious enough foul to overturn the on-field decision, none of the angles or images on here help much.

  16. I would agree it's not a foul if it was just the Ross County player at the front challenging as his challenge looks pretty fair. The Ross County player coming in from the back seems to shove Marshall as he's in a fair challenge with the other player. To me it looks like an obvious and fairly uncontroversial foul.

  17. Perplexed at this comment. Gave yous a pen and also didn’t give yous one booking even though you committed nearly double the fouls of Dundee United who had 2 bookings.

  18. Everyone always trots out this fouls thing as if it's some gotcha. More fouls doesn't and shouldn't equal more cards.

  19. The most Maeda moment possible in the last second of the game

  20. I don't think VAR can intervene on 2nd yellows but I'm fairly certain I remember players being booked after a VAR check for something else before.

  21. Clark left the ground and went studs up into Jack’s shin, how are people saying that’s not a red lol

  22. Looks like he got the ball first and caught him with the follow through. Wasn't intentional, forceful or brutal so I don't think it's serious foul play. Just looks reckless, which is a yellow.

  23. All of these things all definitely do matter and are all specifically mentioned in the IFAB rules.

  24. He didn't play World Rapid/Blitz so clearly not just the Tata Steel issue.

  25. a lot of top players missed them to be fair. I think the timing and organisation made it more difficult to attend than usual.

  26. I had two Borealis backpacks (similar to the Recon) and they both broke on the first day. I also hear that TNF's durability has been declining in their newer bags. I'd choose an Osprey Quasar or Tropos over TNF any time - also for their supposedly excellent warranty.

  27. Thats what I was kind of leaning towards personally, I've bought both so I'll just try them out and return one if I don't like it.

  28. Think Abada has been fantastic so far, been really direct so far this game.

  29. That is a complete joke of a penalty, no clue what the rules are now. Honestly could not explain the thought process behind that being a penalty and Goldson's not being one. Must be some rules we've not been told.

  30. Agree with the general intent of what you're saying but, if I read correctly that you're referring to the Goldson handball against Dundee United, then I'd refer you to the St Mirren shout against Hearts that was denied that same weekend. Refs have, apparently change their guidance. That said, the debate about whether they should do that mid season is a valid one. Not as if we haven't had 3 years to learn how other countries use VAR before we brought it in.

  31. Going to open this back up because I'm a petty bastard but think the handball in the Celtic Morton game today shows the guidance on handballs has not changed. Have been more bullshit handballs this season than actual, real handball calls.

  32. Haven't seen it. Key bit for Goldson was about that he didn't make his body line bigger relative to the ball mind. Refs could have just cocked it up (the Morton one). My mate said it was like a 4 minute check (I've the EPL game on).

  33. I think at some point you've just got to admit that all these handballs aren't the odd call out anymore but the way handballs have been consistently enforced, the 4 minute VAR calls just confirm it further for me. I don't agree that the Scottish refs are enforcing it correctly to the letter of the law or that the law is good just that they continue to consistently enforce it this way and the Goldson handball is the odd call out at this point.

  34. Am I the only one here that thinks we’re getting shafted. He has 3 years left on his deal, is just coming off an incredible World Cup where he started every game, and is a proven top tier left back.

  35. I think we overplayed our hand a bit by buying the replacement beforehand. Juranovic wanted to go and I think we've said we won't stand in his way.

  36. Ideguchi, Ajeti, Abildgaard, Bernabei, McCarthy, Urhoghide, Barkas, Duffy. Laxalt, and both Kenny's have been excellent yeah

  37. I think using our signings from Lennon's time is being slightly disingenuous. Been a pretty clear change in transfer policy from then to Ange which I think the comment you replied to is obviously referring to.

  38. Urhoghide was a Lennon signing. McCarthy was clearly identified pre Ange and Ange brought him in when we had about 7.5 players on the books

  39. Urhoghide signed for us in 2021 when Ange was manager. McCarthy was signed for a bit of depth, his experience and attitude, and being homegrown. In my eyes I'm not unhappy with the signing but he's on massive wages and never plays, difficult to argue he's a good signing.

  40. To be fair VAR has been much quicker this game than usually. Hopefully this continues

  41. Abada is our under-the-radar main man. Kyogo and Jota get the plaudits and attention, which is fair enough, they've been great for us and I like them a lot. But I swear that man always contributes a goal every other game. What a player

  42. hasn't Abada been listed on a few of the most promising youngters in Europe lists now

  43. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence in this case).

  44. FIFA are incentivised to constantly move which players are meta so players have to spend more resources to get the newest, best players and spend more money on packs.

  45. If you're claiming that they nerfed Zlatan to incentivize spending more money on packs, it makes no sense. He's not even out of packs yet, and he doesn't even fit the current meta that well.

  46. I don't actually think they have done it this time. I would just be surprised if they didn't do it in general. I think the "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is a great saying for dealing with other humans but have been burned many times before by giving billion dollar companies the benefit of the doubt.

  47. That Celtic game is one of the first memories I have of a football game. Thought Zurawski was one of the best players in the world for an embarassing amount of time after this.

  48. Add to that. They’re going after Scottish trans teenagers and adults who want easier/cheaper access to a certificate that exists which means they can get a pension, get married, and be buried as their gender and name after 6 years of consultation over the law. That’s what the whole row has been over what gender people will be buried under and if this paperwork needs doctors nod even when transition hasn’t happened.

  49. Also has no affect on anything medically at all which a lot of people seem to be bringing up in opposition to this. This does not change any requirements for hormones, puberty blockers or surgery.

  50. Can someone explain why some people feel so strongly about this, all the same? This is one of the very few issues I can remember that has generated dissent within the parliamentary SNP so there has to be more to it than a short term Tory play to their base.

  51. Most people I've spoken to about this specifically misunderstand the point I've made above. They seem to think that this bill offers sweeping changes that allow 16 year olds to go through surgery, and hormones, and puberty blockers which isn't at all the case.

  52. it's been in proposals since 2017, it's probably one of the most scrutinised bills the Scottish Parliament have ever passed. It was also originally brought forward by Theresa May at the time. It also has pretty broad support from even some of the unionist MSPs. Are you seriously claiming the SNP have raised this bill (originally along with the UK government) scrutinized and discussed it for almost 5 years and released it now only because they thought the party that originally raised it would block it and cause a constitutional crisis? Bit farfetched for me personally.

  53. Don't disagree with what you've said. It has been in proposal for a number of years but the issue is - UK wide legislation as proposed by T May is workable. Scotland only - not so workable. As you said, consensus at UK level to do something so that is where the motion and bill should have gone. I just find it remarkably convenient that after the high court indyref 2 ruling we find ourselves in a "devolution crisis" off the back of a contentious bill that they'd been warned was not compatible with UK law.

  54. So far the UK gov is claiming it breaks the equalities act. But they've not actually provided any details on how it breaks the equalities act so I'm pretty on the fence about that.

  55. That is not the narrative being promulgated though. The most terfy and the moderate cis are being led to believe that this will lead to 16 year olds getting bits cut off or sewn up and added on. Every argument about this I've had mention it.

  56. That's why I'm asking about it, I'm in support of the Gender Recognition Bill but feel anything involving surgery would require more consideration on my part. Seems this bill does literally nothing to affect that though.

  57. Sadly it does not; this bill is solely about removing barriers from the pathway to legal recognition, and does not affect NHS care or funding in any way at all. NHS Scotland waiting times for gender-affirming care are incredible at this point - years until you first get to see a doctor, and years longer to get surgery.

  58. So this does literally nothing to affect surgery? The medical process is a completely separate route from the legal one? That would make sense to me. I understand the NHS waiting lists are very long I just wondered if this technically opened a pathway to people under the age of 18 receiving gender affirmation surgery.

  59. Ah yeah just googled and see you can have a drink with a meal if accompanied by an adult.

  60. You can drink legally from a pretty low age in your home I believe just need to be 18 to purchase it yourself.

  61. If I remember rightly I think its something ridiculous like 5 you can drink in your own home

  62. ahhh yes I remember my boozy carefree 6 year old days

  63. It's been in the works for YEARS what part of that do you fail to understand? It has been through more scrutiny than 99.9% of more important bills will ever see. Releasing it now is standard democratic process. It doesn't even affect England at all really.

  64. This wasn't some 4D chess by the SNP. This was also going to be Tory policy under May - and was supported by Labour, Green and Lib Dem MSPs at Holyrood. It has also gone through an extensive consultation phase - and is in line with international best practice.

  65. It's also been a devolved matter for many years and has little to no impact on England, Wales or NI. People claiming this is purely a bill put forward for the sole purpose of being blocked by the UK government are stupid.

  66. Okay so this isn’t really the best thought out in terms of who is worth what but here we go

  67. Same but I went Bronn and Robb instead can even throw in seasmoke for free

  68. I was going to go for Bronn but my issue is he doesn’t wear any good armour and the show and book show that he often dances around his opponents and takes cheap shots until he wears them down, all it would take is a solid bit from pretty much any of the other fighters to end him

  69. didn't think Bronn was better than Brienne just that knight probably matters least out of all these categories. Maybe besides dragon rider, better saving money here. Plus Bronn showed himself to be pretty competent with the Lannister army as Jaime's right hand man (no pun intended).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may have missed