2010/2011 Season Thread

[Adam Easy Wishes]

Only supporters of clubs not involved in the game in question may pass judgement on such decisions.

It's a good idea, and I'm in.

[Guest Gladstone]

Only supporters of clubs not involved in the game in question may pass judgement on such decisions.

It's a good idea, and I'm in.

But everyone hates us, so it wouldn't matter if they're involved or not...

(I'm kidding by the way)

[Guest Gladstone]

BBC Sport - SPL reconstruction vote to take place in May

Who's going to volunteer to read and summarise the 100 page document?

Basically, they're still pushing for a 10 team league. I can't see 11 teams voting for it, when:

a. the old firm will need to vote in favour of receiving less money

b. some of the bottom teams will be looking at voting in favour of giving themselves less chance of being in the "Premiership" because of reduced teams.

EDIT: Neil Doncaster is clearly the lovechild of Craig Levein and Artur Boruc.

[Christy]

Bollocks. Lennon does not have the refs in his back pooch. After the last old firm game, he was the only one who got retrospective punishment. If anything, he's pissed off the SFA even more, when he should have kept it shut and got on with his original ban.

I'm not a total "fanboy" anymore when it comes to watching Celtic and call it like it is. We got beat fair and square in the CIS cup final v Rangers who outplayed us, got their tactics right, and kept their discipline (unlike the previous game).

Dons fans can be the most paranoid in the league in my experience. Do you honestly look at the decisions yesterday and think Collum called them wrong, and that he called them wrong through some sort of "old firm bias"?? Honestly?

If Vernon had gone clean through on goal and Mulgrew had tripped him, I have absolutely no doubt it would have been a penalty and a red card. And Celtic fans would have crucified Mulgrew for it, not the ref. The second penalty was a foul, but a very a soft one. I'm quite surprised it was given because the game was already over. I've seen as many decisions go against Celtic as against Aberdeen in the games I've watched over the past few years. Most of the time the ones against Celtic get glossed over because we've still won the match. One example was a few seasons back when we won 5-1 at Pittodrie. McGeady got booked for getting hoofed off the ball, and a stone wall penalty was turned away at 5-1 up (maybe it was 4-1 - it was game over anyway). It happens both ways, but Dons fans just fail to see all the decisions in their favour because they've lost the game anyway.

Stopped reading there.

Celtic have had SEVEN penalties vs Aberdeen this season, and the Dons have had three red cards in the same fixtures. Celtic, of course, do spend more time in our penalty area, but these figures are absolutely ludicrous. Considine did not make contact with Hooper yesterday - this much is clear, yes? Hooper did not have clear control of the ball - can we also agree on this? These are the facts and as such, a penalty and red card seem ridiculous. Last time we played Celtic at Pittodrie, the exact same situation happened, although in that instance it was a clear penalty. The red card (90 seconds into the game, not that that matters) was laughable. And this does not take into account the clear foul on Vernon in the buildup a mere few seconds before the penalty, that seems to have been conveniently ignored by most.

Celtic's second penalty yesterday was not just 'soft', it was also wrong. Stokes stood there, awaiting the slightest bit of contact from a player whose momentum was taking him towards the ball. Contact inside the box != penalty. An absolute farce of a decision.

The standard line from OF fans is 'but what about the penalty he gave against us in the last Old Firm game?' or woteva. You conveniently ignore the other 34 games in the season in which you get everything. Fucking everything.

I am aware of AFC's shortcomings, and I am aware that 11 vs 11 we would have probably lost yesterday. This does not address the issue at hand, though; we have not been dealt with fairly by the officials in our matches vs the Old Firm this season.

[Guest Gladstone]

Stopped reading there.

Celtic have had SEVEN penalties vs Aberdeen this season, and the Dons have had three red cards in the same fixtures. Celtic, of course, do spend more time in our penalty area, but these figures are absolutely ludicrous. Considine did not make contact with Hooper yesterday - this much is clear, yes? Hooper did not have clear control of the ball - can we also agree on this? These are the facts and as such, a penalty and red card seem ridiculous. Last time we played Celtic at Pittodrie, the exact same situation happened, although in that instance it was a clear penalty. The red card (90 seconds into the game, not that that matters) was laughable. And this does not take into account the clear foul on Vernon in the buildup a mere few seconds before the penalty, that seems to have been conveniently ignored by most.

Celtic's second penalty yesterday was not just 'soft', it was also wrong. Stokes stood there, awaiting the slightest bit of contact from a player whose momentum was taking him towards the ball. Contact inside the box != penalty. An absolute farce of a decision.

The standard line from OF fans is 'but what about the penalty he gave against us in the last Old Firm game?' or woteva. You conveniently ignore the other 34 games in the season in which you get everything. Fucking everything.

I am aware of AFC's shortcomings, and I am aware that 11 vs 11 we would have probably lost yesterday. This does not address the issue at hand, though; we have not been dealt with fairly by the officials in our matches vs the Old Firm this season.

I bet you didn't stop reading there did you?

You are the most tunnel-visioned football fan I've ever heard from.

I know you are (or were, not sure if it runs out or whatever) qualified referee, but that doesn't mean that your red tinted specs don't blur your vision. You love a rant against the old firm when it goes against Aberdeen. There was contact by Considine, and it was a goalscoring opportunity. You'd have been absolutely screaming for the decision if it was at the other end.

Did you ever stop to think that the seven penalties were for seven fouls in the box? I'm not going to argue that they were because I'll be honest, I haven't seen them all. But the two yesterday would be given more times than not. The first was a definite penalty and the second was a bit dubious, but still a foul. Stokes took a dive - I'll give you that. And I wish he hadn't because I don't like players diving. But he was kicked by Young in the box and he went down. If Stokes had kicked Young in the box and he'd gone down, you'd have wanted a penalty.

The referee was not biased yesterday. I'm absolutely adamant of that.

By the way I honestly didn't see the foul on Vernon in the run up - must have taken my eye off the telly for a couple of seconds or something. If that's the case, then that's harsh on Aberdeen. You're only about the second Aberdeen fan I've heard mention it though, which suggests to me that it may not have been a foul (because otherwise every Aberdeen fan would be going mental about that fact), but I didn't see it so nae sure.

But decisions go against Celtic all the time as well. I've been watching Celtic for years and years, and I have been absolutely furious at the end of plenty of matches because of decisions going against us. I haven't counted them up to see if we get more or less, but we definitely get them both ways a lot of the time. It's called human error. But, the fact is that Celtic spend more time in their opponent's box than vice versa so we are more likely to get more penalty decisions (one way or the other) than our opponents, same goes for offside decisions, goals chopped off etc. And likewise, Aberdeen are a team in the bottom half of the table, so are probably defending more than a team at the top end of the table, so red cards for last ditch tackles are more likely.

I have, however, calmed down in my old age. If a decision goes against Celtic these days, I'm normally over it by about 3 minutes after the final whistle, because football doesn't matter enough to ruin my day/week anymore.

[Christy]

I bet you didn't stop reading there did you?

You are the most tunnel-visioned football fan I've ever heard from.

I know you are (or were, not sure if it runs out or whatever) qualified referee, but that doesn't mean that your red tinted specs don't blur your vision. You love a rant against the old firm when it goes against Aberdeen. There was contact by Considine, and it was a goalscoring opportunity. You'd have been absolutely screaming for the decision if it was at the other end.

Did you ever stop to think that the seven penalties were for seven fouls in the box? I'm not going to argue that they were because I'll be honest, I haven't seen them all. But the two yesterday would be given more times than not. The first was a definite penalty and the second was a bit dubious, but still a foul. Stokes took a dive - I'll give you that. And I wish he hadn't because I don't like players diving. But he was kicked by Young in the box and he went down. If Stokes had kicked Young in the box and he'd gone down, you'd have wanted a penalty.

The referee was not biased yesterday. I'm absolutely adamant of that.

By the way I honestly didn't see the foul on Vernon in the run up - must have taken my eye off the telly for a couple of seconds or something. If that's the case, then that's harsh on Aberdeen. You're only about the second Aberdeen fan I've heard mention it though, which suggests to me that it may not have been a foul (because otherwise every Aberdeen fan would be going mental about that fact), but I didn't see it so nae sure.

But decisions go against Celtic all the time as well. I've been watching Celtic for years and years, and I have been absolutely furious at the end of plenty of matches because of decisions going against us. I haven't counted them up to see if we get more or less, but we definitely get them both ways a lot of the time. It's called human error. But, the fact is that Celtic spend more time in their opponent's box than vice versa so we are more likely to get more penalty decisions (one way or the other) than our opponents, same goes for offside decisions, goals chopped off etc. And likewise, Aberdeen are a team in the bottom half of the table, so are probably defending more than a team at the top end of the table, so red cards for last ditch tackles are more likely.

I have, however, calmed down in my old age. If a decision goes against Celtic these days, I'm normally over it by about 3 minutes after the final whistle, because football doesn't matter enough to ruin my day/week anymore.

Actually that is almost all untrue. I love a rant about the Old Firm because (and as a blinkered Old Firm fan you might find this tough to believe)

Both halves of the Old Firm have been by favoured the the establishment, the media and the officials for as long as I can remember

However, if you actually care to look back at my posts you will see that most of my anti-Old Firm ranting has had NOTHING to do with Aberdeen at all. I highlighted the despicable conduct on display in the shameful OF match a couple of months back, and the sickening behaviour of Rangers fans in Europe around the same time. The fact that I am a Dons fan is 100% irrelevant; I see an injustice and I highlight it. I am not the only one; believe it or not, most fans of non-OF teams are repulsed by your tit-for-tat bullshit, your harrassment of the refs, your bleating in the media and your (actually mainly Rangers') repeated bringing of Scottish football into disrepute on a European level. I will give you this though; you are well-versed in deflecting the actual facts.

WRT the Considine incident - no, Considine did not make contact with Hooper. Google search for images of the incident and this becomes clear. Somebody has done a frame-by-frame analysis from two separate angles and no contact was made. Hooper took the ball away, Considine over-reached, Hooper 'read' the challenge and went down. FWIW I don't think Hooper dived, but he was not touched by Considine. You could argue for a penalty due to the fact that Consi's challenge got nowhere near the ball and it prevented Hooper from attempting to reach it.

Your constant claims of 'you would be screaming for a penalty if it happened at the other end' are laughable. Of course I would. Like most football fans, I scream for handball if our shot hits a defender's body. I would scream until blue in the face, and it have no bearing on whether or not the incident warranted a penalty. So for God's sake, give up that non-argument.

WRT the second bolded passage (and I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer this part); yes I considered that. And no, I don't agree with it. I have seen the incidents, and not all should have ben penalties. Likewise, of our three red cards, two were poor decisions. Both involved Considine.

The Derek Young incident was not, and never will be, a penalty (as I explained earlier). If I were a Celtic fan I would have screamed for a penalty (because that's what football fans do), and then I would have felt very emabarrassed by Stokes when I saw a replay.

If you think I am the most tunnel-visioned football fan you know, you evidently don't go to Celtic Park very often. Some of your fans genuinely don't believe that you get favoured, because, wait for it, Rangers get favoured too! That is how propesterous your belief is; 'if we are favoured, how come Rangers always get the decisions too?!'. Try supporting another team, try seeing how many ludicrous decisions get awarded against you when playing Rangers or Celtic; try being a referee who argued for years that the officials are not biased but simply cannot any longer because the evidence is so overwhelming. The Old Firm get more signifcant, game-changing and fundamentally incorrect decisions awarded to them than any other team, and that is because the officials and the SFA/SPL are shit-scared of them.

[Guest Gladstone]

I exaggerated when I said you are the most tunnel visioned fan I've ever heard - that's obviously not the case.

All of your points above and previously just sound like an embittered football fan bit with not much reason behind it. This stuff evens itself out - not exactly I'm sure but decisions go both ways. All the time. I've seen / been to many games where I've felt a sense of real injustice because of seemingly ridiculous decisions against Celtic. I've also laughed off more than I care to remember because we won the game. This is the crucial part of it and I've already made this point - we win far more games than we don't so loads and loads of dubious/wrong decisions against Celtic just get forgotten. I've read umpteen conspiracy theories by paranoid Celtic fans that detail every point won or lost because of incorrect refereeing decisions given against us and it sometimes paints the picture that Rangers won the title based on that because of Rangers bias but it's bollocks because they conveniently forget to mention the ones in our favour.

There is human error involved in refereeing an that's why some decisions are wrong. It is fuck all to do with bias, for or against Celtic, the old firm or Aberdeen. I've seen that frame by frame pish of the challenge and it proves nowt. The contact could be so minimal that it was between frames or the Aberdeen fan that made it could have deleted the relevant frame or there may not have been contact, but it was still a penalty because Considine impeded Hooper and prevented the goal scoring opportunity. Even if we used a video replay it still looks like Considine clipped his foot. You can't call bias if it takes a frame by frame analysis before it looks like there might not have been contact!

[Christy]

I exaggerated when I said you are the most tunnel visioned fan I've ever heard - that's obviously not the case.

All of your points above and previously just sound like an embittered football fan bit with not much reason behind it. This stuff evens itself out - not exactly I'm sure but decisions go both ways. All the time. I've seen / been to many games where I've felt a sense of real injustice because of seemingly ridiculous decisions against Celtic. I've also laughed off more than I care to remember because we won the game. This is the crucial part of it and I've already made this point - we win far more games than we don't so loads and loads of dubious/wrong decisions against Celtic just get forgotten. I've read umpteen conspiracy theories by paranoid Celtic fans that detail every point won or lost because of incorrect refereeing decisions given against us and it sometimes paints the picture that Rangers won the title based on that because of Rangers bias but it's bollocks because they conveniently forget to mention the ones in our favour.

There is human error involved in refereeing an that's why some decisions are wrong. It is fuck all to do with bias, for or against Celtic, the old firm or Aberdeen. I've seen that frame by frame pish of the challenge and it proves nowt. The contact could be so minimal that it was between frames or the Aberdeen fan that made it could have deleted the relevant frame or there may not have been contact, but it was still a penalty because Considine impeded Hooper and prevented the goal scoring opportunity. Even if we used a video replay it still looks like Considine clipped his foot. You can't call bias if it takes a frame by frame analysis before it looks like there might not have been contact!

We will have to agree to disagree on the Considine incident. IYAM, the awarding of the penalty is (although incorrect) understandable. The red card is not; Hooper was not denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.

I might sound like an embittered football fan, but that doesnt mean that my points are invalid. Simply, this stuff does not even itself out; if that is the case, then most SPL teams are in for some gargantuan luck headed our way. It is the same in most major leagues; the big teams get more crucial decisions because, frankly, there will be MAJOR scrutiny of the officials in the media and by the bigwigs if they dont.

We are patronised, told to be patient and it will even out without seeing any evidence to suggest that this is true. We have had two red cards in crucial games vs Celtic this season that have been incorrectly awarded. At best, the officials are incompetent. But having seen us brutalised by poor officating in the big games this season, I am not so sure. Perhaps it is unconscious, but since Lennon and his board's disgraceful handling of the Dougie McDonald situation and the huge fallout thereafter, officials have been absolutely shitting themselves and the decisions have gone for both Rangers and Celtic at the expense of (amongst others) Aberdeen.

I am thoroughly sick of it, and I am not the only one.

[Guest Gladstone]

Since the Dougie McDonald incident? I thought it had been going on for years, no? In my opinion, your opinions are being skewed by the fact you're a dons fan and very anti-old firm, but we'd best leave it there cow we're not going to agree...

[Christy]

It has been going on for years; however, the Dougie McDonald incident proved it beyond reasonable doubt imo.

I am sure we won't agree on it; however, your rebuttal seems to be little beyond 'you would say that, you're a Dons fan'. But then I would expect that, you are a Celtic fan.

FWIW I had a fair bit of time for Celtic in the MoN days. I thought they played good football and were honest and well-run. My view since then has changed beyond belief.

[Guest Gladstone]

It has been going on for years; however, the Dougie McDonald incident proved it beyond reasonable doubt imo.

I am sure we won't agree on it; however, your rebuttal seems to be little beyond 'you would say that, you're a Dons fan'. But then I would expect that, you are a Celtic fan.

FWIW I had a fair bit of time for Celtic in the MoN days. I thought they played good football and were honest and well-run. My view since then has changed beyond belief.

Yeah - you would say that cos you're a dons fan and vice versa. The Neil Lennon factor this season is a bit of a shame for Celtic I think because everyone fucking hates him. I get the reasoning behind it but I think it's way over the top. But this is the best football Celtic have played since the MoN days. I think Lennon is doing an excellent job. I disagree with the way he's dealt with the refereeing stuff but he's a total rookie manager and should learn. The McDonald incident was ridiculous all round - the stupid lying Bout why they changed the decision etc just looked dodgy as fuck. If he had just said that he realised he made a mistake I'm sure it wouldn't have nearly been as bad but Celtic's stance on the matter was silly because the decision was correct in the end. Lennons behaviour on the sideline a few times has been unacceptable but that doesn't make him THE WORST PERSON EVER TO HAVE WALKED THE EARTH...

[Scootray]

He's certainly up there though.

[Guest Gladstone]

Paul Hartley used to be as well, but then he became the saviour of Aberdeen and all was forgiven.

For the record I never ever liked Paul Hartley ever since his behaviour in that cup final against Gretna. Minky bastard that happened to be decent at football. A bit like Lennon really.

[Guest Gladstone]

For some reason I just felt compelled to check out Dundee's situation. Is there the possibility they could stay up if they win their last 3 games? Looks like after having the 25 points taken off, they'd be sitting on 13 points, and Stirling Albion is bottom on 17 points. Is it just one that goes down? Cowdenbeath are well out of reach on 31 points. That would be some achievement under the circumstances.

[Alkaline]

For some reason I just felt compelled to check out Dundee's situation. Is there the possibility they could stay up if they win their last 3 games? Looks like after having the 25 points taken off, they'd be sitting on 13 points, and Stirling Albion is bottom on 17 points. Is it just one that goes down? Cowdenbeath are well out of reach on 31 points. That would be some achievement under the circumstances.

They've had the 25pts taken off already...

[Guest Gladstone]

They've had the 25pts taken off already...

According to the table on the Football League website, they have won 10 games and drawn 7 and have 38 points, (I realise there's an extra point in there somewhere, but I assumed it was just a glitch) with a little star, and underneath it says Dundee deducted 25 points.

To have 38 points after having 25 deducted, oh hud on a minute. Did their 25 points get awarded to other teams? I.e. games they actually won have been recorded as losses?

Which means they're already safe? I thought they did go through a shit spell, which would explain why they're down in 7th or 8th?

EDIT: I was being a neep. I just looked at their home tally - i.e. won 10, drawn 7 at home. They've also won 7 and drawn 5 away, which would give them a tally of 63 (minus 25 = 38)

So they would actually be top of the league had they not been deducted the points.

[Alkaline]

According to the table on the Football League website, they have won 10 games and drawn 7 and have 38 points, (I realise there's an extra point in there somewhere, but I assumed it was just a glitch) with a little star, and underneath it says Dundee deducted 25 points.

To have 38 points after having 25 deducted, oh hud on a minute. Did their 25 points get awarded to other teams? I.e. games they actually won have been recorded as losses?

Which means they're already safe? I thought they did go through a shit spell, which would explain why they're down in 7th or 8th?

No, that's only the Home results. They would be top of the league if the points deuction wasn't there.

BBC SPORT | Football | Scottish League | Div 1 Table

[Shaki]

Hmmm, more proof!

BBC Sport - Football - Dundee United 0-4 Rangers

(I haven't actually seen any of the incidents or even read the report....but I betchya)

[Christy]

So fucking standard...Celtic fans will think that Collum favours Rangers because of this; Rangers fans will think that they deserve this because collum made such a fuckup on Sunday, and meanwhile all fans of us diddy teams won't give a fuck because yet again we are getting shafted.

It is embarrassing. I spent years defending the officials because it is an incredibly tough job. However, it is not about evening things up between Celtic and Rangers; it is about ensuring a level playing field for the WHOLE league.

[Guest Gladstone]

So fucking standard...Celtic fans will think that Collum favours Rangers because of this; Rangers fans will think that they deserve this because collum made such a fuckup on Sunday, and meanwhile all fans of us diddy teams won't give a fuck because yet again we are getting shafted.

It is embarrassing. I spent years defending the officials because it is an incredibly tough job. However, it is not about evening things up between Celtic and Rangers; it is about ensuring a level playing field for the WHOLE league.

I'm nae going to continue this argument, but...

Have you seen the incidents from last night? I haven't, so no idea if they were justified or not, I've just heard the report. I did instantly think of you when I heard 3 penalties and 3 red cards though... the guy reporting (Radio 4) said that the second one was just outside the box, but apart from that they were all ruled correctly. The only thing I would say, which is a re-hash of my arguments further up this page is that Rangers probably spent more time attacking Dundee Utd and were in their box more. If the first one was a justified penalty and justified red card, then it would be logical to assume that Rangers then spent even more time attacking and in the opposition box, and Utd would be stretched etc etc. One other thing I would say is that if the second one was just outside the box, that doesn't prove any Rangers or Old Firm bias - it's probably just human error. Saying all that - I haven't seen the incidents though, so perhaps none of them were justified and there is a massive Rangers bias (as I've said above there's definitely not a bias in favour of Celtic cos everyone hates us )

EDIT: Just watched the highlights. The replays are pretty shit quality/angles on the BBC website, but the first one looks like a complete stone waller. Naismith is about 6 yards out, away to pull the trigger and he gets wiped out. The second one is harsh. He slides in just outside the box, but I can see why the ref would deem it a penalty (through human error) because they both land well inside the box - in realtime, it could be difficult to tell, but saying that, he is right beside the action and should have called it right. I'm not sure about the second red card either, because he has just directed the ball left away from goal and the keeper may well have got there. The third one is weird, and the replay is completely shite. It probably is just about the correct decision because it looks like Gomes is trying to be a bit clever and give Diouff a wee nudge just as he's up for a free header about 6 yards out. It's pretty difficult to tell though.

I think on the balance of things, the ref probably awarded 2 penalties and 2 red cards fairly, but the second one should definitely have been a free kick, and probably a yellow card. I think it was a poor decision rather than a biased one, but I would say that though because I'm a stinking old firm fan and I proper love Rangers, me.

(Being a Celtic fan, I obviously strongly dislike Rangers...)

Can't believe I'm analysing Rangers penalty kick decisions...

[Adam Easy Wishes]

I've not seen the incidents either, I think the issue is not in the award of the penalties (I hear the third one is soft and the second outside the box), but the application of the 'goalscoring opportunity' rule to dish our red cards willy nilly.

Is every challenge in the box that gives away a penalty a red card? Willie Collum says yes.

[Scorge]

It is embarrassing. I spent years defending the officials because it is an incredibly tough job. However, it is not about evening things up between Celtic and Rangers; it is about ensuring a level playing field for the WHOLE league.

Officials have been bent in favour of the the scum for many a year now, this will not change until a collective lightbulb goes on amongst the rest of the SPL/SFL and they get booted the fuck out.

FTOF

[Guest Gladstone]

I've not seen the incidents either, I think the issue is not in the award of the penalties (I hear the third one is soft and the second outside the box), but the application of the 'goalscoring opportunity' rule to dish our red cards willy nilly.

Is every challenge in the box that gives away a penalty a red card? Willie Collum says yes.

I think that's the main problem with refereeing decisions on the whole - the "interpretation" factor. Same with the stupid offside rule. BUT, what else can be done?

Perhaps a removal of the rule that denying a goalscoring opportunity results in a red card because as was discussed above, the goalscoring opportunity is replaced with (usually) a better goalscoring opportunity from the penalty spot. One thing I just thought of though - that second red card last night. Jelavic was hacked down outside the box. What if he'd already rounded the keeper and he got taken out outside the box? So, he had an open goal in front of him, but the result would be a free kick on the edge of the box, and a yellow card for the culprit? That would be pretty harsh - again, you'd need some sort of interpretation by the referees to decide what merited a red card in certain situations. Could the rules be changed to give the team a penalty even though the foul was outside the box? Seems ridiculous, but given the option, would you rather give the team a free kick just outside the box and be reduced to 10 men, or keep 11 on the pitch and give them a penalty??

What will be interesting to see is what happens when Willie Collum next referees a game that doesn't include the old firm. Will he still dish out the red cards for fouls in the box.

For the record, my take on the 4 red cards he's just dished out are that 2 were definite red cards under the current rule (i.e. Considine and the first last night.), one was probably just about right (the push on Diouff), but it was difficult to tell, and the other probably shouldn't have been a red card because I think the keeper was getting there.

I still honestly don't think there is a bias in favour of the old firm, but you know - I'm always open to changing my opinion. I used to think there was a bit of bias against Celtic (generally in order to favour Rangers), but that was back when Rangers were winning everything. Looking back it now, I just probably felt a bit hard done by, and applying my same logic as above, Rangers were a better team and spent more time attacking etc. It seems that this season in partcular, Celtic have got an awful lot of penalties, but the style of play they've been playing this season has been generally very attacking - sometimes with about 8 attack minded players on the field, so they do spend a lot of time in the opposition half / in their box.

I'm going to keep an eye on this though - I really wouldn't like there to be actual bias in favour of any teams, including Celtic, but I honestly think that the other teams in Scotland are fed up of being second best, and that's where this opinion comes from (much the same as I used to often feel aggrieved in the days when Celtic were winning fuck all).

[Adam Easy Wishes]

I'm going to keep an eye on this though - I really wouldn't like there to be actual bias in favour of any teams, including Celtic, but I honestly think that the other teams in Scotland are fed up of being second best, and that's where this opinion comes from (much the same as I used to often feel aggrieved in the days when Celtic were winning fuck all).

I'm not fed up of being second best because all I've ever known is Celtic and Rangers winning things.

However I've also always known that they get the bulk of the decisions. This is not a new thing, this claim of bias - it's always existed - decisions are just placed under more scrutiny now as everything is recorded for TV and that Celtic now have a petulant child in charge.

[Guest Gladstone]

BBC News - Parcel bombs sent to Neil Lennon, McBride and Godman

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Lennon or Celtic, this is fucking outrageous.