Jump to content

Miller 2 match ban


simon

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hold on, was Lafferty not given a 3 game ban for essentially the same thing as what Dods did? Feigning contact when there wasn't any. Or am I being silly?

Neither Miller's arms or legs came into contact with the large cheating thug that is Darren Dods - check out the BBC website of the incident (look at it several times) and you'll agree.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ers/8435623.stm

Dods can be seen overreacting after Miller has cleared himself from Dods' lunging tackle.

Simulation is punishable in retrospect - the Lafferty case set the precedent.

I disagree. You will probably need to look at it in full screen. But here, under Millers left leg is Millers left fist against Dods' face.

asfmy.jpg

Make of it what you will. What am i saying, everyone will deny it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit less convincing when you actually watch the video and see that it took another 4 or 5 seconds for dodds to go down holding his face :rolleyes:

Yep, he makes a meal of it. but the facts are there - Miller punched him in the face over nothing. Totally silly thing to do, and now he will miss the Celtic game. It's his own fault, and no one else's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make of it what you will. What am i saying, everyone will deny it.

I won't, I agree with you. I think there was contact, regardless of what Dodds did or didn't do, Miller swung at him. I think he made contact, but even if he didn't, he tried to. It's a red card.

Therm, I just watched again. When the contact is made, Dodds' head moves to his right. He then throws it back clutching his face about 2 seconds after the contact on the video, which is in slow motion. I honestly don't get what the fuss is about, I think it's clear. If it had been the other way round, we'd have been screaming for a card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make of it what you will. What am i saying, everyone will deny it.

I won't, I agree with you. I think there was contact, regardless of what Dodds did or didn't do, Miller swung at him. I think he made contact, but even if he didn't, he tried to. It's a red card.

Therm, I just watched again. When the contact is made, Dodds' head moves to his right. He then throws it back clutching his face about 2 seconds after the contact on the video, which is in slow motion. I honestly don't get what the fuss is about, I think it's clear. If it had been the other way round, we'd have been screaming for a card.

What the hang's the matter with you? :rolleyes:

Here we are - the 1st day of the new year - indeed the first day of the new decade - and you go blowing a perfectly good conspiracy theory out of the water with trivial things like, er............facts.

I won't stand for it do you hear me.......I won't.

(I'm sitting down now) :sherlock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit less convincing when you actually watch the video and see that it took another 4 or 5 seconds for dodds to go down holding his face :rolleyes:

Yep, he makes a meal of it. but the facts are there - Miller punched him in the face over nothing. Totally silly thing to do, and now he will miss the Celtic game. It's his own fault, and no one else's.

Obviously not hard enough for any physical damage :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

People are moaning at the SFA when they never even got involved!

We can only appeal the decision if the ref feels there is ground for it to be heard. Collum or whatever his name is denied the request so it never went any further than that!

Loovens was different because it didnt happen during a game, he was handed the ban after the match that why it took longer to go through but as i said the ref decided there was no ground to appeal so it never even got to the SFA.

Anyone who thinks it wasnt deserved needs to take the blue specs off and watch the replay Millers left hand/arm caught Dodds clear in the face.

Only one person to blame and its Kenny!

*tin hat on*

*Hope that strap is cinched tight* "Only one person to blame and its Kenny!" Yer havin' a laff m8. Aye, he over-reacted, but it's not like his reaction wasn't provoked in a big way. If Dods got booked as he well should have, at least Miller's sending off wouldn't be the complete farce that it was. Two did the tango and only one took the fall - the one who put the kettle on the boil got off clean as a whistle.

I dont really care what Dods did or didnt do, the only thing im concerned about is Rangers and Miller lashed out at him.

Dods does have plenty of previous and the guy is a fukin animal at times but there was nothing in the original tangle then Miller reacted not Dods.

Watch the replay on the bbc, the one specifically about Millers red card. The defender won the ball, Miller ran into him then they both fell over, nothing wrong there at all so why should Dods be booked?

Im gutted that he will miss the game on Sunday but theres no point blaming the ref of the fukin sfa/spl the only person to blame is Kenny Miller!

You are being ridiculous ... if you watch it again you can clearly see that there are a couple of seconds between Millers "lash out" as you put it and dodds throwing his head back

Im being ridiculous? What exactly does Dods reaction to being hit have to do with Miler being banned? The replay you are watching is in slow motion, in normal time the whole thing is over in 5 seconds so i dont know where your getting the couple of seconds from!

I dont see how anyone can honestly say there is any sort of doubt look at the picture someone has posted and you can clearly see Miller hitting him in the face! Why does there always have to be some higher agenda or someone else to blame, Dods got hit and was holding his face for a second or two. Lafferty never got hit and fell over holding his face thats simulation not what Dods done!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make of it what you will. What am i saying, everyone will deny it.

I won't, I agree with you. I think there was contact, regardless of what Dodds did or didn't do, Miller swung at him. I think he made contact, but even if he didn't, he tried to. It's a red card.

Therm, I just watched again. When the contact is made, Dodds' head moves to his right. He then throws it back clutching his face about 2 seconds after the contact on the video, which is in slow motion. I honestly don't get what the fuss is about, I think it's clear. If it had been the other way round, we'd have been screaming for a card.

Spot on!

I was replying while you were typing this and i agree with every word.

Common sense at last!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make of it what you will. What am i saying, everyone will deny it.

I won't, I agree with you. I think there was contact, regardless of what Dodds did or didn't do, Miller swung at him. I think he made contact, but even if he didn't, he tried to. It's a red card.

Therm, I just watched again. When the contact is made, Dodds' head moves to his right. He then throws it back clutching his face about 2 seconds after the contact on the video, which is in slow motion. I honestly don't get what the fuss is about, I think it's clear. If it had been the other way round, we'd have been screaming for a card.

What the hang's the matter with you? :rolleyes:

Here we are - the 1st day of the new year - indeed the first day of the new decade - and you go blowing a perfectly good conspiracy theory out of the water with trivial things like, er............facts.

I won't stand for it do you hear me.......I won't.

(I'm sitting down now) :sherlock:

The new decade starts on the 1st of January 2011 :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make of it what you will. What am i saying, everyone will deny it.

I won't, I agree with you. I think there was contact, regardless of what Dodds did or didn't do, Miller swung at him. I think he made contact, but even if he didn't, he tried to. It's a red card.

Therm, I just watched again. When the contact is made, Dodds' head moves to his right. He then throws it back clutching his face about 2 seconds after the contact on the video, which is in slow motion. I honestly don't get what the fuss is about, I think it's clear. If it had been the other way round, we'd have been screaming for a card.

What the hang's the matter with you? :rolleyes:

Here we are - the 1st day of the new year - indeed the first day of the new decade - and you go blowing a perfectly good conspiracy theory out of the water with trivial things like, er............facts.

I won't stand for it do you hear me.......I won't.

(I'm sitting down now) :sherlock:

The new decade starts on the 1st of January 2011 :P

Now that will start an argument BP - the new decade started today!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't make it right though ... and I still think the delay between any possible contact and dodds throwing his head back was far too long to be credible because it should have happened as soon as there was impact

To be honest, Dodds could have been off the park before the incident. He's an animal who shouldn't be allowed on the pitch in the first place if you ask me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit less convincing when you actually watch the video and see that it took another 4 or 5 seconds for dodds to go down holding his face :rolleyes:

Yep, he makes a meal of it. but the facts are there - Miller punched him in the face over nothing. Totally silly thing to do, and now he will miss the Celtic game. It's his own fault, and no one else's.

Obviously not hard enough for any physical damage :rolleyes:

Does there need to be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new decade starts on the 1st of January 2011 :P

Now that will start an argument BP - the new decade started today!

I'll leave this one to Therm as I'm off to make lunch, but it didn't ;)

The first year AD was 1AD, each new decade begins ***1 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit less convincing when you actually watch the video and see that it took another 4 or 5 seconds for dodds to go down holding his face :rolleyes:

Yep, he makes a meal of it. but the facts are there - Miller punched him in the face over nothing. Totally silly thing to do, and now he will miss the Celtic game. It's his own fault, and no one else's.

Obviously not hard enough for any physical damage :rolleyes:

Does there need to be?

Well when you see the great force with which dodd's head and upper body flew back you would have expected at least a cut ... would you not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new decade starts on the 1st of January 2011 :P

Now that will start an argument BP - the new decade started today!

I'll leave this one to Therm as I'm off to make lunch, but it didn't ;)

The first year AD was 1AD, each new decade begins ***1 :)

I know ... but they just won't be told :sherlock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new decade starts on the 1st of January 2011 :P

Now that will start an argument BP - the new decade started today!

I'll leave this one to Therm as I'm off to make lunch, but it didn't ;)

The first year AD was 1AD, each new decade begins ***1 :)

Aah, that old chestnut, agreed 1st year was 1AD, however when talking about decades (just as they changed from roman to gregorian caendar) one talks about the 90s and noughties, not 1991 through to 2001. Will we agree to differ or keep this going?? :pierre:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit less convincing when you actually watch the video and see that it took another 4 or 5 seconds for dodds to go down holding his face :rolleyes:

Yep, he makes a meal of it. but the facts are there - Miller punched him in the face over nothing. Totally silly thing to do, and now he will miss the Celtic game. It's his own fault, and no one else's.

Obviously not hard enough for any physical damage :rolleyes:

Does there need to be?

Well when you see the great force with which dodd's head and upper body flew back you would have expected at least a cut ... would you not?

No. It was obvious that he made a meal of it. But that doesn't take away the fact that Miller punched him in the face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new decade starts on the 1st of January 2011 :P

Now that will start an argument BP - the new decade started today!

I'll leave this one to Therm as I'm off to make lunch, but it didn't ;)

The first year AD was 1AD, each new decade begins ***1 :)

Aah, that old chestnut, agreed 1st year was 1AD, however when talking about decades (just as they changed from roman to gregorian caendar) one talks about the 90s and noughties, not 1991 through to 2001. Will we agree to differ or keep this going?? :pierre:

The first millennium began in the year 1 ... the second in 1001 ... and the third in 2001

therefore the second decade of the third millennium must begin in 2011

Don't blame me blame the roman church who thought the cock eyed system up :sherlock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new decade starts on the 1st of January 2011 :P

Now that will start an argument BP - the new decade started today!

I'll leave this one to Therm as I'm off to make lunch, but it didn't ;)

The first year AD was 1AD, each new decade begins ***1 :)

Aah, that old chestnut, agreed 1st year was 1AD, however when talking about decades (just as they changed from roman to gregorian caendar) one talks about the 90s and noughties, not 1991 through to 2001. Will we agree to differ or keep this going?? :pierre:

The first millennium began in the year 1 ... the second in 1001 ... and the third in 2001

therefore the second decade of the third millennium must begin in 2011

Don't blame me blame the roman church who thought the cock eyed system up :sherlock:

so the noughties don;t finish until 2011 then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new decade starts on the 1st of January 2011 :P

Now that will start an argument BP - the new decade started today!

I'll leave this one to Therm as I'm off to make lunch, but it didn't ;)

The first year AD was 1AD, each new decade begins ***1 :)

Aah, that old chestnut, agreed 1st year was 1AD, however when talking about decades (just as they changed from roman to gregorian caendar) one talks about the 90s and noughties, not 1991 through to 2001. Will we agree to differ or keep this going?? :pierre:

Neither the Julian nor the Gregorian calendar have a year zero, they go from 1BC to 1AD.

Calling a period of ten years by the nineties, twenties or whatever doesn't make them a proper decade. For your theory to hold, there would have had to have been a 9 year decade at some point in the past...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Upcoming Events

    • 11 May 2024 11:30 Until 13:30
      0  
      celtic v Rangers
      celtic Park
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Football HD and Sky Sports Main Event

×
×
  • Create New...