THE purity of football as a sporting activity is pretty-well summed-up right at the start. The object of the game is to score more goals than the opposition - do that, you win.
Even with an objective as straight-forward and obvious, you get argument. Just imagine how bad things would be if you had judges had involved, and you got additional points for "tchnical or artistic merit", "content of programme", or, as happens in boxing, if you do not knock-out your opponent, your fate is in the hands of the judges.
But, as I said in the last paragraph, even with football's simple premise: "score the higher number of goals - you're the winner", you get arguments. Take, for instance, this afternoon's East Kilbride v Celtic Scottish Cup tie.
Celtic won 2-0, but, would you believe it, some are complaining about Leigh Griffiths' opener for Celtic. The ball appears to have hit wee Leigh on the hand en route to the EK net. I think I saw the contact when watching the TV pictures, but, I cannot be sure. In any case, even if Leigh was hit on the hand by the ball, it looked to me to be ball to hand, which is legal, rather than hand to ball, illegal.
Any way, suppose the referee had decided to chalk-off the goal, it would still have finished in a Celtic win, but, 1-0, rather than 2-0. Therefore, arguing is spurious and a waste of time.
It is not as if Celtic lost goals for not entertaining. (slightly off-topic - has any Scottish club paid an "entertainment bonus" since yon day, decades ago, when Jim McLean fined his players their "entertainment bonus" after one less-than-sparkling victory).
Sure, Celtic, top of the SPFL, were expected to hammer their non-league opponents. However, as we have long known in football, a determined and well-organised lesser team is always capable of thwarting the goal-scoring aspirations of their opponents.
It is one thing saying: "On paper, Celtic should win" - (glib aside here), another to reveal: "football is played on grass (or artificial surface), not on paper". Ah didnae ken that!!
Old cynic that I am, I reckon the lack of credit for winning a match they were always going to win, which has gone to Celtic is down to one thing - the media wanted an EK victory to boost their pathetic "Deila Must Go" campaign.
Celtic were supposed to win - they did win; job done, move on.
ELSEWHERE, Scotland's third-most-hard-fought Derby, the Edinburgh one between Hearts and Hibs, finished all-square. Again, I am not that surprised, Hibs are a Premiership team serving time in the Championship, Hearts are not that far ahead of them - add the chuck the form book away thing around any Derby and, the draw was always likely.
It will be interesting to see how tomorrow's quarter-final draw pans out.
WELL done Aberdeen, controlling their nerves enough to beat St Johnstone and maintain the pressure on Celtic at the top of the table. If they can put together a good run of results, things will get really interesting once the split happens. You kind of expect Aberdeen, having got themselves back into a challenging position by beating Celtic, to immediately lose ground, so, well done to them for not doing so.
LAUGH of the weekend for me was Mark McGhee's reaction to that late Inverness CT winner in the cup tie ar Fir Park. Nobody does the we wuz robbed, petted lip quite like the bold McGhee. And no, I didn't think Roberts fouled Gomis as he won possession, before going on to fire home a fantastic late winner.
And, as far as the other big talking point of the cup ties is concerned; this Killie supporter thought the ref was right to red card Higginbottom. That one was not an Orange/Masonic conspiracy at Ibrox.
No comments:
Post a Comment