Messages

Burns slid in to catch the ball with a Donegal player about to come in and tackle him. I think he called the mark to give himself a few seconds to look at his options.

Also I don't think Burns would have had that kick in his locker.

They were shots to nothing, You could get a shot away and kill the ball and be set up behind. Its very odd that they called marks and then kicked backwards. Maybe a sign the pressure was getting to them?

Not honestly sure I could pick 3 Nirvana songs I like without using the Unplugged album.

Loved Nevermind when it first came out, but Nirvana are just a little too raw, too intense for a soft old chap like me.

Nevermind is a decent album. Bleach is by far their best tho

I dont think so, In Utero was their best for me.

Dominating this game.
The ' eejit Kenny on co-commentary who repeatedly claimed Lundstrom's red was not a red.
What a nutcase!

Just watching the highlights there.

WTF is Miller on about??

You'd swear there were ten leg-breaking tackles like that every day the way he's going on.

Absolute bellend!

In fairness, rangers manager was unequivocal about it saying it was red and a bad tackle. Bizarre stuff from Miller.

What I understand from his later justifications it's even more bizarre. Kenny claimed that it would not have been a red card tackle in his day, therefore it wasn't a red card tackle.

I think he's just doubling down on his initial decision. Doesn't want to back down. A clown.

Although Sutton is a clown also. Can't stand him.

Yesterday's game, like this year's league, was very hard work by Celtic.  Poor stuff. Should have beaten them out the gate by 4 or 5 goals.  Typical 2-0 up then conceding straight away. Just typical of this season.

Point still stands. Board need to invest big time now. Players like Scales, Harte and Taylor etc. are clearly not at the right standard. Celtic need serious investment.  That should start right now instead of their usual messing about in August.

This will bring in more money via Champions League and good chance Matt O'Riley will go for £10m+.

Scales is better than all your other centre backs in my opinion.

Did you not take note of Scales' performance in Saturday's game? It was desperate defending for the headed goal, he knew the Rangers player was there but carried on ball watching. He can't jump and if he does get his head onto the ball, who knows where it will end up and that's a chronic problem dating back to his debut.Anytime he goes forward with the ball the game slows down. How many times did his passes go astray? At the very least he was by far the worst passer.
CCV can pass the ball and can head, but in many other respect Scales can hold his own.
Scales has improved no end as a player, Rodgers is the perfect manager for him. He doesn't get injured, I'd rate him as an invaluable squad player.

CCV is not a better passer than Scales. Did you miss his huge f**k up in champions league this year. He's good at heading a ball, that's it.

[It stops players from taking a man on]

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

Why does it work? It stops players from taking a man on and the art of 1 v 1 defending in many instances. I think the general concensus would be that the majority would like to see a player take his man on as that is what gets punters off their seats, not someone being able to take a free shot at goal or worse slow down the attack then kick it back. 

It does not stop that, you can still take a man on and many teams do. It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

You might well be the only person in Ireland who's in favour of the forward mark.

I doubt it since it was voted in at Congress. However I do have a mind of my own and i think unfortunately we have a sheep mentality in GAA where everyone is against everything. People forget what it was like before the rule came in.

[It stops players from taking a man on]

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

Why does it work? It stops players from taking a man on and the art of 1 v 1 defending in many instances. I think the general concensus would be that the majority would like to see a player take his man on as that is what gets punters off their seats, not someone being able to take a free shot at goal or worse slow down the attack then kick it back. 

It does not stop that, you can still take a man on and many teams do. It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

not really, ive seen it happen a lot now esp in club games. Players are told take the mark regardless. it's pointless, it actually stops attacking play. it's the safe option, taking a mark and playing it backwards just stupid. it should have been binned but its getting to a mockery stage now. if they are going to keep it it should be tweaked that you must take a shot or that the ball must go forward.

I think your additions to the existing rules would be good. But I would not get rid of the attacking mark.

The man who sold the world
Smells like teen spirit
Sunbeam

2 covers? Covers should be banned IMO!

 

With the third being their attempt to write a Pixies song.

Big question is when are they going to do a top 3 Dead Kennedys songs.

For me

Lounge Act
On a Plane
Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

Harrowing documentary on RTE1 about this at the moment

A few things after  watching all that:

Football as a spectacle is  pathetic.

You're hard to please!

There was some  very good scores taken , but  the  match  itself  was brutal

Do you apply the same to other sports. I assume you would agree soccer is complete shite as a spectacle. 2 x 0-0 draws in the championship play offs today and arsenal winning 1-0 vrs Man Utd. Utter shite I presume?

For me there's no doubt Armagh has better players than Donegal. However, mcgeeney has had a decade and can't get over the line. Mcguinness has won it in one season with a team he's only just come into who were crap last year. It obvious to me where the issue is

Neither of teams deserve to win.

The very least thing anyone should do sport is try to win.

Neither team tried to win that game.

Sport ruining c***ts, one and all.

That's a bizarre take. Both teams knackered.

Sorry to tell you fella, but if you think there's any glory gained from what happened in the last 10 mins of normal time, or in part of extra time, then you're institutionalised.

Sorry to tell you fella,  if you didn't think that was a high quality exciting game of football maybe you should consider a different pastime

Neither of teams deserve to win.

The very least thing anyone should do sport is try to win.

Neither team tried to win that game.

Sport ruining c***ts, one and all.

That's a bizarre take. Both teams knackered.

Never a free there

Incredible dive, throwback to South American soccer teams in the 80s

In fairness hevwas fouled before the dive