Celtic Banter Archive November 18 2016

 

Use our rumours form to send us celtic transfer rumours.

18 Nov 2016 23:49:33
Boy that was tough to watch at times. It looked as though the ball had been greased with butter. I am happy with the 3 points, but I hope that was just a singular blip that is not predictor for this week's CL match. Hail hail!

Believable0 Unbelievable0

19 Nov 2016 01:30:39
Mate it was mostly because of the pitch but am still a bit wary for Barcelona. Saying that I'd much rather be feeling like this about facing Barcelona than feeling like it about the jambos, know what a mean?

Agree2 Disagree1

19 Nov 2016 01:53:11
Absolutely! I knew the pitch was poor, but I live in Canada, so I'm not too familiar with the quality. It didn't seem like anyone could keep control of the ball tonight.

A win against Barcelona is a always a massive upset, I just hope that Boyata won't be the anchor in our defence. Hail hail.

Agree0 Disagree0

19 Nov 2016 02:59:50
It was more a dig at sevco bud but I share your pessimism about boyata no need to worry too much tho I think simonovic was spared because of the surface hail hail🍀.

Agree0 Disagree0

19 Nov 2016 06:33:38
Pitch was terrible but thought we played ok in spells, should have put game to bed earlier but deary me boyatas a bomb scare.

Agree1 Disagree0

19 Nov 2016 09:11:09
Grinding out ugly games is something we never had in the locker under RD. Rodgers and the backroom squads man management has been good so far. 4 months in charge and things are miles better all around. Getting CK, EA, Cifci, GMS, SA and more deadwood off the payroll come Jan or at the end of the season leaves room for another 3 or 4 quality players. HH.

Agree0 Disagree0

21 Nov 2016 00:50:49
One big improvement I think there is this year from team over the last 10 years or so. Our defence is usually better at covering up mistakes, than every other year . It used to annoy me that nearly every mistake resulted in a goal, but this year very often when we make a mistake another defender gets the ball cleared.

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016
New image uploaded to the
Celtic Player Sightings page entitled, What will our city neighbours think of Warbo

Believable0 Unbelievable0

18 Nov 2016 18:01:56
Am no using rubbers again, if this is true ☹ LOL 😁.

Believable0 Unbelievable0

{Ed001's Note - different type of rubber mate. The problem with the pitches is that the rubber is made from recycled bits of old tyres, not rubbers.}

18 Nov 2016
The real time live chat page is open for today's Celtic match at the below link for you to talk to each other during the match
Celtic Live Chat page

Believable0 Unbelievable0

18 Nov 2016 10:28:02
does anyone else think it wasnt a coincidence scotland today ran the story last night about the rubber on artificial pitches being dangerous to players the day before we played on the shocking kilmarnock surface where this rubber is all over the pitch?

Believable10 Unbelievable3

18 Nov 2016 13:48:33
What are you getting at?

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016 14:25:01
Think its just a coincidence, is a bit scary about that rubber stuff, don't know if all artificisl pitches use the same technology.

Agree0 Disagree1

18 Nov 2016 14:33:19
I doubt any professional footballer hasn't heard about this claim. I would suggest your trying to make a link to suit a paranoid agenda or are they trying to unsettle killie players who play on it every second week?

Agree2 Disagree3

18 Nov 2016 14:59:33
I'm as suspicious as the next paranoid supporter when it comes to the slanted reports, leaks, smears and malicious gossip, but I think this one should be a concern for ALL clubs who have these pitches either in their stadium or training facilities?

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016 15:33:50
Not seen this story. What's dangerous about it.

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016 16:12:48
The rubber crumb breaks down into smsll pieces and might be injested or inhaled and is supposed to contain carcinogec substances, they doing a study into it.

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016 17:22:57
There is not enough research to say that these pitches cause cancer.

To paraphrase Richard Feynman, you need to put in years and years of study before you can even start to think something is true.

Too often people say something is true before putting in the necessary amount of study to make the claim with any degree of certainty.

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed001's Note - hmmm actually there is a lot of evidence, and it is patently obvious that they should never have been used considering that it is well known the rubber used contained carcinogens.}

18 Nov 2016 19:38:09
Was reading online that some states in america used material made out of rubber crumb in the playgrounds of primary schools and kindergardens, and now three federal agencies are to do a full investigation into the toxicity of the materials, you would have thought they would have checked this well before before putting their children at any possible risk.

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016 19:49:44
Not seen the article but we train and play bounce games on Astro all the time and our training pitches are littered with the wer black rubbers.

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016 20:30:47
I am not saying there isn't evidence that backs up the hypothesis that these pitches can cause cancer. What I am saying is that not enough research has been conducted to make this into a highly likely fact. This is a view that I strongly share with a noble price winning physicist (Richard Feynman) who knows better than anyone on here, as he devoted his life to scientific pursuit and was one of the great minds of our time.

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016 23:27:31
We're all breathing it in everyday anyway with all the tyres on the road. God help the simpsons with that forever burning pile of tyres, no wonder they're all yellow.

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016 23:42:48
Cant remember that saying goes something like erring on the side of caution, you look back thru human history, do we have to wait till something is proved wrong, Rabmac, or should we err on the side of caution, I could mention a lot of stuff, but don't feeel like doing it, think about it youself.

Agree0 Disagree0

19 Nov 2016 01:10:52
"It's your turn in nets mate" "naw I'm fine pall"

Agree0 Disagree0

19 Nov 2016 06:35:16
Yes it may be wise to be more cautious about their use until more research is conducted.

Anyway let me go back to my point, in science when you first set out to prove something you usually start with a hypothesis. Next you will devise a fair test to see if your hypothesis was wrong or right. If your test didn't agree with the hypothesis then you need to work out why. If it did agree with the hypothesis, then you keep repeating the test to see if you keep getting the same results. After this others will carry out the same fair test many times and check their results . Against your results to see if they match to within a certain tolerance. You will then have people devising other fair tests that try and disprove the hypothesis. It is only after years of extensive testing that something will become a theory, assuming it has stood up to all the tests.

Physicists tend to be the most rigorous and this is why their theories tend to last the longest. Too often you see research carried out where the team has not done enough rigorous testing but yet claim things to be true. Food scientists and psychologists tend to be the worst offenders and this is why they tend to be proven wrong further down the line or only partly right.

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed001's Note - actually the main problem is the funding. Food scientists tend to get their funding from corporations with a vested interest in finding one thing to be true over another. So the scientists usually end up making false conclusions in order to win further funding. That is why we spent years being told margarine was better for you than butter, despite it being unhealthy. That is why we are only now being told that unsaturated fat is not actually healthier than saturated fat.}

19 Nov 2016 08:51:42
You are right Ed, as you always need to question who commissioned the research and who carried out the research for the reason you cited. However, it is also true that both these groups are notoriusly bad at not doing enough tests to back up their assertions. I personally wouldn't call them scientists, more like pseudo-scientists, saying that I wouldn't even call most bioligists scientists lol.

Agree0 Disagree0

19 Nov 2016 09:03:18
Lol! This string is brilliant, here I was about to slag off Stevie G or have a laugh at Kris Boyd and I'm now wondering if I should peer review a few psychology experiments I've seen with too lenient a level of significance. Nah, I'll just stick with my original plan, Gerard's legs are gone and Kris Boyd is clearly a brain donor ;-P.

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Nov 2016 09:07:58
Been working away this week so not had a chance to catch up on everything Scottish Football related until today, WTF is Martyn Waghorn carrying around a Fish and Chip Bag having arguments with School Children for haha 😳! I play at junior football level and if my manager found out I was Eating Fish and Chips I'd get a small fine and dropped! On other matters really looking forward to watching the match tonight, even tho we had 14 players away on international duty I still fancy a decent win, 3-0. On recent transfers rumours only player i'd being in is James McCarthy, Gerrard? Yes before he went to the MLS but now? Definitely no. Hope everyone is doing well and Happy Friday 😄! Keep up the good work Ed.

Believable8 Unbelievable0

{Ed007's Note - (yes)

 
Change Consent