Tom Boyd’s controversial comments on referee John Beaton on Celtic’s official TV channel

[ian1964 10,721]

FORMER Celtic captain Tom Boyd slammed ref John Beaton during Celtic’s victory over Dunfermline.

The Hoops needed extra-time to defeat Stevie Crawford’s men in the Betfred Cup last-16.

And a controversial flash-point led to former club captain berating the ref and accusing him of working against the Scottish Champions while live on Celtic TV.

John Beaton waved away a Hoops penalty appeal during extra-time, leading Tom Boyd to question the whistler’s integrity.

He said: “That’s a penalty. It’s a penalty kick.

“His arms are up in an unnatural position and it’s a stonewall penalty.

“And once again, Celtic denied by decisions by the referee, and the referee has bottled that.

“That’s an absolutely scandalous decision by John Beaton. We’ve seen that before on many occasions.

“It’s unquestionably a penalty. It probably should have been a handball but that was a stonewall penalty kick.

“It’s clear it’s a penalty kick. In the light of day, he’s putting his hand towards the ball, heading towards goal.

“What does John Beaton not know about the new rules? If he doesn’t know that’s a penalty he should not be in the middle of the park refereeing a football game.

“He’ll probably be welcome down his pub tonight again.”

At half-time in extra-time the ex-Celtic ace – who works for the club in an ambassadorial role – continued to question the decision made by Beaton.

He said: “Old law, new law. No matter what kind of law it is, that is a penalty in anybody’s book.

“How John Beaton hasn’t given that, we’ve seen it before from referee’s like this, John Beaton not giving us a penalty kick.

“Absolutely stunning decision from Mr Beaton as he stands in the middle of the park alone.

“And I wonder what his thoughts are.

“I’m not mystified. John Beaton, it’s obviously a pre-meditated decision not to give that penalty because it was so late in the game.”

When asked by Celtic TV commentator Gerry McDade whether he thought the injury to Pars keeper Ryan Scully had any effect in the decision not to give a penalty – Boyd refused to agree.

He instead claimed that in order to win the game, Neil Lennon’s men would have to compete against Dunfermline AND the referee.

He said: “It’s got absolutely nothing to do with that. It’s come off his arm. Regardless of whether there is players down or whatever he has still given the corner kick.

“He’s not given a drop ball.

“So he hasn’t made any decision before, he’s given it as a corner so he has seen it hit the hand of the Dunfermline player and it should be a penalty kick.

“An absolutely outrageous decision from John Beaton.

“We’ve not played well today. But a decision once again from a referee may cost us in this game. Hopefully we will go on and beat, not the ten men or the eleven men of Dunfermline, but the twelve men with that decision from John Beaton.”

The SFA have been contacted for comment.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4618106/tom-boyd-john-beaton-celtic/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1566129690

[ian1964 10,721]

 

[compo 7,030]

The mans a bigoted eejit 

[ian1964 10,721]

 

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,751]

Paranoia TV is about mad Tom's level tbh. The guy is class A idiot

[ian1964 10,721]

 

[26th of foot 6,082]

Apparently, the Compliance Officer is investigating Tom Boyd's comments reference Referee, John Beaton.

 

Oh well, Alfredo Morelos will be offered a four match ban?

[26th of foot 6,082]

The story continues .....

 

The club that do not do statements, Sellik have issued a statement stating they are "astounded" that Tom Boyd is under compliance officer investigation. Now, Tom Boyd is a separate entity to ra Sellik, even though he is a club Ambassador and works for Sellik TV. I suspect Sellik Peter has fail failed to copy in SPFL Peter and SFA Peter? Of course, Tom could play the, 'I am as thick as shit pouring from the neck of a bottle non-entity' card?

 

True story, Tom was in court a couple of years past, giving evidence against a confidence trickster who persuaded Tom to invest £70,000 in his company, which promised to triple Tom's investment in a calendar year. Thus, if Tom does intend to play said card, he would not be lying.

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, 26th of foot said:

The story continues .....

 

The club that do not do statements, Sellik have issued a statement stating they are "astounded" that Tom Boyd is under compliance officer investigation. Now, Tom Boyd is a separate entity to ra Sellik, even though he is a club Ambassador and works for Sellik TV. I suspect Sellik Peter has fail failed to copy in SPFL Peter and SFA Peter? Of course, Tom could play the, 'I am as thick as shit pouring from the neck of a bottle non-entity' card?

 

True story, Tom was in court a couple of years past, giving evidence against a confidence trickster who persuaded Tom to invest £70,000 in his company, which promised to triple Tom's investment in a calendar year. Thus, if Tom does intend to play said card, he would not be lying.

Priceless. Laughed out loud at that. ?

[ian1964 10,721]