A&H

Rangers Vs Kilmarnock

Its one that has cropped up since day 1 here this season. It is striking/attempting to strike, so, you can go red ( my own view is still red but no surprise its rescinded)
There seems to be varying degrees of violence permitted since opening day, and, its very confusing for the officials on the day, sadly they cant go around (or should not) be thinking, oh, I wonder if this will get appealed, they can only give what they see at the time

Good chance 2 be looked at from tonights' Dundee Hibs game just gone, don't blame the ref if he saw them and just left them, knowing compliance will review them anyway.

Potentially tonight there has been a pen not called, 2 reds missed, 1 goal flagged offside wrongly and certainly a stonewall caution missed.....not have a go at any referee of course but if we drive away from our game tomorrow and that's our game, we wont be too pleased with ourselves.
 
The Referee Store
RobOda said:
I am impressed that the people responding in that topic are in favour of the red card and original decision. There's a video posted in there that does make the elbow look pretty clear.
Click to expand...


Maybe just me but am old school on violent conduct. I still consider it as striking, or attempting to strike.
Things like tackles, handballs, offsides, they naturally occur, but to strike or attempt to strike someone, for me, is not needed and goes above the expected misdemeanours' .
 
I had a game this morning and I made clear that just because people on the TV get these overturned doesn't mean that Ayrshire FA will also overturn these incidents, I think the judicial panel have gone backwards if I'm honest by punishing instances that have been delt with on the field that the referee deemed worthy of a yellow card then upgrading it off the field to match ban's, and then clear VC is dismissed and overturned.

This isn't going to bring the consistency that the managers are calling for, it's just going to either make the on field referee lazy (I don't mean to insult the referees as officials just my take) or its going to make them dismiss incidents because the compliance officer will look at them anyway, it will just cause the officials more problems than they already have in the media and from fans (some go as far as gaining personal information in Scotland).
 
Big Cat said:
Good decision
Not clear enough and the victim was cheating by feigning injury imo
Click to expand...

The multiple video angles and an assistant that watched it isn't clear enough?, He was clearly elbowed in the face, and as far as I'm concerned it's unfair to call the player a cheat while on the same hand saying it's unclear, a tad bit of hypocrisy there when you'd send someone off for claiming your a cheat

I'm not trying to start an argument at all it's just my opinion and I don't mean offence
 
SNS-18424193-Rangers-v-Kilmarnock-1-e1550740865296-620x369.jpg
Forgetting the actual offence for a bit, I thought the refs actual showing of the card was a learning point, I showed many RCs but never ever so close and in a players face. Thats quite provocative IMO. Should the red mist happen you are in Ground Zero for reprisal. Maybe OK at this level but lower down its surely not recommended..thoughts??
 
Sheffields Finest said:
View attachment 3150
Forgetting the actual offence for a bit, I thought the refs actual showing of the card was a learning point, I showed many RCs but never ever so close and in a players face. Thats quite provocative IMO. Should the red mist happen you are in Ground Zero for reprisal. Maybe OK at this level but lower down its surely not recommended..thoughts??
Click to expand...

As much as i agree with you its kinda in the system down the ranks to isolate a player when issuing any card (at least up here in scotland) which can mean being in close proximity, obviously as you pointed out its not advised to be up in a players face when doing so, though i do agree the referee was more than close enough in this instance
 
Superhuman568 said:
The multiple video angles and an assistant that watched it isn't clear enough?, He was clearly elbowed in the face, and as far as I'm concerned it's unfair to call the player a cheat while on the same hand saying it's unclear, a tad bit of hypocrisy there when you'd send someone off for claiming your a cheat

I'm not trying to start an argument at all it's just my opinion and I don't mean offence
Click to expand...
I have no time for big girl's blouses overreacting to something and nothing
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Yes, its textbook what I have preached on here till the cows come home, you can be as fit as a fiddle, know every Law inside out, have the best managment skills on earth,, have what seems a great angle, and even have your shirt tucked in, however if someone cuts across your view at that vital second.... its out of your control and there is diddly you can do !!
Click to expand...

If the ref had a £400 watch on he'd have seen it :)
 
Big Cat said:
I have no time for big girl's blouses overreacting to something and nothing
Click to expand...

I don't think its something or nothing, you said it was unclear but yet it is clear enough for you to label the player on the receiving end a cheat? so if it is unclear then don't you think the "cheat" comments are a bit out of line?, even if its on TV doesn't give us the right to label people as cheats then go out at the weekend and punish people for doing the exact same thing against us.
 
Big Cat said:
I have no time for big girl's blouses overreacting to something and nothing
Click to expand...


Had he been struck the same, and, the pictures don't lie, he was struck, yet stood there, instead of falling down, what now?
Struck and falls, struck and does not fall, he has still been struck !!! The crime is the same regards of the players reaction to it???

same as when a player is tripped in the box, whether he stays upright, or he rolls around 100 times, its still a pk (in some cases, sadly!!!)
 
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus said:
Had he been struck the same, and, the pictures don't lie, he was struck, yet stood there, instead of falling down, what now?
Struck and falls, struck and does not fall, he has still been struck !!! The crime is the same regards of the players reaction to it???

same as when a player is tripped in the box, whether he stays upright, or he rolls around 100 times, its still a pk (in some cases, sadly!!!)
Click to expand...


Just to add to what you said but regarding this particular incident, if the player doesn't go down here then it gets brushed away, the referee missed the incident completely and the assistant sees this from behind, so if he doesn't go down the assistant doesn't see the foul therefore the GK gets away with violent conduct, the reaction itself may be down to surprise because I'm sure if you were standing beside someone waiting for the ball coming in then instead get an elbow to the face you'd be a little surprised.

(not condoning players acting injured however sometimes going down highlights the foul that wouldn't otherwise be given, I'm sure people have been in a position where you've hesitated to give something because the player has stayed on his/her feet)
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Struck and falls, struck and does not fall, he has still been struck !!! The crime is the same regards of the players reaction to it???

same as when a player is tripped in the box, whether he stays upright, or he rolls around 100 times, its still a pk (in some cases, sadly!!!)
Click to expand...

Happened today:

Red card, player elbowed another in the face, and I mean like a punch but lead with the elbow/forearm. The person who got elbowed didn't go down. Still a straight red, no complaints from anyone really.

I still found it funny that the manager went to the observer (yay, assessments...) to say "That's a ridiculous decision, he didn't throw the first punch."

:facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top