That’s a red card whatever way you look at it.. no way should that be rescinded and if it does it will just make our game look even more ridiculous.. the jamboids are having a laugh with this appeal..
Results 151 to 180 of 342
-
04-01-2018 04:21 PM #151
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,504
-
04-01-2018 04:35 PM #152This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
In Scotland you might (wrongly) get away with one but this tackle is
1. Late;
2. Out of control (both feet off the ground);
3. From behind -
- I'd add 4. High.
Red card all the way. Even in this footballing backwater.
-
04-01-2018 04:40 PM #153This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I think it will be reduced to a yellow card offence, we'll wait and see.
-
04-01-2018 04:42 PM #154This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
04-01-2018 04:44 PM #155This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
-
-
04-01-2018 04:52 PM #158
Hate to say it but probably is a yellow. The key interpretation of the law is whether or not he was endeandering an opponent.
We had a very similar situation in a game couple of seasons ago. Steven Thomson crudely brought down SJM as he ran away from him in the centre circle. It was from behind. Put him up in the air - but - Thomson only got a yellow at the time.
Now, at the time I worked with the ref who was in the middle that day, known him for a number of years, (he’s now retired from the game) and I asked him on the Monday after the game why it wasn't a straight red. To all intents, it certainly looked it. His reply - yes, it was a cynical tackle (professional foul if you like) but in his opinion he hadn’t endangered SJM with the tackle. That was the key to whether it was red or yellow. Couldn’t be looked at retrospectively because it was “dealt with” during the game with a yellow.
Just goes to show it’s all down to how the ref sees it. Our opinions count for diddly squat.
-
04-01-2018 05:00 PM #159This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
04-01-2018 05:00 PM #160This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
04-01-2018 05:06 PM #161
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Posts
- 10,659
Looked like a strikers tackle, seen a lot worse get away with a Y. Imo will be downgraded to a Y.
-
04-01-2018 05:11 PM #162This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Tackles from behind used to be legal and executed well were a thing of beauty. The reason they were banned was because it was found most career threatening injuries from tackles were tackles from behind.
If you tackle from behind (recklessly in this case as both feet are off the ground i.e. he is out of control) you endangering your opponent.
-
04-01-2018 05:11 PM #163This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Fine to disagree that’s Football 👍🏼
-
04-01-2018 05:15 PM #164This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
04-01-2018 05:24 PM #165This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
However, the specific law quotes both endangering and excessive force, so technically there are 2 interpretations to make a decision on by the ref. In Laughatme’s case it is probably more the excessive force part that swayed the ref to give the red. Don’t think he was “endangering” Shinnie and that will be Laughatme’s defence no doubt. Don’t get me wrong, hope it doesnt get overturned.
The example I quoted was very similar and looked as though excessive force had been used - BUT - the ref in that game interpreted it on the endangering aspect and didn’t, in his opinion, think that was the case so only gave a yellow, when 15000 Hibs fans thought different.
And don’t forget Ian Black’s assault on Leigh in ‘that’ cup final. He got away with not even being talked to. Tripped, fouled, endangered, excessive force, all in one act but CT interpreted it as none of these!!
As I say, our opinions mean nowt.
-
04-01-2018 05:24 PM #166
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,959
It was reckless and deliberate. There was zero attempt to play the ball and Lafferty lashed out with his foot at the opponents knees in order to take out the opponent player who was about to launch an attack down the wing. Red card all day long. However its the SFA panel who'll ultimately decide and if they want to send out the signal its fine for 'some' players to scythe down opposition players at the knees then they're able to do so regardless of what the vast majority of us fans think.
-
04-01-2018 05:27 PM #167
Look at where and how Laffertys knee makes contact with Shinnies leg.
That’s both excessive force and endangering an opponent.
More playing of the victim card by Hearts but if there’s any justice they’ll get nowhere with this frivolous appeal. Well done red.
-
04-01-2018 05:32 PM #168This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
04-01-2018 05:34 PM #169This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I just feel the points I stated before makes it difficult for him to put up a case. Either way it’s Hearts and Levein they are jammy as so it’ll be binned no doubt.
-
04-01-2018 05:48 PM #170
This wasn't just an obstruction or a trip to bring someone down. It was a pre-meditated lunge with no attempt to get the ball and could have injured the player. Its a red all day long
-
04-01-2018 05:51 PM #171
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
- Posts
- 2,287
I hope it fails. He would be a massive loss for them.
-
04-01-2018 05:55 PM #172
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
- Posts
- 646
So a tackle where a player has a chance of getting the ball but mistimes the challenge and catches the opponent can find that he gets a red.
Yet where a player deliberately takes out an opponent with no attempt to get the ball, basically just kicking the player to bring him down, can somehow be deemed just a yellow card!
Not sure what the laws of game are meant to be in this situation but if this red is successfully appealed then football really should take a look at itself.
-
04-01-2018 05:58 PM #173
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Location
- Back in the town
- Age
- 60
- Posts
- 11,873
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
04-01-2018 06:31 PM #174
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
- Posts
- 2,287
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
04-01-2018 06:58 PM #175
How's it not excessive force? If he just wanted to stop play he could've pulled Shinnie's shirt or clipped his ankles.
If he wanted to win the ball he could've, y'know, tried to win the ball. Instead he launched himself when there was absolutely no need to. Excessive.
-
04-01-2018 07:48 PM #176This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-01-2018 01:59 AM #177This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Respect you opinions mate but I can't see anything but a straight red for that tackle
-
05-01-2018 07:52 AM #178
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Posts
- 1,489
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-01-2018 08:29 AM #179This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
That's not ground breaking but sounds like it is being admitted
-
05-01-2018 09:23 AM #180This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
United we stand here....
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks