Laughatme Sending Off (Red Card Stands)

[murray26]

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 no way should that be rescinded and if it does it will just make our game look even more ridiculous..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..

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your points are good ones but I feel that most refs would have only produced the yellow card.

His points show three ways in which the tackle was a no-no.

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.

[IlDiavola]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

His points show three ways in which the tackle was a no-no.

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.

Ok, we differ in our opinions.

I think it will be reduced to a yellow card offence, we'll wait and see.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ok, we differ in our opinions.

It's not opinions that matter, it's the laws of the game.

[HoboHarry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not opinions that matter, it's the laws of the game.

The problem is that the laws are open to interpretation - that said I agree with you it should stay a red and quite frankly if it is reduced to a yellow they would be as well getting rid of the panel due to it it being worthless.

[3pm]

Is this the first time Levein has gone with a forward at Hampden?

[IlDiavola]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is this the first time Levein has gone with a forward at Hampden?

[hibby6270]

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.

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

That’s not true. The key interpretation, and the only one btw, is did he use excessive force? If you don’t think he did then your probably watching the wrong sport. He’s miles from the ball, lunged, and booted the boy half way up the leg. There was no need to do what he did and he did use excessive force.

[IlDiavola]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

Thank you.

[Onion]

Looked like a strikers tackle, seen a lot worse get away with a Y. Imo will be downgraded to a Y.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thank you.

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.

[Thecat23]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well, I think the ref was swayed by the players reaction and that of the crowd. Your points are good ones but I feel that most refs would have only produced the yellow card.

Sorry to disagree but that's what I think.

That could well be a factor at the time. But if he sticks with the laws of the game then the red will stand. Kind of slices him down!

Fine to disagree that’s Football 👍🏼

[IlDiavola]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That could well be a factor at the time. But if he sticks with the laws of the game then the red will stand. Kind of slices him down!

Fine to disagree that’s Football 👍🏼

Cheers Cat

[hibby6270]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That’s not true. The key interpretation, and the only one btw, is did he use excessive force? If you don’t think he did then your probably watching the wrong sport. He’s miles from the ball, lunged, and booted the boy half way up the leg. There was no need to do what he did and he did use excessive force.

You’re right. Or should I interpret that as you’re not wrong.

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.

[Tornadoes70]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[Winston Ingram]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That’s not true. The key interpretation, and the only one btw, is did he use excessive force? If you don’t think he did then your probably watching the wrong sport. He’s miles from the ball, lunged, and booted the boy half way up the leg. There was no need to do what he did and he did use excessive force.

It also falls under violent conduct. His sole intention was just to run up and boot him.

[Thecat23]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cheers Cat

👍🏼 It’s good to debate these things, and the way we all see games differently. I could be completely wrong and he could get it downgraded to yellow.

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.

[Skol]

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

[Firestarter]

I hope it fails. He would be a massive loss for them.

[Tug Wilson]

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.

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

👍🏼 It’s good to debate these things, and the way we all see games differently. I could be completely wrong and he could get it downgraded to yellow.

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.

Think it is a red all day. The appeal shows what Hearts think is acceptable. I hope they don’t get it. However he is **** so it might suit us if he plays.

[Firestarter]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Think it is a red all day. The appeal shows what Hearts think is acceptable. I hope they don’t get it. However he is **** so it might suit us if he plays.

They would appeal regardless it's what Potter does.

[Broken Gnome]

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.

[Skol]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

He wasnt close enough for that type of foul which would be a yellow. His only option was to cynically hack him down. Or not do it I suppose.

[poolman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ok, we differ in our opinions.

I think it will be reduced to a yellow card offence, we'll wait and see.

Respect you opinions mate but I can't see anything but a straight red for that tackle

[AltheHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is this the first time Levein has gone with a forward at Hampden?

Aren't they not attending, keeping Potter's record intact. 😁

[MacGruber]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

Does this not mean an ex ref is admitting that if SJM rolled about injured and feigned injury that the ref would have sent Thomson off. Surely he couldn't have thought to himself it wasn't endangering if he thought he was injured. So the exact same tackle and intent can be either a yellow or a red depending on whether the player gets injured or looks injured if he can act it out well.
That's not ground breaking but sounds like it is being admitted

[lord bunberry]

This 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.

John Collins was brilliant at the tackle from behind. He would slide in and almost always come away with the ball.