Sportscene 22/23

[BILLYHIBS]

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

Kind of obvious that he has "been telt " what the rules are though after his Rangers comments.

Probably doesn’t want another 9 month ban 😀

Definitely moving away from pro Hibs to more pro Hearts since his return but still calls it as it is in his eyes

[Sir David Gray]

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

I wonder where the line is between a professional foul and vient conduct. If you have no Intention of playing the ball all you are doing is kicking an opponent,

Lundstram would have been sent off for serious foul play as opposed to a professional foul, I don't think that term applies within the rules.

The definition of serious foul play is;

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

On the other hand;

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

[BILLYHIBS]

Thought the Sheep played well on what was shown

Lovely free kick from the boy Clarkson

Ross Callachan still a thug

Jack Ross already on a shoogly peg as the United fans left in droves at 0-3

[JohnM1875]

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

Thought the Sheep played well on what was shown

Lovely free kick from the boy Clarkson

Ross Callachan still a thug

Jack Ross already on a shoogly peg as the United fans left in droves at 0-3

Aye Aberdeen have looked decent from what I've watched this season. That Miovski and the Liverpool lad look like good signings.

[hibstag]

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

Miller brutal on the comments after the highlights. No pen for Hibs. 1st sending off "clipped his heels" when it's obviously, visibly high. 1st Hibs goal, all about what Rangers did wrong even though we carved them open. Stewart at 2nd goal insinuating that 2nd Hibs goal wouldn't have happened with 10 men still on the park. Even the wife is having a giggle.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

The beeb seem scared to criticise their new friends in case they upset them again, I though Miller was going to call it out as a professional foul by lunstram where he took one for the team and broke up attack, that he completely mistimed making it dangerous play and a red card offence but no he stuck to the crap refereeing decision narrative..,

Note morelos is a 'frustrated hot head' rather than a thug who had no need to lash out..

[JimBHibees]

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

Lundstram would have been sent off for serious foul play as opposed to a professional foul, I don't think that term applies within the rules.

The definition of serious foul play is;

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

On the other hand;

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

The only question Lundstram would be whether it was with excessive force was certainly a high challenge from behind and a bit of a lunge. Very cynical challenge which personally hate.

[GreenGray]

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

Probably doesn’t want another 9 month ban

Definitely moving away from pro Hibs to more pro Hearts since his return but still calls it as it is in his eyes

Since his old enemy Levein is no longer at Hearts and his pal Neilson is the manager he won’t say a bad word against them.

I don’t mind him but some of the stuff he’s spraffed since we sacked Ross is laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

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

Since his old enemy Levein is no longer at Hearts and his pal Neilson is the manager he won’t say a bad word against them.

I don’t mind him but some of the stuff he’s spraffed since we sacked Ross is laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is it Jobby is one of his mates so going out his way to praise them.

[WestCoastHibby]

Who cares? Opinions are like “you know what” we’ve all got them . Tbf I don’t mind Michael Stuart but Kenny Miller is a bit of a corn on the cob at times.

[WestCoastHibby]

Who cares? Opinions are like “you know what” we’ve all got them . Tbf I don’t mind Michael Stuart but Kenny Miller is a bit of a corn on the cob at times.

[Musselbound]

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

The beeb seem scared to criticise their new friends in case they upset them again, I though Miller was going to call it out as a professional foul by lunstram where he took one for the team and broke up attack, that he completely mistimed making it dangerous play and a red card offence but no he stuck to the crap refereeing decision narrative..,

Note morelos is a 'frustrated hot head' rather than a thug who had no need to lash out..

Does anyone else really hate this expression 'took one for the team'? We hear it all the time at all levels and it seems to be acceptable. What we are talking about is deliberate and cynical fouling to stop a dangerous attack. Yet I've heard current and ex players say professionals don't deliberately foul, which is a joke.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Had to laugh at the comments about Lundstram clipping his heels when the footage quite clearly shows a knee high tackle from behind, about 5 yards from the ball.

Clear a red as you’ll ever see.

[Stubbsy90+2]

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

Ironically, if DU had done better today, it would have prevented us falling behind lowly St Mirren. But that doesn’t matter as long as it puts Jack Ross in his place. Keep an eye on the bigger picture.

Difference being St Mirren finished behind us last season and more than likely will this season. Dundee United finished above us last season and are one of the sides we’ll be looking to overtake this season. They’ve invested heavily and will most likely be expecting top 6.

That’s the bigger picture, rather than St Mirren being above us by a point after 4 games.

[007]

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

Does anyone else really hate this expression 'took one for the team'? We hear it all the time at all levels and it seems to be acceptable. What we are talking about is deliberate and cynical fouling to stop a dangerous attack. Yet I've heard current and ex players say professionals don't deliberately foul, which is a joke.

It spoils the game. In theory 10 players on each side could stop exciting breaks by taking one for the team and render what might have been a high scoring goal fest a 0-0 bore fest instead.

[Killiehibbie]

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

It spoils the game. In theory 10 players on each side could stop exciting breaks by taking one for the team and render what might have been a high scoring goal fest a 0-0 bore fest instead.

A bit like Hearts rotational fouling system.

[Scouse Hibee]

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

Does anyone else really hate this expression 'took one for the team'? We hear it all the time at all levels and it seems to be acceptable. What we are talking about is deliberate and cynical fouling to stop a dangerous attack. Yet I've heard current and ex players say professionals don't deliberately foul, which is a joke.

Not really, it has been around in football since I started watching, I have no problem with it.

[RyeSloan]

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

It spoils the game. In theory 10 players on each side could stop exciting breaks by taking one for the team and render what might have been a high scoring goal fest a 0-0 bore fest instead.

Yet when your team does it then all seems fine. JDH did one yesterday and I for one was pleased he ‘took one for the team’.

It’s part and parcel of the game, always has been and yet not every game is a 0-0 bore fest.

The only way it will ever not be is if that type of cynical challenge is deemed an auto red. And that’s not gonna happen any time soon I’d suggest.

[hibstag]

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

Does anyone else really hate this expression 'took one for the team'? We hear it all the time at all levels and it seems to be acceptable. What we are talking about is deliberate and cynical fouling to stop a dangerous attack. Yet I've heard current and ex players say professionals don't deliberately foul, which is a joke.

Miller effectively said that the foul was premeditated that in itself makes it a red card offence . They kept talking about JDH tackle but at least he was close to the ball nearly knicking it off the toe. Lunstrum just took out Boyle

[Bishop Hibee]

The craven apology from the BBC to The Rangers has heralded a new era of fawning towards the bluenoses. Lundstrum’s studs up out of control lunge on Boyle was a stonewall red.

[Libby Hibby]

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

There is another conclusion I take from yesterday.....if you are a ref who is going to give a soft decision for Rangers, the media will understand and see why it was given. If you are a ref who is going to give a soft decision against Rangers, it will be a shocker and your competence will be questioned. Referees, you gonna send a Rangers player off it had better be an absolute stone waller with no mitigating circumstances.

Very good point 👍🏻

[Scouse Hibee]

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

The craven apology from the BBC to The Rangers has heralded a new era of fawning towards the bluenoses. Lundstrum’s studs up out of control lunge on Boyle was a stonewall red.

It wasn’t an out of control lunge at all, it was a calculated foul to stop the attack, he knew exactly what he was doing. I don’t see all the fuss about it really, it was a yellow card for me.

[where'stheslope]

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

Does anyone else really hate this expression 'took one for the team'? We hear it all the time at all levels and it seems to be acceptable. What we are talking about is deliberate and cynical fouling to stop a dangerous attack. Yet I've heard current and ex players say professionals don't deliberately foul, which is a joke.

It always depends if its taken for your team, if its an opponent then its red every time and criminal!!!

[007]

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

Yet when your team does it then all seems fine. JDH did one yesterday and I for one was pleased he ‘took one for the team’.

It’s part and parcel of the game, always has been and yet not every game is a 0-0 bore fest.

The only way it will ever not be is if that type of cynical challenge is deemed an auto red. And that’s not gonna happen any time soon I’d suggest.

I don't like when Hibs or any team does it. JDH's can be argued he made an attempt to get the ball, Lundstram's I'd say cannot. I don't think it needs to be an auto red. Refs should be allowed to use their judgement and I'd say Lundstram taking down Boyle from behind, kicking him in the knee whilst Boyle was going at speed was endangering an opponent. Red was correct.

Taking one for the team should not be deemed the same punishment, as many pundits suggest, regardless of how it was done i.e. a slight tug of a shirt is no comparison to Lundstram's "tackle" on Boyle.

[Libby Hibby]

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

I don't like when Hibs or any team does it. JDH's can be argued he made an attempt to get the ball, Lundstram's I'd say cannot. I don't think it needs to be an auto red. Refs should be allowed to use their judgement and I'd say Lundstram taking down Boyle from behind, kicking him in the knee whilst Boyle was going at speed was endangering an opponent. Red was correct.

Taking one for the team should not be deemed the same punishment, as many pundits suggest, regardless of how it was done i.e. a slight tug of a shirt is no comparison to Lundstram's "tackle" on Boyle.

I agree, I don’t like it but teams always do it to us so why not?

If the ref is going to give red cards for it, hopefully we won’t see it again as it’s bad for the game as a spectacle.

[NAE NOOKIE]

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

Lundstram would have been sent off for serious foul play as opposed to a professional foul, I don't think that term applies within the rules.

The definition of serious foul play is;

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

On the other hand;

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

The two in the Ross County v Killie game were absolute shockers, how the hell neither one resulted in a straight red only the ref can explain .. I wish they would.

[007]

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

I agree, I don’t like it but teams always do it to us so why not?

If the ref is going to give red cards for it, hopefully we won’t see it again as it’s bad for the game as a spectacle.

I agree that we have to do it too because all or most others do. Still don't like it though and if there's a chance some might be deemed red then it might make players think twice. If Lunstram's is downgraded after an appeal then it could be open season on that sort of tackle.

[ancient hibee]

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

It wasn’t an out of control lunge at all, it was a calculated foul to stop the attack, he knew exactly what he was doing. I don’t see all the fuss about it really, it was a yellow card for me.

And if Boyle going at his pace had burst his knee ligaments? He had no idea how the tackle would effect our player so Boyle was endangered-therefore red card.

[Since452]

It was an unsporting and potentially dangerous foul by Lundstram. Boyle was moving at pace and the "tackle" was high. We're just fortunate it didn't cause an injury. Idiotic by the boy. Stonewall red.

[The_Sauz]

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

It wasn’t an out of control lunge at all, it was a calculated foul to stop the attack, he knew exactly what he was doing. I don’t see all the fuss about it really, it was a yellow card for me.

If that was true, then please explain why he needed to lunge in from the back whith his foot so high around Boyle's knee? Why not just clip his heel?

[RyeSloan]

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

It wasn’t an out of control lunge at all, it was a calculated foul to stop the attack, he knew exactly what he was doing. I don’t see all the fuss about it really, it was a yellow card for me.

To be fair to Collum (yeah I know I know) it defo looked worse live at the game than it looks on TV.

But I don’t think there would have been any great surprise if he had given a yellow as that’s the standard punishment for such things.

In this case though as I said above at the game it did look pretty aggressive and dangerous so despite what the pundits are saying I understand why the red came out.