Did the referee get 2 out of 3 decisions right?

[Hibbyradge]

I've been trying to look at this a bit more objectively (trying to work out the SFA's inevitable justification, tbh)

Could McBride have been guilty of violent conduct? :dunno:

If so, the red card was correct. Violent conduct is always a sending off offence.

Did McGregor pretend to have been fouled? :dunno:

If so, a yellow card may have been correct.

Cautions for unsporting behaviour

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned
for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player:

• commits in a reckless manner one of the seven offences that incur
a direct free kick
• commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking
up a promising attack
• holds an opponent for the tactical purpose of pulling the opponent
away from the ball or preventing the opponent from getting to the
ball
• handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession or
developing an attack (other than the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)
• handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (irrespective of
whether or not the attempt is successful).
• attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to
have been fouled (simulation)

I still can't find anything to remotely justify Deek's card though.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't appeal McBride's red card. Waste of a grand.

[DCI Gene Hunt]

I tried to be objective and unbiased, but I cannot see either decision being anything other than wrong, written in neon bold italic letters 10 feet tall.

Officials yet again faced with the OF playing dirty, yet again they bottled it.

Gene.

[Hibbyradge]

I tried to be objective and unbiased, but I cannot see either decision being anything other than wrong, written in neon bold italic letters 10 feet tall.

Officials yet again faced with the OF playing dirty, yet again they bottled it.

Gene.

My instinct tells me the same as you, but what offence did McGregor actually commit and what is the sanction for it?

[DCI Gene Hunt]

To be fair as you say a booking was correct as per the rules, but why Deeko was booked I will never know. :dunno:

Also where is the "crackdown" on this matter that the SFA promised? As I understand the weegies are by far and away the worst at this.

Gene

[Westie1875]

For me McBride was trying to clear the ball. Had laughing boy not got up to block it the ball wouldn't have hit him. I'd appeal it.

[DCI Gene Hunt]

I thought the same Westie. I think we should appeal.

[bawheid]

For me McBride was trying to clear the ball. Had laughing boy not got up to block it the ball wouldn't have hit him. I'd appeal it.

Clear the ball where? He was virtually on the half way line with a good chance of a break on and he totally blootered it straight at Lafferty!

He was either trying to score or he was trying to hit Lafferty with the ball. Whether that counts as "violent conduct" or "serious foul play" is up to the referee.

[Broken Gnome]

If you want to take things literally, McGregor's simulation was worthy of a yellow, as was his ridiculously over-the-top aggression after he bravely returned to his feet. Lafferty's first offence on Miller was worthy of at least a talking to, so he ultimately got that wrong as well.

[Geo_1875]

2 yellows for McGregor, straight red for Lafferty, same for Weir for raised hands on Miller, yellow for McBride if the whistle had already gone. No, the only thing Brines got right was turning up at the right ground.

[blackpoolhibs]

The one decision I'm struggling to understand is the McBride incident. If he sent him off for kicking the ball at him, and thats deemed to be violent conduct. I'm pretty sure the club can find hundreds of these incidents where there has not even been a booking awarded. Every week players crack the ball at players to win throw ins or corners, are these violent offenses?:confused:

[Saorsa]

2 yellows for McGregor, straight red for Lafferty, same for Weir for raised hands on Miller, yellow for McBride if the whistle had already gone. No, the only thing Brines got right was turning up at the right ground.Pity he didnae get that wrong too, though I doubt the replacement would have been any better or any less biased

[matty_f]

McBride's will go down as violent conduct, IMHO, as it's easy to use it as it's subjective. It's also quite difficult to argue against it, to be honest and I'd be surprised if it was successfully appealled. Not that I agree with it, I thought it was harsh.

Riordan's booking was for nothing, and it's a shame that can't be appealled as he did nothing wrong whatsoever.

I really hope someone from the SFA took note of how involved Davie Weir gets involved in all of these incidents. They won't take action from Sunday but might have an eye out for it in future games.

[Saorsa]

McBride's will go down as violent conduct, IMHO, as it's easy to use it as it's subjective. It's also quite difficult to argue against it, to be honest and I'd be surprised if it was successfully appealled. Not that I agree with it, I thought it was harsh.

Riordan's booking was for nothing, and it's a shame that can't be appealled as he did nothing wrong whatsoever.

I really hope someone from the SFA took note of how involved Davie Weir gets involved in all of these incidents. They won't take action from Sunday but might have an eye out for it in future games.dinnae haud yer breath though

[Hibbyradge]

The one decision I'm struggling to understand is the McBride incident. If he sent him off for kicking the ball at him, and thats deemed to be violent conduct. I'm pretty sure the club can find hundreds of these incidents where there has not even been a booking awarded. Every week players crack the ball at players to win throw ins or corners, are these violent offenses?:confused:

I take the point, Gary, but the intent is completely different, and intent is an important factor.

Kicking the ball at me to win a corner is a valid tactic.

Kicking the ball at me to hurt me, or out of anger, is different.

It could be argued that a red card was excessive, but I wasn't surprised that he was sent off at the time.

[blackpoolhibs]

I take the point, Gary, but the intent is completely different, and intent is an important factor.

Kicking the ball at me to win a corner is a valid tactic.

Kicking the ball at me to hurt me, or out of anger, is different.

It could be argued that a red card was excessive, but I wasn't surprised that he was sent off at the time.

I understand that, but if thats the case we have to assume he was deliberately kicking the ball at the hun. Only one person knows the truth and thats not the ref. I have seen many times players violently kicking the ball at players to gain corners or throw ins, they don't care how hard or if it hurts or not, personally i don't see much difference.:confused: I know folk will think its paranoia, but i really don't see a sending off if its the other way round? :boo hoo:

[(((Fergus)))]

I don't care about those decisions. I want something done about Weir grabbing McBride by the throat.

[supershotmo]

What would have happened if the incident was in the box? McBride strikes the ball towards goal and rebounds off Lafferty into the net.

[Argylehibby]

If the yellow given to Deeks was for the aftermath rather than the (non) challenge on the keeper then McGregor should also have been booked for his part. He should then have had a 2nd yellow for the play acting thus a red card. I think the refs report will conveniently state that Deeks got booked for the challenge and McGregor for ungentlemanly conduct in trying to get Deeks sent off. The incident that followed with the sending offs all stemmed from this and the fact that the whole atmosphere changed as a result of McGregors performance.

McBrides red is a more difficult one to call and I would imagine any appeal would be on the basis of the ref wrongly judging the intent to hit the player. FWIW I think the intent was there so it was violent conduct and a red card offence. The ref was already reaching for the red card for the challenge making a mockery of Walter Smiths comments that he was sent off for reacting to being hit with the ball.

Back to McGregors antics, I can only think of 3 occassions where an SPL has pretented to be head butted and each time it was one of Smiths players, Laugherty last season and was it Lovenkrands v celtic a few years back?

[Peevemor]

If the yellow given to Deeks was for the aftermath rather than the (non) challenge on the keeper then McGregor should also have been booked for his part. He should then have had a 2nd yellow for the play acting thus a red card. I think the refs report will conveniently state that Deeks got booked for the challenge and McGregor for ungentlemanly conduct in trying to get Deeks sent off. The incident that followed with the sending offs all stemmed from this and the fact that the whole atmosphere changed as a result of McGregors performance.

That's how I see it, though Deek shouldn't have been booked as he didn't do anything wrong.

[MB62]

IF the SFA had any gonads at all, McGregor would be red carded retrospectively, Weir would be AT LEAST booked for grabbing McBride by the throat. McBride should at worst have his red card reduced to yellow for ungentlemanly conduct (kicking a ball at somebody is hardly violent) and Deeks should have his yellow card dropped completely, that one was a piece of nonsense.

BTW, on a different subject, the Tash should also refund Deeks his fine from last season regarding the comments about the pitch. It is now absolutely superb and it was obvious to all and sundry that last season it was a complete mess.

[Mikey]

Retired Ref's view of the decisions will be up on the Front Page sometime today.

I've had a wee read of it......................... but I won't spoil it for you :greengrin

[Argylehibby]

IF the SFA had any gonads at all, McGregor would be red carded retrospectively, Weir would be AT LEAST booked for grabbing McBride by the throat. McBride should at worst have his red card reduced to yellow for ungentlemanly conduct (kicking a ball at somebody is hardly violent)

BTW, on a different subject, the Tash should also refund Deeks his fine from last season regarding the comments about the pitch. It is now absolutely superb and it was obvious to all and sundry that last season it was a complete mess.

If throwing a ball at someone is violent conduct surely kicking it is too? The only difference is throwing it has clear intent where kicking a ball is part of the game and the ref needs to feel there was intent to take action.

[HFC 0-7]

I think Mcgregors booking was correct as per the rules but they should be clamping down on this sot of thing with red cards. I believe Riordan was booked for the late challenge on McGregor although i felt he was right to go for the ball.

As for the Lafferty McBride thing. Both red cards IMO, but could have been stopped had the ref booked lafferty for the first challenge. The Lafferty challenge for the sending off was wild and warranted a red card. McBride clearly booted the ball against lafferty, no doubt about it, He could have sprung an attack if he thought play was still going. Hitting the ball against someone like that is violent conduct as it could hurt the player. If you got the ball in the face when it was hit like that it would be very sore, more painful than when 2 players put their heads together and 1 player pushed slightly.

McGregors was correct, Lafferty and Mcbrides was correct although could have been prevented had the ref booked lafferty to calm it down in the challenge before. Riordans didnt look enough for a booking but I have sen players getting booked for less.

IMO, what the ref did miss is Davie Weir, something that seems to be missed every time there is an incident. He wades in grabbing players, often by the neck and gets away with it. Davie Weir IMO is a total erse! He seems to think he is above it all but he showed his true colours when defending McGregor and pointing the finger at Riordan.

[Argylehibby]

I think Mcgregors booking was correct as per the rules but they should be clamping down on this sot of thing with red cards. I believe Riordan was booked for the late challenge on McGregor although i felt he was right to go for the ball.

As for the Lafferty McBride thing. Both red cards IMO, but could have been stopped had the ref booked lafferty for the first challenge. The Lafferty challenge for the sending off was wild and warranted a red card. McBride clearly booted the ball against lafferty, no doubt about it, He could have sprung an attack if he thought play was still going. Hitting the ball against someone like that is violent conduct as it could hurt the player. If you got the ball in the face when it was hit like that it would be very sore, more painful than when 2 players put their heads together and 1 player pushed slightly.

McGregors was correct, Lafferty and Mcbrides was correct although could have been prevented had the ref booked lafferty to calm it down in the challenge before. Riordans didnt look enough for a booking but I have sen players getting booked for less.

IMO, what the ref did miss is Davie Weir, something that seems to be missed every time there is an incident. He wades in grabbing players, often by the neck and gets away with it. Davie Weir IMO is a total erse! He seems to think he is above it all but he showed his true colours when defending McGregor and pointing the finger at Riordan.

There wasnt time to book him and watching the Beeb highlights he is already reaching into his pocket for the red card. If Mc Bride hadnt reacted it would have been 11 v 10 for a few minutes until the ref could find a reason to even things up.

[HFC 0-7]

There wasnt time to book him and watching the Beeb highlights he is already reaching into his pocket for the red card. If Mc Bride hadnt reacted it would have been 11 v 10 for a few minutes until the ref could find a reason to even things up.

there was time to book him. thats why he has a whistle. He blew for the free kick, at which point he should have ran towards lafferty going to his pocket. I am talking about laffertys challenge before his red card challenge.

[Hibbyradge]

There wasnt time to book him and watching the Beeb highlights he is already reaching into his pocket for the red card. If Mc Bride hadnt reacted it would have been 11 v 10 for a few minutes until the ref could find a reason to even things up.

I thought the ref was going for the card after McBride had kicked the ball at Lafferty.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Surely Bougherras challenge on Miller was likely to cause more damage than McBride punting the ball at somebody. somehow, McBrides receives the heavier punishment! :confused:

[Moulin Yarns]

Retired Ref's view of the decisions will be up on the Front Page sometime today.

I've had a wee read of it......................... but I won't spoil it for you :greengrin

I work beside a retired ref, Doug Yates, and was going to ask him his thoughts, but he was at McDairmid Park so probably didn't get a chance to see it 'live'.

[cocopops1875]

noticed last night after the headbutt:greengrin while getting up mcgregor appears to headbutt stokes inthe c**k:agree: