Hamilton Appeal

[Highwayman]

According to today’s reports Hamilton Accies have confirmed they will appeal the red card shown to Jamie Hamilton.At Hamilton where every penny is a prisoner,they must have confidence in paying money to lodge the appeal.
Is it still a £1000 to lodge the appeal,which you get back if you win and SFA keep if you don’t.
I’m getting a feeling that this red card could be rescinded.

[MWHIBBIES]

Its a textbook red these days. Studs up, out of control, endangering opponent. Very surprised if overturned.

[SaulGoodman]

They can do what they want, it was a red on the day and we won.

Get it up them :na na:

[Highwayman]

Agree 100% that it should have been a red card.
Brian Rice is claiming that he spoke to Martin Boyle at half time and Boyle said “He caught me but it wasn’nt a bad tackle”
Looks like Hamilton are building up a case here.

[1van Sprou7e]

Says on the beeb that their appeal includes a still image which shows there was no contact. If that's the case I can't see them winning the appeal, the decision was based on lack of control not contact surely

[Alfred E Newman]

Says on the beeb that their appeal includes a still image which shows there was no contact. If that's the case I can't see them winning the appeal, the decision was based on lack of control not contact surely

If its the still image we saw yesterday it shows young Hamilton in mid air. I don't think that will help their case.

[green day]

Says on the beeb that their appeal includes a still image which shows there was no contact. If that's the case I can't see them winning the appeal, the decision was based on lack of control not contact surely

Its laughable if that daft photo is the one they are basing it on. Boyle had nicked the ball and Hamilton came steaming in, studs up, thankfully missed Boyle but caught him with his trailing leg (thereby showing just how out of control he was).

Presumably the panel will see all the video, including that from behind the goal - I will be stunned if they win it.

[maturehibby]

we wont be playing them again in the League its the Ross County ,Killie and Motherwell teams that will be watching this appeal with interest .
Good young player but like Porteous has to learn to stop doing these wild tackles and he will be a better player

[MWHIBBIES]

we wont be playing them again in the League its the Ross County ,Killie and Motherwell teams that will be watching this appeal with interest .
Good young player but like Porteous has to learn to stop doing these wild tackles and he will be a better player

When did Ryan last do something like that?

[Keyser Sauzee]

When did Ryan last do something like that?

Only a few mins into the last home game v rangers, lunged into a challenge he didn’t need to and missed the ball and the player. I think he has cut it out of his game a lot than what it used to be and it’s not something I think is much of a problem for him now but it’s still there now and again.

[Jack]

Says on the beeb that their appeal includes a still image which shows there was no contact. If that's the case I can't see them winning the appeal, the decision was based on lack of control not contact surely

Sorry for getting all scientific about this but if the offending player was traveling at 10 mph, which I'd say is conservative in this instance, even if the video was running at 120 frames per second thats around 4 to 5 cm between frames. Plenty time to miss the actual contact.

[Aldo]

Says on the beeb that their appeal includes a still image which shows there was no contact. If that's the case I can't see them winning the appeal, the decision was based on lack of control not contact surely

Does there actually have to be contact for it to be a dangerous challenge?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CMurdoch]

Hamilton are wasting their money.
It was the epitome of a reckless tackle and endangered his opponent

[ancient hibee]

Does there actually have to be contact for it to be a dangerous challenge?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. It's the same as trying to punch somebody. If the target ducks to avoid it the puncher would still be sent off.

[Aldo]

No. It's the same as trying to punch somebody. If the target ducks to avoid it the puncher would still be sent off.

Thought that. So folk saying he didn’t touch him means diddly.

Thought it was a red at the time and is still a red now. Wouldn’t think this would get rescinded!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DH1875]

No one else on here thing it was a bit harsh and that it wasn't a red or am I the only one.

[Jim44]

No one else on here thing it was a bit harsh and that it wasn't a red or am I the only one.

Probably. :greengrin

[tamig]

Thought that. So folk saying he didn’t touch him means diddly.

Thought it was a red at the time and is still a red now. Wouldn’t think this would get rescinded!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its endangering an opponent. The tackle’s still reckless whether you catch the man or not.

[MrRobot]

No one else on here thing it was a bit harsh and that it wasn't a red or am I the only one.

i didn’t think it was a red tbh, never made any contact at all.

[1van Sprou7e]

i didn’t think it was a red tbh, never made any contact at all.

I can see why you might think it's harsh but I'm surprised at that comment, contact is kind of irelevent if you're flying in without control

[Kojock]

Watch the assistant referee he was waving his flag around like an excited bairn on miners gala day. He was in an excellent position to see it and there’s no doubt the ref was influenced by him.

[bigwheel]

Watch the assistant referee he was waving his flag around like an excited bairn on miners gala day. He was in an excellent position to see it and there’s no doubt the ref was influenced by him.

The ref asked him, it’s clear in the footage ..the assistant linesman called it. In my view it could easily be a red - he’s off the ground , foot raised , studs showing - dangerous play

[green day]

i didn’t think it was a red tbh, never made any contact at all.

......if he had made contact, Boyle would probably be on crutches.

Hence "not making contact" isnt a stipulation for a red card.

[ballengeich]

Says on the beeb that their appeal includes a still image which shows there was no contact. If that's the case I can't see them winning the appeal, the decision was based on lack of control not contact surely
I don't understand how a still can prove there was no contact.

[Aldo]

Watch the assistant referee he was waving his flag around like an excited bairn on miners gala day. He was in an excellent position to see it and there’s no doubt the ref was influenced by him.

The ref actually asks him and you see him mouthing Red in the direction of the other official!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aldo]

Its endangering an opponent. The tackle’s still reckless whether you catch the man or not.

That’s what I was thinking!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Heisenberg]

Hamilton have won the appeal and it’s been reduced to a yellow.

[ancient hibee]

Ridiculous. How is Scotland ever going to have a high standard of player if referees(even retired)think tackling like that should not have the severest sanction.

[weecounty hibby]

Poor stuff. So be prepared for Martin Boyle to be booted black and blue again for the rest of the season and beyond. High boot, off the ground, not in control, just because Boyle wasn't hurt doesn't make it OK

[we are hibs]

It really wasnt that bad a challenge.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Scouse Hibee]

Hamilton have won the appeal and it’s been reduced to a yellow.

And rightly so, good to see common sense has prevailed, often these appeals have some strange outcomes but this was correct.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Trial by sportscene wins the day again.

Mental decision.

[hibsbollah]

The podcast I was listening to featuring JJ Bull, the most annoying voice on Scottish football out there, also claiming it was a harsh red. Unbelievable to me, read the rules, he went in high and out of control. It does not matter if you win the ball first these days, have you been sleeping on how the rules have changed??

[Highwayman]

Poor stuff. So be prepared for Martin Boyle to be booted black and blue again for the rest of the season and beyond. High boot, off the ground, not in control, just because Boyle wasn't hurt doesn't make it OK

Agree 100%.This declares open season on performing GBH on Martin Boyle.

Still think it was a red card,but as nothing surprises me in Scottish football not surprised it was rescinded.

[green day]

It really wasnt that bad a challenge.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Apparently it warranted a yellow........

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

Shocking decision.

Someone’s going to get a sore one going in like that!

[PatHead]

It really wasnt that bad a challenge.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Potentially it was.

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

Agree 100%.This declares open season on performing GBH on Martin Boyle.

Still think it was a red card,but as nothing surprises me in Scottish football not surprised it was rescinded.

Boyle’s been booted all over the park this season with very little protection from refs. Opposition players target him.

Here was me thinking we need to protect the players trying to play football!

[CockneyRebel]

And rightly so, good to see common sense has prevailed, often these appeals have some strange outcomes but this was correct.

Nobody got injured ....... but that was just pure luck. That type of reckless challenge has no place in sport yet now gets the green light. I hope you feel as righteous when one causes severe injury.

[Seveno]

The inevitable consequences are that the referee gets a black mark (despite having consulted his assistant) and will probably be refereeing Championship matches for the next few weeks. Other referees will take note and be more careful of issuing red cards and protecting players like Martin Boyle. The Compliance Officer will be the one that effectively issues red cards and punishment takes effect in the following games.

[Scouse Hibee]

Nobody got injured ....... but that was just pure luck. That type of reckless challenge has no place in sport yet now gets the green light. I hope you feel as righteous when one causes severe injury.

I don’t feel righteous,I just happen to have a different opinion on the tackle than you do.

[B.H.F.C]

When it happened I thought it was bad. When I saw it back I didn’t think there was much in it. The foot he leads with played the ball, about a foot away from Boyle, and his trailing leg caught Boyle on the left foot. Not a red for me.

[Since452]

It was out of control but a yellow and a serious talking to by the ref might have been a better tactic. A red card should be a last resort. That's football these days though.

[Kato]

Off the ground at pace, studs up, catches the Hibs player who had toed the ball first. Struggling to see how it's not a red.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

Match officials are only human and can make genuine mistakes for various reasons - not having a clear view of an incident is one of the most common.

Here we had both the referee & linesman (& probably the 4th official) who all had a direct view of what happened and there seemed little option but to issue a red card.

I think it's wrong that a sending off for a tackle as potentially dangerous should be overturned on the basis of stills from videos and slow-motion.

A I said elsewhere, had Hamilton been a fraction of a second later, then Boyle would probably have been in a stookie for the rest of the season.

I think sometimes the referee's first instinct is correct, regardless what later high-tech analysis shows.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm not surprised it's been downgraded to be honest.

I wasn't convinced it was a red card.

[scoopyboy]

reckless tackle for me but not bothered it has been reduced to a yellow as it means he will be able to play against Aberdeen.

[bod]

Thought it was a red at the time & still think it’s reckless

[CMurdoch]

The whole point of the law is to protect players from career ending injuries.
These generally happen when the player has a leg planted and an opposing player goes through it with force.
The only way you can avoid it is for players to be in control of their tackles.
Hamilton came into the tackle on Saturday at such speed and force that i thought it was reckless and the fact that Boyle evaded serious injury was irrelevant.
Nothing worse in the game than players getting career ending injuries and Saturday could easily have been one of them.

[-Jonesy-]

Bit of a joke considering some of the red cards from strong but fair challenges that have stood.
Think Porto on barasic, went in firm but in control, won the ball without studs showing and caught the jumping barasic with the follow through.

[CockneyRebel]

The whole point of the law is to protect players from career ending injuries.
These generally happen when the player has a leg planted and an opposing player goes through it with force.
The only way you can avoid it is for players to be in control of their tackles.
Hamilton came into the tackle on Saturday at such speed and force that i thought it was reckless and the fact that Boyle evaded serious injury was irrelevant.
Nothing worse in the game than players getting career ending injuries and Saturday could easily have been one of them.



Exactly. If a Hibs player had put in that tackle and got a red he would have got no sympathy from me.

[B.H.F.C]

The whole point of the law is to protect players from career ending injuries.
These generally happen when the player has a leg planted and an opposing player goes through it with force.
The only way you can avoid it is for players to be in control of their tackles.
Hamilton came into the tackle on Saturday at such speed and force that i thought it was reckless and the fact that Boyle evaded serious injury was irrelevant.
Nothing worse in the game than players getting career ending injuries and Saturday could easily have been one of them.

I don’t think the fact that Boyle didn’t get injured is irrelevant. There’s be multiple red cards in a game if folk got sent off for something that might have happened.

[wookie70]

Agree 100% that it should have been a red card.
Brian Rice is claiming that he spoke to Martin Boyle at half time and Boyle said “He caught me but it wasn’nt a bad tackle”
Looks like Hamilton are building up a case here.

I wonder if Boyle thought the same after watching it back. It was a career ender if he had caught Boyler firmly and the exact type of tackle that should be getting a red card. I'd far rather see players sent off for that than a bit of shoving and some toy fighting.

[MrRobot]

Thought it might have been downgraded. As i said before, was never a red to me. Happily take it though.

[greenlex]

It was reckless. In this day and age I think it’s red because of the force and intent. The bit that boils my puss is the consistency. If that’s only deemed a yellow then Porteous’ tackle on the hun was too. Arguable less forceful.

[Oscar T Grouch]

I am not that bothered about this. I thought it was a red at the time and I still think that. It makes absolutely no difference to Hibs so I'm not bothered it's been downgraded. It would be interesting to see why the SFA have downgraded this and what evidence they used but as we won't play them again this season it's not an issue. Hopefully the laddie will learn from that and not make such rash tackles in the future.

[wookie70]

A far worse challenge than the one Porteous got sent off for and basically a green flag for career ending challenges. Scottish football is a total joke at times. It drives me nuts that a challenge like that is deemed after close scrutiny to be yellow yet a tiny shove which ends up connecting with a face is deemed red. The rules for red cards really need looked at and this type of challenge should be right at the top of the list for obvious reds whether contact is made or not

[B.H.F.C]

A far worse challenge than the one Porteous got sent off for and basically a green flag for career ending challenges. Scottish football is a total joke at times. It drives me nuts that a challenge like that is deemed after close scrutiny to be yellow yet a tiny shove which ends up connecting with a face is deemed red. The rules for red cards really need looked at and this type of challenge should be right at the top of the list for obvious reds whether contact is made or not

Agree with your point on folk getting red cards for a bit pushing and silly things like that. But I do think contact/impact has to play a part in decision making as well. I think the boy was genuinely going for the ball, his leading leg is up because the ball is bouncing up. It looked worse at first because he was going at speed but things happen quickly in games and I don’t think you can stop that. I don’t think folk should be getting sent off for not actually hitting someone.

[hibbysam]

Agree with your point on folk getting red cards for a bit pushing and silly things like that. But I do think contact/impact has to play a part in decision making as well. I think the boy was genuinely going for the ball, his leading leg is up because the ball is bouncing up. It looked worse at first because he was going at speed but things happen quickly in games and I don’t think you can stop that. I don’t think folk should be getting sent off for not actually hitting someone.

He was very lucky he never made contact. He took absolutely no regard for the outcome of his tackle, studs up, at high pace, at a distance, lunged out of control, in the air. Total disregard for a fellow pro. Whether he meant it or not isn’t mitigation. He wasn’t intending to hurt Boyle, but at no point did he think of what outcome his tackle could’ve had should Boyle have been 6 inches faster.

[B.H.F.C]

He was very lucky he never made contact. He took absolutely no regard for the outcome of his tackle, studs up, at high pace, at a distance, lunged out of control, in the air. Total disregard for a fellow pro. Whether he meant it or not isn’t mitigation. He wasn’t intending to hurt Boyle, but at no point did he think of what outcome his tackle could’ve had should Boyle have been 6 inches faster.

Of course he didn’t think. It was a split second decision, he thought he could get the ball (and did when the ball was about a foot away from Boyle). His trailing leg which wasn’t really off the ground caught Boyle’s standing foot which was on the ground.

If the studs had clattered in to Boyle’s knee then that’s a different story. The fact they were nowhere near doing so maybe shows that he wasn’t as out of control as is being suggested, despite the fact he was moving at pace.

Rice was only yards away and was adamant it wasn’t a red. Ross was even closer and I’m sure he even said he was surprised it was a red.

[Rumble de Thump]

As per the rules, it was a clear red card but the disciplinary committee in Scottish football is a shambles. Choosing not to punish Alfredo Morelos for a deliberate kick to Scott Brown's baws from behind a while back is a clear example. Either people don't know the rules or don't want them to be applied in certain situations.

[Stonewall]

Bit of a joke considering some of the red cards from strong but fair challenges that have stood.
Think Porto on barasic, went in firm but in control, won the ball without studs showing and caught the jumping barasic with the follow through.

Porto was in total control of the tackle. Lined him up, took the ball and deliberately wiped the hun out with his trailing leg. I was right in line about 6 rows back in the East, first thought was red and I still think it was.

[hibbysam]

Of course he didn’t think. It was a split second decision, he thought he could get the ball (and did when the ball was about a foot away from Boyle). His trailing leg which wasn’t really off the ground caught Boyle’s standing foot which was on the ground.

If the studs had clattered in to Boyle’s knee then that’s a different story. The fact they were nowhere near doing so maybe shows that he wasn’t as out of control as is being suggested, despite the fact he was moving at pace.

Rice was only yards away and was adamant it wasn’t a red. Ross was even closer and I’m sure he even said he was surprised it was a red.

Getting the ball at that speed with your studs is irrelevant. He wasn’t nowhere near, he was a millisecond away from doing so. He had absolutely no control over the contact with Boyle, he was very lucky he didn’t make contact. You seriously think it’s only a bad tackle if Boyle is unlucky enough to get clattered by it, rather than the chance of getting clattered by it?

[B.H.F.C]

Getting the ball at that speed with your studs is irrelevant. He wasn’t nowhere near, he was a millisecond away from doing so. He had absolutely no control over the contact with Boyle, he was very lucky he didn’t make contact. You seriously think it’s only a bad tackle if Boyle is unlucky enough to get clattered by it, rather than the chance of getting clattered by it?

I don’t think the punishment should be as severe for something that didn’t actually happen. Boyle got clipped on the foot by his trailing foot, that was it. He didn’t clatter him because he went to get the ball which was a good foot or so away from Boyle. Some of the things you think are irrelevant obviously aren’t, or it wouldn’t have been downgraded and our own manager who was about six yards away wouldn’t have been surprised by the red in the first place.

[Alfred E Newman]

Getting the ball at that speed with your studs is irrelevant. He wasn’t nowhere near, he was a millisecond away from doing so. He had absolutely no control over the contact with Boyle, he was very lucky he didn’t make contact. You seriously think it’s only a bad tackle if Boyle is unlucky enough to get clattered by it, rather than the chance of getting clattered by it?

It’s like driving through traffic lights at red. Just because you didn’t actually hit something doesn’t lessen the offence.

[B.H.F.C]

It’s like driving through traffic lights at red. Just because you didn’t actually hit something doesn’t lessen the offence.

But the player missing Boyle and the players studs hitting Boyle’s knee are two different things. We already see fouls because ‘there was contact’ all the time. If players are getting sent off because they could have hit someone (when they didn’t) then nobody will ever want to make a tackle ever again.

[we are hibs]

You cant dish out red cards based on what if's.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[mcohibs]

Not a big fan of Boyle rolling around clutching his foot waiting on the boy to be sent off tbh. No contact made with him at all

[B.H.F.C]

Not a big fan of Boyle rolling around clutching his foot waiting on the boy to be sent off tbh. No contact made with him at all

There was. The boys trailing foot caught Boyle’s standing foot.

[1van Sprou7e]

You cant dish out red cards based on what if's.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Emm yes you can :confused:

If you go in dangerously and without control then you give the referee a desicion to make, even if your opponent manages to avoid getting hurt

[hibbysam]

I don’t think the punishment should be as severe for something that didn’t actually happen. Boyle got clipped on the foot by his trailing foot, that was it. He didn’t clatter him because he went to get the ball which was a good foot or so away from Boyle. Some of the things you think are irrelevant obviously aren’t, or it wouldn’t have been downgraded and our own manager who was about six yards away wouldn’t have been surprised by the red in the first place.

‘ SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

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.’

That’s the law, you see Boyle pulling out of the tackle because of the way the player lunges in. If he doesn’t then he’s got a broken leg. If that tackle doesn’t endanger an opponent then I’ve no idea what does.

[Eyrie]

But the player missing Boyle and the players studs hitting Boyle’s knee are two different things. We already see fouls because ‘there was contact’ all the time. If players are getting sent off because they could have hit someone (when they didn’t) then nobody will ever want to make a tackle ever again.

The offence is the dangerous play, not whether there is contact.

We'll have a better game if referees crack down on that sort of challenge, just as we will if they ignore players flopping at the slightest incidental contact.

[B.H.F.C]

‘ SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

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.’

That’s the law, you see Boyle pulling out of the tackle because of the way the player lunges in. If he doesn’t then he’s got a broken leg. If that tackle doesn’t endanger an opponent then I’ve no idea what does.

I think the fact he didn’t make contact (other than very slightly with the trailing leg) meant he wasn’t endangered. And I’m pretty sure that’ll be the basis for it being overturned.

[hibbysam]

I think the fact he didn’t make contact (other than very slightly with the trailing leg) meant he wasn’t endangered. And I’m pretty sure that’ll be the basis for it being overturned.

The fact Boyle pulled out meant he wasn’t endangered, nothing to do with the tackle. It’s a lunge, it’s excessive force and if Boyle commits his leg is in two.

[B.H.F.C]

The fact Boyle pulled out meant he wasn’t endangered, nothing to do with the tackle. It’s a lunge, it’s excessive force and if Boyle commits his leg is in two.

You’ve just said yourself Boyle wasn’t endangered, that’s all they can judge it on rather than an if/could/might have been.

[hibbysam]

You’ve just said yourself Boyle wasn’t endangered, that’s all they can judge it on rather than an if/could/might have been.

He was when the tackle was made, the fact he took evasive action was what saved him. The tackle was made with zero regard for player safety and ticked the excessive force box as well as the lunge.

[B.H.F.C]

He was when the tackle was made, the fact he took evasive action was what saved him. The tackle was made with zero regard for player safety and ticked the excessive force box as well as the lunge.

In your opinion it ticked all the boxes. Every pundit I’ve heard disagreed. The folk dealing with the appeal disagreed. Even our manager a few yards away was surprised.

Gladly accept the advantage we got from the incorrect decision for a change.

[hibbysam]

In your opinion it ticked all the boxes. Every pundit I’ve heard disagreed. The folk dealing with the appeal disagreed. Even our manager a few yards away was surprised.

Gladly accept the advantage we got from the incorrect decision for a change.

There’s no question it ticked those boxes. It’s the exact type of fouls that need to be outlawed and clamped down upon. We aren’t playing in the 80’s anymore, you can’t charge across and lunge at opponents whether you make contact or not. Your argument is that he made no contact therefore could never have been endangering his opponent without looking at the actions of Boyle. The law makes no mention of contact for that reason.

[GreenCastle]

If you throw a punch towards an opponent and but don’t hit someone on the pitch it’s a red.

If you lunge knee height and nearly break Boyles leg in half then it’s a reckless / dangerous / Sunday league tackle and should be a red. Boyle was just quick enough to see it coming. If he had taken that his career could have been over !

These type of tackles should be punished and it’s another ridiculous decision changed by the Scottish FA.

I felt the penalty was soft - surprised more hasn’t been made of that.

[B.H.F.C]

There’s no question it ticked those boxes. It’s the exact type of fouls that need to be outlawed and clamped down upon. We aren’t playing in the 80’s anymore, you can’t charge across and lunge at opponents whether you make contact or not. Your argument is that he made no contact therefore could never have been endangering his opponent without looking at the actions of Boyle. The law makes no mention of contact for that reason.

There clearly was a question over it seen as he won the appeal. And many observers don’t share your view either.

It just wasn’t as bad a tackle as it initially looked.

[hibbysam]

There clearly was a question over it seen as he won the appeal. And many observers don’t share your view either.

It just wasn’t as bad a tackle as it initially looked.

Because of Boyles evasive action. Without which his career is almost certainly done. But yeah, let’s keep supporting tackles like that up here, neither wonder we are compared to amateur leagues.

[Eyrie]

There clearly was a question over it seen as he won the appeal. And many observers don’t share your view either.

It just wasn’t as bad a tackle as it initially looked.

So if Boyle is the victim of an identical tackle on Saturday that is just a fraction later, you'll be fine with him being stretchered off and the Motherwell player only being booked.

We'll need to agree to differ on that.

[B.H.F.C]

So if Boyle is the victim of an identical tackle on Saturday that is just a fraction later, you'll be fine with him being stretchered off and the Motherwell player only being booked.

We'll need to agree to differ on that.

If it was a fraction later it wouldn’t be identical. If Boyle gets six studs in the knee I’d obviously want the player sent off. I just don’t think that’s necessary when it doesn’t actually happen.

I don’t think you can really stop challenges like that happening. It’s just a split second, last ditch challenge when he realises his team is in trouble. If the timing is wrong, you and the player on the end of it have a problem. I shouted for a red card when I saw it in real time but, seeing it back, I just don’t think it was as bad as it initially looked.

[ancient hibee]

If it was a fraction later it wouldn’t be identical. If Boyle gets six studs in the knee I’d obviously want the player sent off. I just don’t think that’s necessary when it doesn’t actually happen.

I don’t think you can really stop challenges like that happening. It’s just a split second, last ditch challenge when he realises his team is in trouble. If the timing is wrong, you and the player on the end of it have a problem. I shouted for a red card when I saw it in real time but, seeing it back, I just don’t think it was as bad as it initially looked.

Does the ref get to watch it back? The guy didn't give a monkey's on whether he smashed into Boyle or not.Fortunately Boyle evadedit.If somebody takes a swing at Irvine on Saturday and Irvine ducks it does the guy get sent off or is it a yellow card because he missed?

[B.H.F.C]

Does the ref get to watch it back? The guy didn't give a monkey's on whether he smashed into Boyle or not.Fortunately Boyle evadedit.If somebody takes a swing at Irvine on Saturday and Irvine ducks it does the guy get sent off or is it a yellow card because he missed?

No, he doesn’t which is why he probably thought the same as me in real time. On review, it’s obviously been decided it doesn’t tick the boxes for a straight red. I think the boy went with the intention to get the ball (which he did). Had he totally missed the ball, wiped out Boyle, I’d probably have a different opinion. If someone goes with an intention to punch you in the jaw but misses, they’ll rightly get a red.

Not just talking about the game on Saturday, but I hope we don’t end up at a point where people are getting sent off because of what might have happened if they were a second later.

[Jim44]

The cynic in me says, because of the total ineptitude of the referees and their association, I couldn’t give a toss about whether it was a ‘red’ or not. In this case the ‘swings’ went in our favour and helped us win the game. On other occasions, such as the Morelos fiasco, the ‘roundabout’ went against us and, arguably, lost us the game. I’m not a big fan of cliches, but, in the case of baffling refereeing decisions, you win some and you lose some.

[CMurdoch]

Porto was in total control of the tackle. Lined him up, took the ball and deliberately wiped the hun out with his trailing leg. I was right in line about 6 rows back in the East, first thought was red and I still think it was.

That is exactly what I saw that night. Fortunately Porto has stopped that daft **** now.
Now he needs to learn not to get caught under the ball e.g. goal 1 of the St Johnstone game.

[SChibs]

I dont a agree with giving a red for a what if. Theres so many challenges made when if they hadn't got the ball they could have hurt the opponent, we cant just dish out red cards for those.

As for people saying if you try to punch someone and miss is it a red? That's nonsense. You cant punch people full stop but you are allowed to make tackles so those are completely different.

[hibbysam]

I dont a agree with giving a red for a what if. Theres so many challenges made when if they hadn't got the ball they could have hurt the opponent, we cant just dish out red cards for those.

As for people saying if you try to punch someone and miss is it a red? That's nonsense. You cant punch people full stop but you are allowed to make tackles so those are completely different.

You can tackle fairly and safely, you cannot tackle at high speed, lunge in, studs high, meaning if the player doesn’t pull out (which Boyle does) he gets a leg breaker. It’s human instinct to pull out of getting hurt, by the laws that doesn’t alter the colour of card that should be shown. Players have a duty of care to their opponents when tackling and he showed none.

[Onion]

If you throw a punch towards an opponent and but don’t hit someone on the pitch it’s a red.

If you lunge knee height and nearly break Boyles leg in half then it’s a reckless / dangerous / Sunday league tackle and should be a red. Boyle was just quick enough to see it coming. If he had taken that his career could have been over !

These type of tackles should be punished and it’s another ridiculous decision changed by the Scottish FA.

I felt the penalty was soft - surprised more hasn’t been made of that.

Exactly how I saw it. The boy committed from distance (with speed and height) and had no regard for Boyle's safety. Boyle saved himself from a potentially career ending tackle.

[ian cruise]

You cant dish out red cards based on what if's.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I think that you should in occasions like this. If the player is red carded they don't do it again. If they are not red carded the next one might make contact and we lose Boyle for an important games/run of games.

[GreenCastle]

I dont a agree with giving a red for a what if. Theres so many challenges made when if they hadn't got the ball they could have hurt the opponent, we cant just dish out red cards for those.

As for people saying if you try to punch someone and miss is it a red? That's nonsense. You cant punch people full stop but you are allowed to make tackles so those are completely different.

If you attempt to punch someone it’s a red. You definitely can punch someone whether it connects is a different matter. So not sure why you are saying you can’t punch someone ?

Saying there are plenty tackles that could hurt someone if done wrong doesn’t stand up.

The intent was there from Hamilton to go through Boyle and make sure he knew about it.

I’ve just watched it again several times. He runs about 15m and uses his right left with studs flat towards dugout. He knew if he wasn’t winning ball he was stopping Boyle / hurting Boyle. Even his left leg wouldn’t make it look as bad.

The studs up is bad enough but knee high is reckless. Again if it was on the ground wouldn’t be a talking point.

[Scouse Hibee]

If you attempt to punch someone it’s a red. You definitely can punch someone whether it connects is a different matter. So not sure why you are saying you can’t punch someone ?

Saying there are plenty tackles that could hurt someone if done wrong doesn’t stand up.

The intent was there from Hamilton to go through Boyle and make sure he knew about it.

I’ve just watched it again several times. He runs about 15m and uses his right left with studs flat towards dugout. He knew if he wasn’t winning ball he was stopping Boyle / hurting Boyle. Even his left leg wouldn’t make it look as bad.

The studs up is bad enough but knee high is reckless. Again if it was on the ground wouldn’t be a talking point.

So from a video you can tell his intent, what he planned to do and what might have happened? He got the ball, anything else is pure conjecture and really pretty pointless.

[SChibs]

If you attempt to punch someone it’s a red. You definitely can punch someone whether it connects is a different matter. So not sure why you are saying you can’t punch someone ?

Saying there are plenty tackles that could hurt someone if done wrong doesn’t stand up.

The intent was there from Hamilton to go through Boyle and make sure he knew about it.

I’ve just watched it again several times. He runs about 15m and uses his right left with studs flat towards dugout. He knew if he wasn’t winning ball he was stopping Boyle / hurting Boyle. Even his left leg wouldn’t make it look as bad.

The studs up is bad enough but knee high is reckless. Again if it was on the ground wouldn’t be a talking point.

What I meant was you cant punch people in football full stop. So any sort of punch or attempted punch is an automatic red. Whereas you are allowed to tackle players so just because he could have injured someone it it shouldn't mean it is automatically a red card.

[Kato]

What I meant was you cant punch people in football full stop. So any sort of punch or attempted punch is an automatic red. Whereas you are allowed to tackle players so just because he could have injured someone it it shouldn't mean it is automatically a red card.

You're allowed to stand your ground and hand-off an opponent, no need for punching.

You're also allowed to tackle with your feet, no need for the studs to be up.

[CockneyRebel]

You're allowed to stand your ground and hand-off an opponent, no need for punching.

You're also allowed to tackle with your feet, no need for the studs to be up.

:agree:

[SChibs]

You're allowed to stand your ground and hand-off an opponent, no need for punching.

You're also allowed to tackle with your feet, no need for the studs to be up.

I think you are missing the point. You cant punch anyone in football full stop so it's not a valid comparison. If a player uses their arms to gain momentum when challenging for a header but doesnt catch the opponent with their elbow is it a foul? They could have caught them with their elbow but they didnt.

A yellow would have sufficed imo for a careless late challenge. I dont think there was anything more in it

[Kato]

I think you are missing the point. You cant punch anyone in football full stop so it's not a valid comparison. If a player uses their arms to gain momentum when challenging for a header but doesnt catch the opponent with their elbow is it a foul? They could have caught them with their elbow but they didnt.

A yellow would have sufficed imo for a careless late challenge. I dont think there was anything more in itMy was a punch (hit or miss) is an illegal way to use you hands. A studs up challenge (hit or miss) is the same.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk