Kilmarnock lose appeal against redcard

[Donegal Hibby]

Kilmarnock have lost there appeal against the red card which I'd imagine will have Derek McInnes angry as he didn't even think it was a yellow .
https://news.stv.tv/sport/kilmarnock-lose-appeal-against-red-card-shown-to-kyle-vassell

[Alfred E Newman]

Kilmarnock have lost there appeal against the red card which I'd imagine will have Derek McInnes angry as he didn't even think it was a yellow .
https://news.stv.tv/sport/kilmarnock-lose-appeal-against-red-card-shown-to-kyle-vassell

I think he has a point to be fair.

[eastterrace]

Terrible decision but you kinda knew that if they appealed they would stick to original decision. I really hate this VAR it’s bringing the game I was brought up on to now a pantomime with the Villain sitting in a office 50 miles away.

[Cat Stanton]

Kilmarnock have lost there appeal against the red card which I'd imagine will have Derek McInnes angry as he didn't even think it was a yellow .
https://news.stv.tv/sport/kilmarnock-lose-appeal-against-red-card-shown-to-kyle-vassell

Absolutely absurd!

[Tyler Durden]

A successful appeal would have been the second time this season that John Beaton viewed the incident at the monitor then sent the player off, only for it to be later overturned on appeal.

I think it's very clear that the motivation here is simply to protect Beaton from claims of incompetence.

They are incompetent and corrupt.

[NAE NOOKIE]

A successful appeal would have been the second time this season that John Beaton viewed the incident at the monitor then sent the player off, only for it to be later overturned on appeal.

I think it's very clear that the motivation here is simply to protect Beaton from claims of incompetence.

They are incompetent and corrupt.

Its getting harder and harder to disagree with this POV. Rather than simply look at the evidence it seems obvious that at the forefront was a determination not to chuck Beaton under a bus he fully deserves to be run over by rather than look at Kilmarnock's case rationally.

Whatever happened to plain common sense. The player raised his foot, but there was no forward motion and any force in the challenge was supplied by Cabraja, hell even his lack of reaction to a challenge any player would be raging at if they thought it was reckless or worse a deliberate attempt to injure them should have been taken into account in mitigation. I had a great view of the incident at the time and even I thought a yellow card would be the very worst outcome to it, to red card the guy, especially after getting a chance to see the incident again was massively over the top and completely devoid of common sense IMO

[big gogs]

Its getting harder and harder to disagree with this POV. Rather than simply look at the evidence it seems obvious that at the forefront was a determination not to chuck Beaton under a bus he fully deserves to be run over by rather than look at Kilmarnock's case rationally.

Whatever happened to plain common sense. The player raised his foot, but there was no forward motion and any force in the challenge was supplied by Cabraja, hell even his lack of reaction to a challenge any player would be raging at if they thought it was reckless or worse a deliberate attempt to injure them should have been taken into account in mitigation. I had a great view of the incident at the time and even I thought a yellow card would be the very worst outcome to it, to red card the guy, especially after getting a chance to see the incident again was massively over the top and completely devoid of common sense IMO
It was a yellow card ,no more.

[Donegal Hibby]

I'm no fan of Beaton at all though I am surprised that a lot of Hibs fans on here don't think it's a red card . For me his foots away to high with studs showing and catches cabraja on the neck which has to be deemed as reckless and dangerous play . I think cabraja's momentum does take him into the killie player foot as he's going for the ball with his head .I think the killie player knew it was a bad one as he didn't protest at all when it was overturned to a red . If that happened against any old firm player I'd be confident 9 times out of 10 it's a red card .
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12814300/hibernian-2-0-kilmarnock-scottish-premiership-highlights

[Diclonius]

Lol

[Stubbsy90+2]

Red card all day. The rules are pretty clear.

[Stevie Reid]

Definitely one of the worst decisions I've seen at ER, even more so with VAR being involved. It went for us, so we have to take it, but I'd be absolutely raging about it, if it had been against us.

[LunasBoots]

According to the rules its a red in any other game.

[B.H.F.C]

Never a red card for me. The reaction of pretty much everyone in the stadium, at the time, tells its own story.

Good that something went for us, shame it was when we already had the game won anyway.

[BS44]

That'll teach the guy to sort out his first touch.

[Bostonhibby]

A successful appeal would have been the second time this season that John Beaton viewed the incident at the monitor then sent the player off, only for it to be later overturned on appeal.

I think it's very clear that the motivation here is simply to protect Beaton from claims of incompetence.

They are incompetent and corrupt.No doubt about it for me, I had a clear view of it at the game, didn't think it was a red card and still can't see the red card offence now.

This is the clique rallying round beaton.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[scoopyboy]

Since when was it permissible to put your studs into a players face when he's standing fully upright.

Dangerous play in anybody's language, which is a red card offence.

[Hibbyradge]

He kicked Cabraja in the head or thereabouts albeit with no intent or malice intended.

However, was it dangerous play? I don't know how it could be defined as anything else, tbh.

Dangerous play, regardless of intent, merits a red card.

[Wilson]

They care more about saving face than doing right by Kilmarnock.

The ref called it right as a yellow until var interfered.

[Hibbyradge]

They care more about saving face than doing right by Kilmarnock.

The ref called it right as a yellow until var interfered.

What law of the game says it should have been a caution?

[Stubbsy90+2]

Since when was it permissible to put your studs into a players face when he's standing fully upright.

Dangerous play in anybody's language, which is a red card offence.

:agree:

It’s a red all day. The laws of the game quite clearly state that.

[worcesterhibby]

yellow was the sensible decision and should have stood, but he lifted his foot to head height with all the studs showing and another player trying to play the ball legally with his head ended up with studs in his neck. What is Cabraja meant to do...not try to play the ball..is it his own fault for moving to head a ball...at head height ? Too many peopkle listening to the nonsense outrage on Sportscene and beleiving it.

Don't get me wrong..I bloody hate VAR and Beaton ! but I really don't think this was one of the worst mistakes VAR/Beaton have made

[Hibbyradge]

yellow was the sensible decision and should have stood, but he lifted his foot to head height with all the studs showing and another player trying to play the ball legally with his head ended up with studs in his neck. What is Cabraja meant to do...not try to play the ball..is it his own fault for moving to head a ball...at head height ? Too many peopkle listening to the nonsense outrage on Sportscene and beleiving it.

Don't get me wrong..I bloody hate VAR and Beaton ! but I really don't think this was one of the worst mistakes VAR/Beaton have made

I don't understand this argument at all.

The only mistake was to show the yellow card. The sending off was correct. It was dangerous play.

What rule says it should have been a caution?

[Crunchie]

Kilmarnock have lost there appeal against the red card which I'd imagine will have Derek McInnes angry as he didn't even think it was a yellow .
https://news.stv.tv/sport/kilmarnock-lose-appeal-against-red-card-shown-to-kyle-vassell
Not a surprise to me, clear red imo.

[B.H.F.C]

I don't understand this argument at all.

The only mistake was to show the yellow card. The sending off was correct. It was dangerous play.

What rule says it should have been a caution?

Depends how you interpret the challenge though.

He’s been sent off for ‘endangering’ his opponent. For me, he didn’t. He was trying to control the ball for me and Cabraja jumped in to him.

A bus might endanger my safety when I walk down the street but only if I jump in front of it. Didn’t think it was a bad challenge. Didn’t even really think it was a challenge. Had VAR not been there nobody would have mentioned it again IMO.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Depends how you interpret the challenge though.

He’s been sent off for ‘endangering’ his opponent. For me, he didn’t. He was trying to control the ball for me and Cabraja jumped in to him.

A bus might endanger my safety when I walk down the street but only if I jump in front of it. Didn’t think it was a bad challenge. Didn’t even really think it was a challenge. Had VAR not been there nobody would have mentioned it again IMO.

Going in for a challenge with a player when your foot is head height, your leg is straight and your studs are up and on top of that you actually catch them in the head is endangering an opponent, absolutely no doubt about that in my mind.

[Broken Gnome]

Surely it's not so black and white that those thinking it's a red card can over look just how tame and innocuous it all was?

Find it mental that one high foot to control a ball means he will actually miss games.

[B.H.F.C]

Going in for a challenge with a player when your foot is head height, your leg is straight and your studs are up and on top of that you actually catch them in the head is endangering an opponent, absolutely no doubt about that in my mind.

I don’t think he went in for a challenge though. First touch was crap and bounced up, raised his leg to try and control it, not challenge for it.

As I said, reaction of players, crowd, officials and everyone else around the place told its own story for me.

[Allyg69]

Red card all day. The rules are pretty clear.

Agreed

[Hibbyradge]

Depends how you interpret the challenge though.

He’s been sent off for ‘endangering’ his opponent. For me, he didn’t. He was trying to control the ball for me and Cabraja jumped in to him.

A bus might endanger my safety when I walk down the street but only if I jump in front of it. Didn’t think it was a bad challenge. Didn’t even really think it was a challenge. Had VAR not been there nobody would have mentioned it again IMO.

So it was Cabraja's fault? He shouldn't have been so selfish as to challenge for a winnable ball at head height.

The Killie player could have challenged for the ball perfectly legally but he chose not to, but put his foot up instead and endangered Cabraja.

The bus is supposed to be on the road. The Killie player's foot was not supposed to near Cabraja's head.

[Hibbyradge]

Surely it's not so black and white that those thinking it's a red card can over look just how tame and innocuous it all was?

Find it mental that one high foot to control a ball means he will actually miss games.

The point is that it could have had a much worse outcome because it was dangerous.

There's no law that says dangerous play is ok if no-one gets seriously hurt.

[B.H.F.C]

So it was Cabraja's fault? He shouldn't have been so selfish as to challenge for a winnable ball at head height.

The Killie player could have challenged for the ball perfectly legally but he chose not to, but put his foot up instead and endangered Cabraja.

The bus is supposed to be on the road. The Killie player's foot was not supposed to near Cabraja's head.

Who said anything about Cabraja being at fault for anything or doing anything wrong?

I’ve said why I didn’t think it was a red so won’t waste my team repeating it. I just think a bit of common sense needed applied to it. Would never have been mentioned at all had VAR not pulled it up.

[Stubbsy90+2]

I don’t think he went in for a challenge though. First touch was crap and bounced up, raised his leg to try and control it, not challenge for it.

As I said, reaction of players, crowd, officials and everyone else around the place told its own story for me.

He studded Cabraja in the head whilst challenging for a loose ball. Of course he went in for a challenge. Just because he didn’t go in with a lot of force it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a challenge.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Surely it's not so black and white that those thinking it's a red card can over look just how tame and innocuous it all was?

Find it mental that one high foot to control a ball means he will actually miss games.

His foot was head height. His studs were up and his leg was straight. It didn’t need any force to be dangerous, it was dangerous enough as it was.

[Hibbyradge]

Who said anything about Cabraja being at fault for anything or doing anything wrong?



You used the analogy of jumping in front of a bus which would be your fault.





I’ve said why I didn’t think it was a red so won’t waste my team repeating it. I just think a bit of common sense needed applied to it. Would never have been mentioned at all had VAR not pulled it up.

Giving referees the ability to interpret the laws of the game using their common sense isn't going to end well.

[B.H.F.C]

He studded Cabraja in the head whilst challenging for a loose ball. Of course he went in for a challenge. Just because he didn’t go in with a lot of force it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a challenge.

No gonna go round in circles about it as you’re no changing your mind and I saw it the way I did. You get a feel for what is a bad challenge and what isn’t and, for me, I didn’t think that was.

[B.H.F.C]

You used the analogy of jumping in front of a bus which would be your fault.




Giving referees the ability to interpret the laws of the game using their common sense isn't going to end well.

Loads laws are open to interpretation. Different people will have different views on what endangers safety, what is excessive force and so on.

[Kato]

Depends how you interpret the challenge though.

He’s been sent off for ‘endangering’ his opponent. For me, he didn’t. He was trying to control the ball for me and Cabraja jumped in to him.

A bus might endanger my safety when I walk down the street but only if I jump in front of it. Didn’t think it was a bad challenge. Didn’t even really think it was a challenge. Had VAR not been there nobody would have mentioned it again IMO.The only reason he raised his foot so high to control the ball is because he sees Cabraja getting there first. If he thought no one else was challenging he allows the ball to drop to the ground to control it.

High foot, dangerous play, red card.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Loads laws are open to interpretation. Different people will have different views on what endangers safety, what is excessive force and so on.

Fwiw, I wasn't calling for a red card at first but as soon as I saw that var was questioning it, I realised that it had been a dangerous challenge.

Had it been a different footballer, Cabraja could have fallen to the floor dramatically holding his face in supposed agony. If that had happened, most Hibs fans would have been screaming for a sending off.

Because Cabraja just rubbed the area where he was kicked and got on with it, folk accepted the caution.

However, the fact that he wasn't badly hurt, and isn't a play actor, doesn't change the fact that it was dangerous.

The suggestions that the upholding of the red card is merely to save face or is somehow corrupt are nonsensical.

However, I do agree with you that there's nothing to be gained from further debate about this.

Over and out. 😊

[Stevie Reid]

Cesar Azpilicueta needed oxygen on the pitch before being stretchered off on Saturday, after being kicked in the head from a player attempting an overhead kick.

If the Killie one was a red card, the Southampton player’s was a jail sentence - however, I think the player that caught him was already on a booking and received no further punishment. VAR didn’t intervene.

The rules may well be clear on this, but they’re not applied equally.

[B.H.F.C]

The only reason he raised his foot so high to control the ball is because he sees Cabraja getting there first. If he thought no one else was challenging he allows the ball to drop to the ground to control it.

High foot, dangerous play, red card.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

It happened so quickly that, for me, the boy is just trying to control the ball. Nothing more, nothing less.

I’d take one like that for the opposition every week but feel very hard done by if it was us.

[Hibbyradge]

Cesar Azpilicueta needed oxygen on the pitch before being stretchered off on Saturday, after being kicked in the head from a player attempting an overhead kick.

If the Killie one was a red card, the Southampton player’s was a jail sentence - however, I think the player that caught him was already on a booking and received no further punishment. VAR didn’t intervene.

The rules may well be clear on this, but they’re not applied equally.

Wow

[Carheenlea]

Would an Old Firm player get a red for that?

Kilmarnock = easy decision for referee to make with little consequence.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Would an Old Firm player get a red for that?

Kilmarnock = easy decision for referee to make with little consequence.

What happens with OF players shouldn’t be used as a barometer for whether a decision is correct or not tbf. They get to play by their own rules.

[Donegal Hibby]

There was no malice from the Kilmarnock player in it at all though he got it wrong going for a ball at that height with his studs showing and cabraja was lucky not to get caught in the face . VAR imo has got this decision right and it's one of the situation it's meant to be used in " Direct redcard incident's" .

If Beaton hadn't have given the redcard I'd have been really unhappy with the decision and thought it was the wrong one as others would have too yet even though he did give it some think it was a terrible decision now . Suppose it goes to show that being a referee really is a case of " your damned if you do and damned if you don't "Glad I'm not a referee .

[Dashing Bob S]

They should be aggrieved. It was never a red.

[Eyrie]

Beaton got the decision correct initially but once it was changed to red then there was little prospect of the appeal succeeding.

[BILLYHIBS]

Watched it live action from my seat in the West

My natural reaction was never a red

A yellow maybe ?

Fitba folk ken you tend to know instinctively

Zero intent

I was one of the Hibs fans booing the possibility of it being upgraded by VAR to a red

You can tell a lot from the players’ reaction Cabraja was almost apologetic as he rubbed the back of his head ��

Harsh but I am not bothered either way as it does not directly affect Hibs

[Stubbsy90+2]

Watched it live action from my seat in the West

My natural reaction was never a red

A yellow maybe ?

Fitba folk ken you tend to know instinctively

Zero intent

I was one of the Hibs fans booing the possibility of it being upgraded by VAR to a red

You can tell a lot from the players’ reaction Cabraja was almost apologetic as he rubbed the back of his head ��

Harsh but I am not bothered either way as it does not directly affect Hibs

Intent doesn’t matter.

[BILLYHIBS]

Intent doesn’t matter.

Should do if there was no malice aforethought

Looking at it in real time a yellow was about right

VAR took it to the next level whereas before everyone would have been happy with a yellow as both players shook hands

As I said not bothered either way

Out of interest did you witness it at the game or have you dissected it from different angles on TV ?

[Stubbsy90+2]

Should do if there was no malice aforethought

Looking at it in real time a yellow was about right

VAR took it to the next level wheras before everyone would have been happy with a yellow as both players shook hands

As I said not bothered either way

Out of interest did you witness it at the game or have you dissected it from different angles on TV ?

I don’t doubt there was no malice, so in that regard I have a degree of sympathy for him but he could still have done some serious damage. He could have taken Cabrajas eye out for example. It was a very dangerous challenge with a straight leg, studs up and at head height. Whilst there’s been mention of no malice or force, the guys leg being fully extended means it could do a fair bit damage.

I didn’t make it to the game at the weekend so I saw it on Hibs TV, the replays on Hibs TV and Sportscene. My first instinct from the original camera angle was red card and nothing I’ve seen since changes that for me.

[BILLYHIBS]

I don’t doubt there was no malice, so in that regard I have a degree of sympathy for him but he could still have done some serious damage. He could have taken Cabrajas eye out for example.

I didn’t make it to the game at the weekend so I saw it on Hibs TV, the replays on Hibs TV and Sportscene. My first instinct from the original camera angle was red card and nothing I’ve seen since changes that for me.

Watching it in real time everyone around me in the West was convinced it was harsh but a worthy booking

Cabraja’s injury seemed to be the back of his head neck area so no danger to his eye and seemed to recover quite quickly

It’s red now anyway in the record books and I suppose that is what counts

[scoopyboy]

I can't believe people can't understand that a player having his foot at head height and hitting a player with his studs at head height isn't dangerous play, beggars belief in fact.

At the game I thought a yellow seemed fair enough, but when VAR called the ref over and it was changed I thought this will be an interesting watch on Sportscene. Red fully justified and was never going to be overturned, waste of an appeal fee.

If it was a Hearts player instead of a Killie player I think a lot of the doubters on here would be screaming red

[scoopyboy]

Watching it in real time everyone around me in the West was convinced it was harsh but a worthy booking

Cabraja’s injury seemed to be the back of his head neck area so no danger to his eye and seemed to recover quite quickly

It’s red now anyway in the record books and I suppose that is what counts

I get that, but the fans only saw it once as did Beaton. Several replays later and for me it was a 100% red

[KWJ]

Cesar Azpilicueta needed oxygen on the pitch before being stretchered off on Saturday, after being kicked in the head from a player attempting an overhead kick.

If the Killie one was a red card, the Southampton player’s was a jail sentence - however, I think the player that caught him was already on a booking and received no further punishment. VAR didn’t intervene.

The rules may well be clear on this, but they’re not applied equally.

Odd coincidence that it happened on the same day. Mara was booked for it but it took about 10 minutes until CA went off.

I'm not sure about this. I think it happens naturally and while it can be dangerous I don't want players not to be able to go for overhead kicks and to be feared to put their foot in the air at all.

26482

[Hibbyradge]

I get that, but the fans only saw it once as did Beaton. Several replays later and for me it was a 100% red

I'm the same.

Intent and contact are irrelevant when it comes to reckless and dangerous play but these are the things people are considering.

I actually think some referees don't understand the rules properly. That the Chelsea incident went unpunished is beyond belief.

It's not dangerous play to have your foot high if you're on your own, but if there are players in the close vicinity, it is.

[Kato]

I can't believe people can't understand that a player having his foot at head height and hitting a player with his studs at head height isn't dangerous play, beggars belief in fact.



Don't understand it either.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[B.H.F.C]

I can't believe people can't understand that a player having his foot at head height and hitting a player with his studs at head height isn't dangerous play, beggars belief in fact.

At the game I thought a yellow seemed fair enough, but when VAR called the ref over and it was changed I thought this will be an interesting watch on Sportscene. Red fully justified and was never going to be overturned, waste of an appeal fee.

If it was a Hearts player instead of a Killie player I think a lot of the doubters on here would be screaming red

I remember a challenge on Josh Doig up at Dens Park last season. Studs in the head, shocking challenge. I think the player got away with it completely but it was as clear a red card for me as you’ll see.

The similarity with the challenge on Saturday was that feet were high in both instances but I don’t think the Kilmarnock player endangered Cabraja the way the Dundee player endangered Doig. I don’t think the Kilmarnock player challenged as such, he’s controlled the ball (with a high foot obviously) but I think Cabraja has come quite a few yards and went in to him as much as anything. That isn’t me saying Cabraja shouldn’t have went for the ball or whatever, but I don’t think it’s always as black and white as looking at a rule when there will always be an element of interpretation as to how dangerous an action is.

[zitelli62]

Cabraja didn't make a meal of it like some players would have deserves credit for that never a red though.

[BILLYHIBS]

I get that, but the fans only saw it once as did Beaton. Several replays later and for me it was a 100% red
Interesting you say earlier that at the game in real time
you thought it was a yellow like the rest of us as there was no real aggression from the Killie player he was merely hoping to kill the ball albeit at head height if anything Cabraja puts his head in and moves toward the ball

I suppose VAR is removing all spontaneity and enjoyment from our national game to the extent that you cannot even celebrate a goal, offside or a handball with any certainty and if you look long and hard at that incident yes his foot was at Cabraja’s head and by the strict letter of the law it is a red rightly or wrongly

[The Modfather]

The point is that it could have had a much worse outcome because it was dangerous.

There's no law that says dangerous play is ok if no-one gets seriously hurt.

Would overhead kicks not be banned in that case? The fact a player didn’t injure an opposition player wouldn’t change the fact it’s dangerous play.

I thought it was closer to an unfortunate coming together rather than an attempt at a challenge. Thought a booking would have been slightly unlucky but probably fair enough. Can see why others think it’s a red though. The fact it wasn’t an attempt at a challenge is what differentiates it from a red card for me.

[Kato]

Would overhead kicks not be banned in that case?

If your going to perform an overhead kick, make sure no one is around you and its clean as a whistle and within the rules. Same if your are controlling the ball at a really weird height rather than letting it drop, make sure no one else is challenging.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[CockneyRebel]

[QUOTE=Kato;7291198]If your going to perform an overhead kick, make sure no one is around you and its clean as a whistle and within the rules. Same if your are controlling the ball at a really weird height rather than letting it drop, make sure no one else is challenging.

And while you're doing that, the other guy has ****ed off with the ball :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

If your going to perform an overhead kick, make sure no one is around you and its clean as a whistle and within the rules. Same if your are controlling the ball at a really weird height rather than letting it drop, make sure no one else is challenging.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

This is correct.

Law 12 says, "A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."

Therefore, if it is dangerous to an opponent, the penalty should be a red card. I'm not sure I've ever seen the rule properly administered, apart from on Saturday so I understand why people think it should have been a caution.

[Forza Fred]

Not a surprise to me, clear red imo.

I think a lot people base their ‘ not a red card ‘ view on what they see as a challenge without any intent to injure.

The rules though, do not require their to be any ‘intent’ before it becomes red.

[McSwanky]

No intent. The lad was just trying to control the ball.

Neither of the above are relevant. His foot was high, studs facing forwards, and an opponent was close enough to be going in to head the ball.

Clear red. It's a shame for the Killie player, but it's dangerous play whether he's meant it or not.

Maybe he'll learn from it.

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

[Kato]

[QUOTE=Kato;7291198]If your going to perform an overhead kick, make sure no one is around you and its clean as a whistle and within the rules. Same if your are controlling the ball at a really weird height rather than letting it drop, make sure no one else is challenging.

And while you're doing that, the other guy has ****ed off with the ball :greengrin..and if there isn't another guy near there's no need to put your foot high. The ball was head height, it's not as though Cabraja was standing outside the East Stand. He would have won the header, if it wasn't for that pesky high, studs showing boot. What's the Hibs player supposed to do, just say "after you"?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[greenlex]

I don't understand this argument at all.

The only mistake was to show the yellow card. The sending off was correct. It was dangerous play.

What rule says it should have been a caution?

To be honest was it dangerous? There was little real effort in the challenge and Cabraja went into him dipping his head. Careless possibly but I think there was no real element of danger or risk even with his foot that high standing still trying to control the ball. Put it this way if he had made absolutely no contact we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I honestly think the yellow was the correct call. High boot but not reckless or particularly dangerous IMO.

[Spike Mandela]

At least the referees have read the rules on serious foul play, unlike some on here.

[Curried]

At least the referees have read the rules on serious foul play, unlike some on here.

Indeed. It appears that are a few posters on here who have no idea about the rules of the game. Serious foul play - studs up, head high, endangers the safety of another player (Law 12).

[KeithTheHibby]

A successful appeal would have been the second time this season that John Beaton viewed the incident at the monitor then sent the player off, only for it to be later overturned on appeal.

I think it's very clear that the motivation here is simply to protect Beaton from claims of incompetence.

They are incompetent and corrupt.


Absolutely. It’s not in the best interest for VAR decisions to be overturned on appeal.

[Danderhall Hibs]

At least the referees have read the rules on serious foul play, unlike some on here.

Same goes for every decision I suppose. Not sure why we ever debate a referees decision.

[CentreLine]

I’m just wondering if it will ever happen again that a player has his suspension increased for his club daring to appeal a red card. 🤔

[BILLYHIBS]

Well worth watching the incident again from 2.50 onwards in the link below

https://youtu.be/-YAH7Tb_fOw (https://youtu.be/-YAH7Tb_fOw)

The one thing that stands out from the clip is how good Hoppe was :greengrin

[Tyler Durden]

To be honest was it dangerous? There was little real effort in the challenge and Cabraja went into him dipping his head. Careless possibly but I think there was no real element of danger or risk even with his foot that high standing still trying to control the ball. Put it this way if he had made absolutely no contact we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I honestly think the yellow was the correct call. High boot but not reckless or particularly dangerous IMO.

Exactly. His foot was high, he did make contact with Cabraja but there was no real danger to our player.

The way some people are talking, every high foot offence would be a red card. Players are penalised for high feet when there are players close to them all the time. Often they aren't even booked. It happened earlier in this very game.

Having your feet at head height (which by the way means your studs are always showing, not that this is relevant) doesn't automatically endanger another player.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Exactly. His foot was high, he did make contact with Cabraja but there was no real danger to our player.

The way some people are talking, every high foot offence would be a red card. Players are penalised for high feet when there are players close to them all the time. Often they aren't even booked. It happened earlier in this very game.

Having your feet at head height (which by the way means your studs are always showing, not that this is relevant) doesn't automatically endanger another player.

Having your feet at head height and catching them in the head does automatically endanger another player though. Yes it’s a different story and you do it and nobody is within 10 yards of you but that’s not the case here. Being kicked in the head is a fairly dangerous scenario in any walk of life.

[Spike Mandela]

Same goes for every decision I suppose. Not sure why we ever debate a referees decision.

In this case though, the multiple referees have followed the rulebook to the letter. There is no debate.

[Kato]

Exactly. His foot was high, he did make contact with Cabraja but there was no real danger to our player.

The way some people are talking, every high foot offence would be a red card. Players are penalised for high feet when there are players close to them all the time. Often they aren't even booked. It happened earlier in this very game.

Having your feet at head height (which by the way means your studs are always showing, not that this is relevant) doesn't automatically endanger another player.The ref had the option of giving the foul and everyone would have accepted that I think. He gave a yellow which doesn't exist for dangerous play so upgraded it.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Tyler Durden]

Having your feet at head height and catching them in the head does automatically endanger another player though. Yes it’s a different story and you do it and nobody is within 10 yards of you but that’s not the case here. Being kicked in the head is a fairly dangerous scenario in any walk of life.

Nobody was kicked in the head in this incident.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Nobody was kicked in the head in this incident.
26483

Yes, they were. Vassels toe of his boot is pretty much at Cabrajas eye level.

[Curried]

Nobody was kicked in the head in this incident.

Stop digging mate.

[Hibernian Verse]

Well worth watching the incident again from 2.50 onwards in the link below

https://youtu.be/-YAH7Tb_fOw (https://youtu.be/-YAH7Tb_fOw)

The one thing that stands out from the clip is how good Hoppe was :greengrin

Just before Hoppe's goal watch Jeggo's movement from the touchline onwards. Superb.

[BILLYHIBS]

Just before Hoppe's goal watch Jeggo's movement from the touchline onwards. Superb.

Superb just what we’ve been missing

Great instinctive save from Marsh goal from Fish and clearance off the line

[hibee-boys]

Surely it's not so black and white that those thinking it's a red card can over look just how tame and innocuous it all was?

Find it mental that one high foot to control a ball means he will actually miss games.

I agree, we’d be as well saying that any contact with the ball by a foot above shoulder height is banned, which is just ridiculous. Let’s say a balls falls to an attacker in the box and he attempts an overhead kick but strikes an opponent in the head who’s trying to head the ball. I take it that would be deemed to be a red now as well? Crazy stuff, it’s a contact sport, there has to be some flexibility in the rules in these instances.

[CockneyRebel]

[QUOTE=CockneyRebel;7291213]..and if there isn't another guy near there's no need to put your foot high. The ball was head height, it's not as though Cabraja was standing outside the East Stand. He would have won the header, if it wasn't for that pesky high, studs showing boot. What's the Hibs player supposed to do, just say "after you"?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk


What's the Killie player supposed to do, just say here's a free header go ahead? I get the rules better now but still asking a lot from the player not to instinctively try to win the ball with his foot. Anyway my post had a wee :greengrin as I was jesting at that point.

[Stubbsy90+2]

[QUOTE=Kato;7291264]


What's the Killie player supposed to do, just say here's a free header go ahead? I get the rules better now but still asking a lot from the player not to instinctively try to win the ball with his foot. Anyway my post had a wee :greengrin as I was jesting at that point.

The Killie player could have used his head, which wouldn’t be dangerous play. It’s the use of the foot that makes it dangerous.

I’ve no doubt it was purely instinctive and not malicious but that doesn’t change the fact it’s dangerous.

[Stubbsy90+2]

I agree, we’d be as well saying that any contact with the ball by a foot above shoulder height is banned, which is just ridiculous. Let’s say a balls falls to an attacker in the box and he attempts an overhead kick but strikes an opponent in the head who’s trying to head the ball. I take it that would be deemed to be a red now as well? Crazy stuff, it’s a contact sport, there has to be some flexibility in the rules in these instances.

No we wouldn’t. You can still head the ball. You can even still control the ball at head height with your foot if nobody is within close proximity of you. Nobody is suggesting the game is played exclusively below shoulder height.

[Danderhall Hibs]

In this case though, the multiple referees have followed the rulebook to the letter. There is no debate.

Referees generally always back each other. Even when they’re wrong cos they interpret the rule in the way that suits.

[McSwanky]

I agree, we’d be as well saying that any contact with the ball by a foot above shoulder height is banned, which is just ridiculous. Let’s say a balls falls to an attacker in the box and he attempts an overhead kick but strikes an opponent in the head who’s trying to head the ball. I take it that would be deemed to be a red now as well? Crazy stuff, it’s a contact sport, there has to be some flexibility in the rules in these instances.

I'd say you're right - there has to be flexibility. You can't broadbrush it.

However in this case, the guy had his studs facing forwards at neck height while another player was trying to head the ball. Fairly clear cut to me.

In your other example, it totally depends on the cirumstances, if he hoofs a defender on the head at head height, I'd say that's a straight red. The nature of an overhead kick would be that your studs aren't pointing at the other player going for the bll though, so there would be some leeway if no contact is made (i.e. the defender wasn't close enough to head the ball).

No problem (other than ***** technique) with players raising their foot to neck height or above when nobody is around them, but they've only got themselves to blame if they do it when others are present. That's what your head is for.

[matty_f]

26483

Yes, they were. Vassels toe of his boot is pretty much at Cabrajas eye level.

He was caught on the neck, Cabraja was showing the mark in the Albion Bar after the game.

[Kato]

He was caught on the neck, Cabraja was showing the mark in the Albion Bar after the game.So a wee nick on the guys stud sees Cabraja with a cut in a very fragile area. Hence dangerous play.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stubbsy90+2]

He was caught on the neck, Cabraja was showing the mark in the Albion Bar after the game.

He can be caught on the neck and the head. It doesn’t need to be one or the other.

[BoomtownHibees]

Are the folk saying this one was a definite red card advocating that every “high foot” foul should now be a sending off?

If not, why not?

[007]

Are the folk saying this one was a definite red card advocating that every “high foot” foul should now be a sending off?

If not, why not?

If that was the case then Cadden should have been too. Thought he might have got booked but he didn't. IIRC his foot was as high but he didn't connect with the Killie player.

[McSwanky]

Are the folk saying this one was a definite red card advocating that every “high foot” foul should now be a sending off?

Nope


If not, why not?

Read the thread :greengrin

[Spike Mandela]

Referees generally always back each other. Even when they’re wrong cos they interpret the rule in the way that suits.

In this case they have interpreted the ruling correctly, as it is stated, in the rulebook in the section for sending offs for serious foul play.

Despite all the noise and fanciful thinking in this thread we can’t do much more than ask the referees to make decisions based on the rule book.

The VAR official got this 100% right as did the appeals committee.

[Percy Vere]

I had a birdseye view and it looked clumsy but not deliberate.
I would have thought the original yellow was correct for the high boot.
If it was our player we would be raging at the red card.

[BoomtownHibees]

Nope



Read the thread :greengrin

There’s nothing in the thread that explains the difference between this challenge being a 100% red card versus any other “high foot” where there’s contact with another player.

As mentioned above, Cadden got penalised for a high foot in the same game but got no yellow card, never mind a red card. Is that only because there was no contact and if there was he would have been off as well?

[Percy Vere]

In this case they have interpreted the ruling correctly, as it is stated, in the rulebook in the section for sending offs for serious foul play.

Despite all the noise and fanciful thinking in this thread we can’t do much more than ask the referees to make decisions based on the rule book.

The VAR official got this 100% right as did the appeals committee.

Nonsense. Does serious foul play not infer an intention to injure a fellow player. There was certainly no intent. Yellow at most.

[McSwanky]

There’s nothing in the thread that explains the difference between this challenge being a 100% red card versus any other “high foot” where there’s contact with another player.

As mentioned above, Cadden got penalised for a high foot in the same game but got no yellow card, never mind a red card. Is that only because there was no contact and if there was he would have been off as well?

Haven't seen the Cadden incident so can't comment on that, I'd be interested to see it though if anyone has a link?

I think it's fairly clear that if you raise your foot with studs up whilst someone is challenging for the ball with their head (the correct way to attack the ball when it's at that height, I'm not talking about stooping), that constitutes dangerous play. If Cabraja had been a couple more yards away, then it probably wouldn't. But then he probably wouldn't have bothered lifting his leg up if that was the case....

[B.H.F.C]

In this case they have interpreted the ruling correctly, as it is stated, in the rulebook in the section for sending offs for serious foul play.

Despite all the noise and fanciful thinking in this thread we can’t do much more than ask the referees to make decisions based on the rule book.

The VAR official got this 100% right as did the appeals committee.

Still maintain it’s not as straightforward as quoting the rule book. The rule book still leaves it open to interpretation as it talks about endangering an opponent. Some people will not interpret the challenge as endangering the player. There is a difference between physical contact, a knock or whatever and being endangered IMO.

[Spike Mandela]

Nonsense. Does serious foul play not infer an intention to injure a fellow player. There was certainly no intent. Yellow at most.

No it doesn’t. Read the rules

[Spike Mandela]

Still maintain it’s not as straightforward as quoting the rule book. The rule book still leaves it open to interpretation as it talks about endangering an opponent. Some people will not interpret the challenge as endangering the player. There is a difference between physical contact, a knock or whatever and being endangered IMO.

A studded boot at head height when the opponet is going to header the ball is not dangerous?

[B.H.F.C]

A studded boot at head height when the opponet is going to header the ball is not dangerous?

In that instance I don’t think it was particularly, no.

Regardless of that, the referee still has to decide whether it’s serial foul play or not. For me, it wasn’t. I’d have went with a booking based on the following, from the rules.

“Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned”

Still covers off that it is dangerous, or potentially dangerous. For me it was as above rather than serious foul play though.

[Stubbsy90+2]

A studded boot at head height when the opponet is going to header the ball is not dangerous?

It really is bizarre that people seem to think that being kicked in the head isn’t dangerous which is really what this boils down to.

[basehibby]

The original call to show a yellow was the right one. It was a nuanced thing though - the fact he was clearly going for the ball (and got there first) and the fact Cabraja played a part in the collision in his attempt to head the ball -
There WAS contact though - even if slight - and his boot undoubtably high as a result of his own heavy first touch. So I can see why in the letter of the law there is a strong argument for a red and why, unsurprisingly, the appeal has been rejected. Still rough on the player - shame Beaton didn't just stick to his original real time decision.

[BoomtownHibees]

It really is bizarre that people seem to think that being kicked in the head isn’t dangerous which is really what this boils down to.

So every high boot when there is contact is a red card then? Is that what you are saying?

[Hibbyradge]

Nonsense. Does serious foul play not infer an intention to injure a fellow player. There was certainly no intent. Yellow at most.

Intent and contact are irrelevant when it comes to dangerous play.

[Stubbsy90+2]

So every high boot when there is contact is a red card then? Is that what you are saying?

Every high boot where a player who is standing in an upright position is kicked in the head should be a red card, yes. There’s absolutely no reason for somebodies boot to be 6 feet in the air challenging another player for the ball.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Nonsense. Does serious foul play not infer an intention to injure a fellow player. There was certainly no intent. Yellow at most.

It doesn’t infer that.

[BoomtownHibees]

Every high boot where a player who is standing in an upright position is kicked in the head should be a red card, yes. There’s absolutely no reason for somebodies boot to be 6 feet in the air challenging another player for the ball.

But it’s not what happens is it? There will always be interpretations of how the laws are written and rightly so.

In my view, there needs to be thought given to the intent of a challenge, despite that actual word not being in the rule book

[worcesterhibby]

Every high boot where a player who is standing in an upright position is kicked in the head should be a red card, yes. There’s absolutely no reason for somebodies boot to be 6 feet in the air challenging another player for the ball.

You forgot the important caveat in the rule book that waives any sending off if the player is from Rangers (at any time) or from Hearts (in a Derby)

[Kato]

Cabraja played a part in the collision in his attempt to head the ball -


This again. What is he supposed to do? Not make a legal challenge for the ball in case he gets a kick in the head? The laws don't work that way.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

But it’s not what happens is it? There will always be interpretations of how the laws are written and rightly so.

In my view, there needs to be thought given to the intent of a challenge, despite that actual word not being in the rule bookWe will have to wait until that is in the rule book I suppose. As it is...

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

But it’s not what happens is it? There will always be interpretations of how the laws are written and rightly so.

In my view, there needs to be thought given to the intent of a challenge, despite that actual word not being in the rule book

This is the rule

PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."

Consider the second part of that sentence.

There is no intent to hurt the opponent, and no contact. The action is merely to stop him winning the ball.

The Killie player didn't intend to hurt Cabraja, although he did. He merely had his foot 5 feet in the air to stop Cabraja winning the ball.

[JimBHibees]

But it’s not what happens is it? There will always be interpretations of how the laws are written and rightly so.

In my view, there needs to be thought given to the intent of a challenge, despite that actual word not being in the rule book

Agree have seen many times someone trying an overhead kick making contact with an opponent and never receiving a red.

[Stubbsy90+2]

This again. What is he supposed to do? Not make a legal challenge for the ball in case he gets a kick in the head? The laws don't work that way.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

:agree:

Bizarre that the player who didn’t break the rules is now being held up as having played his own part in a red card whilst people stick up for the guy that did actually break the rules.

One player commited serious foul play. The other player played by the rules.

[JimBHibees]

This is the rule

PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."

Consider the second part of that sentence.

There is no intent to hurt the opponent, and no contact. The action is merely to stop him winning the ball.

The Killie player didn't intend to hurt Cabraja, although he did. He merely had his foot 5 feet in the air to stop Cabraja winning the ball.

Had his foot in the air to control the ball.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Agree have seen many times someone trying an overhead kick making contact with an opponent and never receiving a red.

Any examples? Were the defending players standing 6 feet tall, were they stopped down etc?

[Hibbyradge]

This again. What is he supposed to do? Not make a legal challenge for the ball in case he gets a kick in the head? The laws don't work that way.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Exactly.

As per my post above, if the player is too worried about being hurt because of the dangerous action of an opponent, it's a sending off offence.

[matty_f]

He can be caught on the neck and the head. It doesn’t need to be one or the other.

It was one or the other in this case, though. He got caught on the neck.

[Hibbyradge]

Had his foot in the air to control the ball.

Why didn't he wait until the ball dropped down?

[JimBHibees]

Any examples? Were the defending players standing 6 feet tall, were they stopped down etc?

My eyes. Have you genuinely never seen a forward trying an overhead kick in the box and accidentally catches a defender be that neck shoulder head body?

[JimBHibees]

Why didn't he wait until the ball dropped down?

Why should he?

[Hibbyradge]

Why should he?

Because he might endanger an opponent being one reason.

My point is, players don't try to control the ball when it's 5 feet in the air unless it's to win it before an opponent can get it.

[Stubbsy90+2]

It was one or the other in this case, though. He got caught on the neck.

The image shows it wasn’t just his neck. Vassels foot was halfway up Cabrajas face.

[Kato]

Had his foot in the air to control the ball....and endangered an opponent in doing so.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[007]

There’s nothing in the thread that explains the difference between this challenge being a 100% red card versus any other “high foot” where there’s contact with another player.

As mentioned above, Cadden got penalised for a high foot in the same game but got no yellow card, never mind a red card. Is that only because there was no contact and if there was he would have been off as well?

https://hibstv.hibernianfc.co.uk/video/8058

Need to have Hibs TV login, forward it to 31.30. Had a 2nd look at it and high foot was given, wrongly IMO, Cadden's foot not close to the Killie player's head. In fact the Killie player's foot pretty much connects with the ball as Cadden nicks it off him.

[Kato]

Why didn't he wait until the ball dropped down?...because he knew Cabraja would win the ball...

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[BoomtownHibees]

This is the rule

PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."

Consider the second part of that sentence.

There is no intent to hurt the opponent, and no contact. The action is merely to stop him winning the ball.

The Killie player didn't intend to hurt Cabraja, although he did. He merely had his foot 5 feet in the air to stop Cabraja winning the ball.

Again there needs to be interpretation of that exact law or you could quote that for every single tackle we see in the game, regardless of how low or high the foot is.

A 50/50 challenge could be seen as “an action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury”

[Northernhibee]

Since when was it permissible to put your studs into a players face when he's standing fully upright.

Dangerous play in anybody's language, which is a red card offence.
Yep. The ref on The VARdict on iPlayer said as much.

[Stubbsy90+2]

My eyes. Have you genuinely never seen a forward trying an overhead kick in the box and accidentally catches a defender be that neck shoulder head body?

I’ve seen plenty players try it, off the top of my head though I can’t remember many where the defender was standing at full height. If they were and they were booted in the face then I’d fully expect a red for the attacker.

[Hibbyradge]

https://hibstv.hibernianfc.co.uk/video/8058

Need to have Hibs TV login, forward it to 31.30. Had a 2nd look at it and high foot was given, wrongly IMO, Cadden's foot not close to the Killie player's head. In fact the Killie player's foot pretty much connects with the ball as Cadden nicks it off him.

There is no comparison between the two events. Both Cadden and the Killie player went for the ball with their feet and I'm not convinced it was much above waist height.

I think Cadden won the ball fairly.

[B.H.F.C]

We will have to wait until that is in the rule book I suppose. As it is...

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

It could easily have been deemed as reckless rather than serious foul play.

“Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned“

Anyone can read and quote the laws but it is still open to interpretation which one needs to be applied in any given instance. And that’s why we’ll see almost identical incidents go with lesser punishment in future. We even saw something far worse go totally unpunished in England at the weekend.

[greenlex]

Exactly.

As per my post above, if the player is too worried about being hurt because of the dangerous action of an opponent, it's a sending off offence.
That’s the wording of that there is no doubt. There has to be an element of interpretation though. If we are going by the letter of the law any sort of tackle could be construed as a red card challenge. Taking it without individual circumstance or action could literally see player red carded because the opponent didn’t fancy challenging for a ball as they might get hurt. A good old ****ting out of a tackle. It’s subjective and the ref has to make a call. McInnes was right the VAR guy isn’t there getting the context or atmosphere around the challenge. He’s seeing it on a screen and calling it. Yellow for reckless was the correct call in the context. If VAR hadn’t made the intervention or indeed had the ref stuck by his instinct at the time instead of ****ting it we wouldn’t be having this thread and no one would have batted an eyelid. There’s a reason a good chunk of Hibs fans were booing the intervention.
There’s a good argument under the rules if interpreted by the letter of the law that Stevie May should have seen red for his challenge at the keeper blunder for his second goal at the weekend. Slides in and certainly not in control would see him red carded and no goal.

[JimBHibees]

I’ve seen plenty players try it, off the top of my head though I can’t remember many where the defender was standing at full height. If they were and they were booted in the face then I’d fully expect a red for the attacker.

Agree if booted full in the face but a pretty soft contact like Saturday I wouldn't expect a red

[007]

I’ve seen plenty players try it, off the top of my head though I can’t remember many where the defender was standing at full height. If they were and they were booted in the face then I’d fully expect a red for the attacker.

That would definitely be a red. 😀 What row are you in?

[Rumble de Thump]

Agree if booted full in the face but a pretty soft contact like Saturday I wouldn't expect a red

Contact is irrelevant.

[JimBHibees]

Contact is irrelevant.

Is it

[matty_f]

The image shows it wasn’t just his neck. Vassels foot was halfway up Cabrajas face.

I'm tell Cabraja he was mistaken then.

[Stubbsy90+2]

I'm tell Cabraja he was mistaken then.

Did Cabraja explicitly say he didn’t get caught in the face? Or just that he got caught on the neck?

And tbh, Cabraja could well be mistaken. Because the image clearly shows the players boot half way up his face. The majority of contact may have been with his neck, but the boot quite clearly made contact with his face.

[Hibbyradge]

Is it

Yes

[BILLYHIBS]

Cabraja defo nursed the back of his neck after the incident

Still not convinced it’s a red but we roll with the punches it could be us on the receiving end versus Livvy


https://i.ibb.co/Jmq0crV/722-A2-A82-5-C15-4-C3-E-8-BB1-1-A876-A72-E52-E.png (https://ibb.co/PFM3r1K)

[JimBHibees]

Yes

So contact and intent is irrelevant as there was none what is. Makes zero sense

[Hibbyradge]

So contact and intent is irrelevant as there was none what is. Makes zero sense

It makes perfect sense.

If a player goes flying in to a tackle, 18 inches off the ground, with 2 feet, only meaning to win the ball, it would be a dangerous challenge even if he doesn't contact the player.

If I hit a golf ball at a wall to see what happens and it ricochets off and nearly hits you, my action would have been dangerous despite no intent and no contact.

It's all explained in the Laws of the game. That's football, not golf.

[JimBHibees]

It makes perfect sense.

If a player goes flying in to a tackle, 18 inches off the ground, with 2 feet, only meaning to win the ball, it would be a dangerous challenge even if he doesn't contact the player.

If I hit a golf ball at a wall to see what happens and it ricochets off and nearly hits you, my action would have been dangerous despite no intent and no contact.

It's all explained in the Laws of the game. That's football, not golf.

Flying into the tackle feet off the ground is completely different to controlling the ball and accidentally catching someone.

[Hibbyradge]

PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."

The wording says "threatens injury" not "injures". That clearly shows contact is irrelevant.

A player does a scissor kick trying to score, not hurt an opponent. So that clearly shows intent is irrelevant.

[Allant1981]

26483

Yes, they were. Vassels toe of his boot is pretty much at Cabrajas eye level.

You keep peddling this line, he wasn't kicked in the head no matter how many times you repeat it

[Hibbyradge]

Flying into the tackle feet off the ground is completely different to controlling the ball and accidentally catching someone.

That's not the point.

You were talking about intent and contact.

[Stubbsy90+2]

You keep peddling this line, he wasn't kicked in the head no matter how many times you repeat it

Yes, he was, no matter how many times you repeat he wasn’t.

[Allant1981]

Did Cabraja explicitly say he didn’t get caught in the face? Or just that he got caught on the neck?

And tbh, Cabraja could well be mistaken. Because the image clearly shows the players boot half way up his face. The majority of contact may have been with his neck, but the boot quite clearly made contact with his face.

The player who got hit could be mistaken about where he was hit, I've heard it all now, pretty sure he is going to know where he got hit, especially if he got a boot to the face

[Stubbsy90+2]

The player who got hit could be mistaken about where he was hit, I've heard it all now, pretty sure he is going to know where he got hit, especially if he got a boot to the face

I’ll wait on Marty’s confirmation as to what Cabraja said thanks, unless you were there of course?

How do you explain the image which clearly shows the boot in Cabrajas face? You seem to skirt round that every time funnily enough.

[Hibbyradge]

I’ll wait on Marty’s confirmation as to what Cabraja said thanks, unless you were there of course?

How do you explain the image which clearly shows the boot in Cabrajas face? You seem to skirt round that every time funnily enough.

To be fair, that's not clear at all.

[eastterrace]

I’ll wait on Marty’s confirmation as to what Cabraja said thanks, unless you were there of course?

How do you explain the image which clearly shows the boot in Cabrajas face? You seem to skirt round that every time funnily enough.
Cabraja was clearly rubbing his neck not his face. It happened straight in front of me.

[Allant1981]

I’ll wait on Marty’s confirmation as to what Cabraja said thanks, unless you were there of course?

How do you explain the image which clearly shows the boot in Cabrajas face? You seem to skirt round that every time funnily enough.

The image doesn't show that at all. It happened right in front of me in the east, he walked away holding his neck(still not great) but he didn't catch his face, if he had a stud to the face he would have known about it. It's actually funny you think he got a boot to the face yet had no marks.

[Stubbsy90+2]

The image doesn't show that at all. It happened right in front of me in the east, he walked away holding his neck(still not great) but he didn't catch his face, if he had a stud to the face he would have known about it. It's actually funny you think he got a boot to the face yet had no marks.

It happened right in front of you in the east despite the fact it happened infront of the west?

It’s actually funny that you think a boot to the face means he simply has to have had marks on his face. I’ve seen plenty players take a blow to the face and not been left bloodied or bruised.

[hibsbollah]

Cabraja was clearly rubbing his neck not his face. It happened straight in front of me.

Bloody rubberneckers.

[eastterrace]

Bloody rubberneckers.Yeh they are everywhere

[Allant1981]

It happened right in front of you in the east despite the fact it happened infront of the west?

It’s actually funny that you think a boot to the face means he simply has to have had marks on his face.

It was right in line with me, I sit about 10 yards in front of the penalty box in the east, so yes not directly in front of me but I had a good view of it, I won't even comment on your second part as it's just stupid to suggest he wouldn't have a mark on his dace if he was caught with a stud

[Stubbsy90+2]

It was right in line with me, I sit about 10 yards in front of the penalty box in the east, so yes not directly in front of me but I had a good view of it, I won't even comment on your second part as it's just stupid to suggest he wouldn't have a mark on his dace if he was caught with a stud

So you seen it from 60 yards away with the benefit of only one view from behind Vassel who had his back to you and therefore a good chance of blocking your view and only getting to see it in real time? You’ll have to forgive me for not taking your version of events from that far away as gospel.

Have you ever played football? You get caught by a stud numerous times per game. You don’t end up with marks from every contact with a stud, especially when it wasn’t the most forceful of challenges.

I played football the other night and someone caught me on my ankle. I’ve nothing to show for it.

[Allant1981]

So you seen it from 60 yards away with the benefit of only one view in real time? You’ll have to forgive me for not taking your version of events from that far away as gospel.

Have you ever played football? You get caught by a stud numerous times per game. You don’t end up with marks from every contact with a stud.

Believe what you want, makes no difference to me, I know what I seen and yip played football for about 20 years at various different levels and if you get a stud on the face you will know about it and it will mark you, who cares about a stud hitting elsewhere, that's not what you are claiming happened
An ankle getting hit is completely different to the face, you are actually making a fool of yourself now

[Eyrie]

It makes perfect sense.

If a player goes flying in to a tackle, 18 inches off the ground, with 2 feet, only meaning to win the ball, it would be a dangerous challenge even if he doesn't contact the player.

If I hit a golf ball at a wall to see what happens and it ricochets off and nearly hits you, my action would have been dangerous despite no intent and no contact.

It's all explained in the Laws of the game. That's football, not golf.

Your golf ball would be reckless as it was aimed at the wall.

If you hit the golf ball in my direction then it would be dangerous.


*Disclaimer - the above analogy is only for discussion purposes and should not be attempted in real life*

[007]

Hard to be sure but looks to me like there could have been contact with his cheek and neck so presumably the neck bore the brunt of the force.

I'd say it was the side of the boot on the cheek rather than studs.

https://youtu.be/-YAH7Tb_fOw?=116

Hibs TV has more replays, starts at 65 mins on the match clock.
https://hibstv.hibernianfc.co.uk/video/8058

[Stubbsy90+2]

Believe what you want, makes no difference to me, I know what I seen and yip played football for about 20 years at various different levels and if you get a stud on the face you will know about it and it will mark you, who cares about a stud hitting elsewhere, that's not what you are claiming happened
An ankle getting hit is completely different to the face, you are actually making a fool of yourself now

What? :faf:

Your face simply has to mark regardless of force? Yet I’m the one apparently making a fool of myself.

That’s a belter.

[Hibbyradge]

Your golf ball would be reckless as it was aimed at the wall.

If you hit the golf ball in my direction then it would be dangerous.


*Disclaimer - the above analogy is only for discussion purposes and should not be attempted in real life*

I'd miss the wall anyway!

[matty_f]

Did Cabraja explicitly say he didn’t get caught in the face? Or just that he got caught on the neck?

And tbh, Cabraja could well be mistaken. Because the image clearly shows the players boot half way up his face. The majority of contact may have been with his neck, but the boot quite clearly made contact with his face.

Yes he did.

I know you say that he could be mistaken, but do you not think it's a bit more likely that you might be mistaken and Cabraja knows where he was caught?

[007]

Did Cabraja explicitly say he didn’t get caught in the face? Or just that he got caught on the neck?

And tbh, Cabraja could well be mistaken. Because the image clearly shows the players boot half way up his face. The majority of contact may have been with his neck, but the boot quite clearly made contact with his face.

I think that's what happened, maybe not much contact with his face but the ball of the foot was up at the height of Cabraja's cheek.

[cameronw-hfc]

Did Cabraja explicitly say he didn’t get caught in the face? Or just that he got caught on the neck?

And tbh, Cabraja could well be mistaken. Because the image clearly shows the players boot half way up his face. The majority of contact may have been with his neck, but the boot quite clearly made contact with his face.


So cabraja, the guy who got the boot to the neck is also mistaken now because you think you seen it hit his face? Can't make it up, genuinely 😂

[CentreLine]

Believe what you want, makes no difference to me, I know what I seen and yip played football for about 20 years at various different levels and if you get a stud on the face you will know about it and it will mark you, who cares about a stud hitting elsewhere, that's not what you are claiming happened
An ankle getting hit is completely different to the face, you are actually making a fool of yourself now

Bringing it back to the reality of Scottish football, if it happens at Ibrox, in the the rangers box, there is not the slightest chance it’s given as foul play. Isn’t that how it works? 😏

[matty_f]

Bringing it back to the reality of Scottish football, if it happens at Ibrox, in the the rangers box, there is not the slightest chance it’s given as foul play. Isn’t that how it works? 😏

Happened to Joe Newell, ref wasn't interested.

[Allant1981]

What? :faf:

Your face simply has to mark regardless of force? Yet I’m the one apparently making a fool of myself.

That’s a belter.

Time to stick you on ignore now, absolute blether

[theonlywayisup]

Whether one deems this to be a red card or not, I'm firmly of the opinion that had this happened to a player who plays for The Rangers then the red card would have been overturned.

Would be interesting to see how many overturns each team in the SPFL have had.

[CentreLine]

Happened to Joe Newell, ref wasn't interested.

Yep and we can be sure Beaton and his VAR chum wouldn’t have been either. It’s a strange game isn’t it 🙄

[Joe6-2]

A successful appeal would have been the second time this season that John Beaton viewed the incident at the monitor then sent the player off, only for it to be later overturned on appeal.

I think it's very clear that the motivation here is simply to protect Beaton from claims of incompetence.

They are incompetent and corrupt.

In a nutshell, I thought VAR would help the game, especially in Scotland, but it’s done nothing of the sort and has just solidified my belief in our referees being cheats, backed up by the powers that be.

[brog]

I haven't read whole thread so apologies for any duplication but there's a few wrong assumptions on here. The real problem is there's a grey area between 'reckless' behaviour, which is a yellow and 'using excessive force' which is a red. The description for reckless is 'acts with disregard to or consequences for an opponent'. The description for using excessive force includes endangering the safety of an opponent. In this case I think Vassell's action fits both criteria.
I think Beaton took lack of intent into account when initially cautioning but I can fully understand why he upgraded to red after reviewing. I can also understand why appeal was dismissed. Unusually for me in this case I don't think ref, VAR or appeal board did much wrong here.

[brog]

Whether one deems this to be a red card or not, I'm firmly of the opinion that had this happened to a player who plays for The Rangers then the red card would have been overturned.

Would be interesting to see how many overturns each team in the SPFL have had.

It wouldn't have needed to be overturned, would never have been given!

[Stubbsy90+2]

Time to stick you on ignore now, absolute blether

:faf:

An announcement that you’re putting someone on ignore. Cringe.

[Stubbsy90+2]

I think that's what happened, maybe not much contact with his face but the ball of the foot was up at the height of Cabraja's cheek.

:agree:

It would have taken some level of contortion to manage to put enough force into the challenge to leave a mark on Cabrajas neck but the rest of his boot, which was at about eye level somehow never made any contact with Cabrajas face.

Regardless, the difference between neck and head isn’t all that much different when it comes to dangerous play.

[Hibbyradge]

:agree:

It would have taken some level of contortion to manage to put enough force into the challenge to leave a mark on Cabrajas neck but the rest of his boot, which was at about eye level somehow never made any contact with Cabrajas face.

Regardless, the difference between neck and head isn’t all that much different when it comes to dangerous play.

Why does this bother you so much?

[Hibbyradge]

:faf:

An announcement that you’re putting someone on ignore. Cringe.

How would you describe replying to someone who has you on ignore? :dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

How would you describe replying to someone who has you on ignore? :dunno:

Testing testing.

[Hibbyradge]

Testing testing.

Who said that?

[CropleyWasGod]

Who said that?

Someone pissing in the wind.

Take a brolly....


(oooh, that's not a proscribed word.....)

[Stonewall]

Bringing it back to the reality of Scottish football, if it happens at Ibrox, in the the rangers box, there is not the slightest chance it’s given as foul play. Isn’t that how it works? 😏

Beat me to it.

[matty_f]

:agree:

It would have taken some level of contortion to manage to put enough force into the challenge to leave a mark on Cabrajas neck but the rest of his boot, which was at about eye level somehow never made any contact with Cabrajas face.

Regardless, the difference between neck and head isn’t all that much different when it comes to dangerous play.
Is this a parody? I'm not sure if I'm having a woosh moment here or if this is genuinely happening.

[Ronster117]

Watching it at the game I thought yellow ,but after seeing it on the telly for me it’s a red all day long.
how many of these pundits would be saying not even a yellow if it had been Ryan porteuos?
when the killie player got sent off did the rangers get a penalty

[southern hibby]

His foot was head height. His studs were up and his leg was straight. It didn’t need any force to be dangerous, it was dangerous enough as it was.

So does this mean we will be taking overhead kicks out of football on these grounds?

GGTTH

[Kato]

So does this mean we will be taking overhead kicks out of football on these grounds?

GGTTHYou haven't been following the thread have you.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stubbsy90+2]

Why does this bother you so much?

There’s plenty other people have contributed loads to the thread as well, yourself included who has made the same point numerous times. So let’s not make out like I’m the only one that this ‘bothers’ 👍🏼

[Stubbsy90+2]

So does this mean we will be taking overhead kicks out of football on these grounds?

GGTTH

Why would we do that?

[Danderhall Hibs]

Why would we do that?

Low over head kicks are ok but based on the rules swinging a foot in the air is dangerous so a red card offence. As you’ve said the rules are clear.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Low over head kicks are ok but based on the rules swinging a foot in the air is dangerous so a red card offence. As you’ve said the rules are clear.

It’s not dangerous if there’s nobody around, so why would we ban them altogether as was suggested? Nobody has ever claimed that.

[Kato]

Low over head kicks are ok but based on the rules swinging a foot in the air is dangerous so a red card offence. As you’ve said the rules are clear.From hibbyradge further up the thread....

Law 12 says, "A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."

I'm struggling to see what isn't clear here. A Hibs player had a clear path to head the ball to his team-mate. The Killie player, in a rush to control the ball before the Hibs player arrived raised his foot in a dangerous manner and caught our player around the napper. A clear foul for dangerous play and the ref within his rights to give a red as that is the punishment for dangerous play. All the reasons being given for leniency don't come into it. The ref could have just given the foul and moved on but he chose not to, which is none of our business really.

We've seen Hibs players performing perfectly legal tackles, being given a red card and vilified in the press for weeks and months afterwards being shown less support by our own fans.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stubbsy90+2]

From hibbyradge further up the thread....

Law 12 says, "A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."

I'm struggling to see what isn't clear here. A Hibs player had a clear path to head the ball to his team-mate. The Killie player, in a rush to control the ball before the Hibs player arrived raised his foot in a dangerous manner and caught our player around the napper. A clear foul for dangerous play and the ref within his rights to give a red as that is the punishment for dangerous play. All the reasons being given for leniency don't come into it. The ref could have just given the foul and moved on but he chose not to, which is none of our business really.

We've seen Hibs players performing perfectly legal tackles, being given a red card and vilified in the press for weeks and months afterwards being shown less support by our own fans.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

:agree:

[Eyrie]

I'd miss the wall anyway!

In that case, if you hit the golf ball in my direction then it would be safer!

[Carheenlea]

If the game had just carried on after the yellow we would never have read or heard a single thing about the incident again.

VAR is actually putting referees more in the spotlight rather than taking them away from it which I’m not sure was the intention.

[Danderhall Hibs]

From hibbyradge further up the thread....

Law 12 says, "A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."

I'm struggling to see what isn't clear here. A Hibs player had a clear path to head the ball to his team-mate. The Killie player, in a rush to control the ball before the Hibs player arrived raised his foot in a dangerous manner and caught our player around the napper. A clear foul for dangerous play and the ref within his rights to give a red as that is the punishment for dangerous play. All the reasons being given for leniency don't come into it. The ref could have just given the foul and moved on but he chose not to, which is none of our business really.

We've seen Hibs players performing perfectly legal tackles, being given a red card and vilified in the press for weeks and months afterwards being shown less support by our own fans.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

If the rule’s to be applied as per the book (which it rarely is) then it wouldn’t be worth attempting an overhead kick as you’re unlikely to see and it stop yourself if a defender tries to challenge for the ball.

That’s all I’m struggling with. Basically if the balls above chest height never go with your foot to win the ball.

[Kato]

If the rule’s to be applied as per the book (which it rarely is) then it wouldn’t be worth attempting an overhead kick as you’re unlikely to see and it stop yourself if a defender tries to challenge for the ball.

That’s all I’m struggling with. Basically if the balls above chest height never go with your foot to win the ball.


Completely disagree.

The vast majority of players have good to excellent spacial awareness and know exactly where their opponents are in relation to themselves to the point they will know when a scissor kick is on or not. Sure accidents happen and players gamble and it doesn't come off. In fact the Killie player has gambled on controlling the ball quickly and it hasn't come off which shows he knew exactly where the Hibs player was, otherwise he'd allow the ball to drop, if he was in enough space - which he wasn't.

Space and spatial awareness are vital tools for any professional it's not a random kicking jamboree.

Sheesh



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Danderhall Hibs]

Completely disagree.

The vast majority of players have good to excellent spacial awareness and know exactly where their opponents are in relation to themselves to the point they will know when a scissor kick is on or not. Sure accidents happen and players gamble and it doesn't come off. In fact the Killie player has gambled on controlling the ball quickly and it hasn't come off which shows he knew exactly where the Hibs player was, otherwise he'd allow the ball to drop, if he was in enough space - which he wasn't.

Space and spatial awareness are vital tools for any professional it's not a random kicking jamboree.

Sheesh



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Fair point - an overhead kick though is more out of control than normal. If you’re a defender you definitely just go close to the player attempting it to get him sent off. Especially since the rules are so clear.

[Kato]

Fair point - an overhead kick though is more out of control than normal. If you’re a defender you definitely just go close to the player attempting it to get him sent off. Especially since the rules are so clear.If only it were so simple for defenders

but

It's not.

So we get in the rules...

Law 12 says, "A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."


Which is why scissor kicks are legal if the defender has failed to get close enough because it isn't dangerous play if no one is near and when a scissor kick is on it means in the split second it happens, the defender has failed to get close enough to prevent it. Just like the Killie player failed to get the ball down and under control quickly enough.

....

Not being cheeky but do the posters on here who imagine the Killie player was in the right get their football fix solely from the radio, or from behind a blindfold? Fair enough, I'm being cheeky.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

If only it were so simple for defenders

but

It's not.

So we get in the rules...

Law 12 says, "A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."


Which is why scissor kicks are legal if the defender has failed to get close enough because it isn't dangerous play if no one is near and when a scissor kick is on it means in the split second it happens, the defender has failed to get close enough to prevent it. Just like the Killie player failed to get the ball down and under control quickly enough.

....

Not being cheeky but do the posters on here who imagine the Killie player was in the right get their football fix solely from the radio, or from behind a blindfold? Fair enough, I'm being cheeky.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I don't think anyone is saying he was in the right, there is just some discussion around whether everyone agrees it's a red or not and whether Cabraja knew where the boot hit him.

[Kato]

I don't think anyone is saying he was in the right, there is just some discussion around whether everyone agrees it's a red or not and whether Cabraja knew where the boot hit him.Not going to cut and paste quotes on my phone but I did a search on the thread under "trying to control" and some posters are saying Cabraja was at fault, some are saying Cabraja wasn't in any danger and some are taking McInne's line that he was just trying to control the ball. All reasons to show the Killie player was entitled to do what he did.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Danderhall Hibs]

I thought everyone knew the rules weren’t black and white and the ref had some discretion.

I’m not fussy if the guy was sent off or not - but I would be if/when it’s a Hibs player. As I suspect some of the “that’s the rules. It’s simple” posters would be.

[Kato]

I thought everyone knew the rules weren’t black and white and the ref had some discretion.

I’m not fussy if the guy was sent off or not - but I would be if/when it’s a Hibs player. As I suspect some of the “that’s the rules. It’s simple” posters would be.Some Hibs fans would as well, the ones who don't understand the rule. ;,)

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Danderhall Hibs]

Some Hibs fans would as well, the ones who don't understand the rule. ;,)

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

:hilarious

The rules change every week, or certainly are applied differently every week.

[Kato]

:hilarious

The rules change every week, or certainly are applied differently every week.That's what happens when your club plays in a dystopian, unbalanced, footballing backwater. Byt every now and again the rules are applied properly.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

Killie will be raging - high foot, very similar to last week. Not even a foul. Mental when you consider how clear the rule is.

[B.H.F.C]

If only it were so simple for defenders

but

It's not.

So we get in the rules...

Law 12 says, "A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."


Which is why scissor kicks are legal if the defender has failed to get close enough because it isn't dangerous play if no one is near and when a scissor kick is on it means in the split second it happens, the defender has failed to get close enough to prevent it. Just like the Killie player failed to get the ball down and under control quickly enough.

....

Not being cheeky but do the posters on here who imagine the Killie player was in the right get their football fix solely from the radio, or from behind a blindfold? Fair enough, I'm being cheeky.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Is it not just that people read the rules and would apply them differently.

In this case, I would have deemed it reckless, rather than serious foul play.

“Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned“

Still acknowledges that a player was endangered, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to serious foul play.

[B.H.F.C]

Killie will be raging - high foot, very similar to last week. Not even a foul. Mental when you consider how clear the rule is.

First half of the Liverpool game, high foot on Jota when he goes for the ball with his head. Boot was head height. Foul, move on.

Watching the Killie highlights, high foot, head height, on Doidge. No free kick, mainly because the ref played advantage to be fair.

Still, that’ll be a couple of retrospective red cards given the rules are totally black and white I suppose.

[Danderhall Hibs]

First half of the Liverpool game, high foot on Jota when he goes for the ball with his head. Boot was head height. Foul, move on.

Watching the Killie highlights, high foot, head height, on Doidge. No free kick, mainly because the ref played advantage to be fair.

Still, that’ll be a couple of retrospective red cards given the rules are totally black and white I suppose.

Is the English league a dystopian backwater as well?

[Donegal Hibby]

Killie will be raging - high foot, very similar to last week. Not even a foul. Mental when you consider how clear the rule is.
Was watching highlights of killie game and didn't see the high foot on doidge in it , did his foot make contact with doidge ? High foot in Liverpool game but no contact imo .
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/competitions/scottish-football/12819832/kilmarnock-1-1-motherwell-scottish-premiership-highlights

[Spike Mandela]

Jeez, if it bothers some folk so much, start a petition and spend the rest of the season campaigning to get the Killie red card rescinded.

Let the rest of us move on.:rolleyes:

[greenlex]

Terrible VAR intervention once again in the battle of the saints today. Have these people ever played the game. I’m not even sure that’s a yellow. The guy has the ball under control and it’s the St Mirren boy that challenges him. Where’s he meant to put his foot? Terrible decision.

[Donegal Hibby]

Terrible VAR intervention once again in the battle of the saints today. Have these people ever played the game. I’m not even sure that’s a yellow. The guy has the ball under control and it’s the St Mirren boy that challenges him. Where’s he meant to put his foot? Terrible decision.
I'm sorry G but for me that's a red card . Dangerous play imo.
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12819988/st-johnstone-1-1-st-mirren-scottish-premiership-highlights

[greenlex]

I'm sorry G but for me that's a red card . Dangerous play imo.
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12819988/st-johnstone-1-1-st-mirren-scottish-premiership-highlights

In what way is that dangerous. He has the ball and isn’t out of control and not in the least bit forceful. It’s unfortunate the challenger is hurt but it’s no fault of his. No wonder he looks bewildered. By the letter of the law the challenger is more the out of control dangerous one. It’s a farce VAR got involved and I’ll say it again I don’t even think it’s a yellow never mind red. How can two officials get it wrong?

[BILLYHIBS]

In what way is that dangerous. He has the ball and isn’t out of control and not in the least bit forceful. It’s unfortunate the challenger is hurt but it’s no fault of his. No wonder he looks bewildered. By the letter of the law the challenger is more the out of control danger.ours one. It’s a farce VAR got involved and I’ll say it again I don’t even think it’s a yellow never mind red. How can two officials get it wrong?

Agreed with you last week G but his leg seemed to buckle under a straight legged stand - red card

[Danderhall Hibs]

Jeez, if it bothers some folk so much, start a petition and spend the rest of the season campaigning to get the Killie red card rescinded.

Let the rest of us move on.:rolleyes:

I don’t want it rescinded but to move on we need to see everyone committing these fouls red carded don’t we?

Also a bit worrying that for such a simple rule there’s so much confusion and inconsistency.

[Donegal Hibby]

In what way is that dangerous. He has the ball and isn’t out of control and not in the least bit forceful. It’s unfortunate the challenger is hurt but it’s no fault of his. No wonder he looks bewildered. By the letter of the law the challenger is more the out of control danger.ours one. It’s a farce VAR got involved and I’ll say it again I don’t even think it’s a yellow never mind red. How can two officials get it wrong?
St mirren guys actually got to the ball before the st Johnstone player whose came down on the boys ankle area ,you can see his ankle bending on the force . Imo he hasn't the ball and is out of control the way he's came at the st mirren player , it's forceful and could have broke the boys ankle which makes it dangerous play and redcard is the right call once again imo.

[greenlex]

St mirren guys actually got to the ball before the st Johnstone player whose came down on the boys ankle area ,you can see his ankle bending on the force . Imo he hasn't the ball and is out of control the way he's came at the st mirren player , it's forceful and could have broke the boys ankle which makes it dangerous play and redcard is the right call once again imo.
Nah. Not for me. The guys has control and is shielding the ball. The challenger gets hurt no doubt but it not studs up and certainly not high and the force cones from the challenger. He’s no where to put his foot. We would be better off just saying don’t lift yer leg higher than 12 inches or outlawing any challenges to protect players.

[matty_f]

Jeez, if it bothers some folk so much, start a petition and spend the rest of the season campaigning to get the Killie red card rescinded.

Let the rest of us move on.:rolleyes:

I don't want the card rescinded, I've already said I can understand why the ref went for a red card and while I didn't think it warranted one, I have no issue with because you could see how it's interpreted as a red and ultimately the referee had to make that call.

You want to see it applied consistently though, especially if the rules are as clear as is being made out on this thread.

[Donegal Hibby]

Nah. Not for me. The guys has control and is shielding the ball. The challenger gets hurt no doubt but it not studs up and certainly not high and the force cones from the challenger. He’s no where to put his foot. We would be better off just saying don’t lift yer leg higher than 12 inches or outlawing any challenges to protect players.
I don't think he had control or was shielding the ball as it's the st mirren player who gets the last touch of the ball ( you can clearly see this by the direction the ball goes ). In the split second the st mirren player gets the ball , the st Johnstone player comes down on the st mirren players ankle with his studs and his ankle bends with the force . It's late and dangerous and could have done far worse damage to the player. For me both killies and St Johnstone's red card's are correct decisions as they could have badly injured the two players who were hurt .

[matty_f]

I don't think he had control or was shielding the ball as it's the st mirren player who gets the last touch of the ball ( you can clearly see this by the direction the ball goes ). In the split second the st mirren player gets the ball , the st Johnstone player comes down on the st mirren players ankle with his studs and his ankle bends with the force . It's late and dangerous and could have done far worse damage to the player. For me both killies and St Johnstone's red card's are correct decisions as they could have badly injured the two players who were hurt .

I do have sympathy for the St Johnstone player but I tend to agree with you that the red card is the right decision.

[Danderhall Hibs]

I don’t want it rescinded but to move on we need to see everyone committing these fouls red carded don’t we?

Also a bit worrying that for such a simple rule there’s so much confusion and inconsistency.

Killie not happy about this and the former ref guy thinks they’re wrong. Very inconsistent application of this law or are they consistent with the outlier being the red card the Killie guy got vs us?
https://twitter.com/scotlandsky/status/1647920842188128256?s=42&t=di1pnAcoIv_EkIb3XJMv_w

[Trinity Hibee]

Killie not happy about this and the former ref guy thinks they’re wrong. Very inconsistent application of this law or are they consistent with the outlier being the red card the Killie guy got vs us?
https://twitter.com/scotlandsky/status/1647920842188128256?s=42&t=di1pnAcoIv_EkIb3XJMv_w

Of course it’s inconsistent. It involves one of the OF.

There is zero consistency in refereeing decisions now often even within the same game.

[Tyler Durden]

Killie not happy about this and the former ref guy thinks they’re wrong. Very inconsistent application of this law or are they consistent with the outlier being the red card the Killie guy got vs us?
https://twitter.com/scotlandsky/status/1647920842188128256?s=42&t=di1pnAcoIv_EkIb3XJMv_w

I think McInness looks a bit daft but he must be exasperated. His position was that the Killie player at Easter Road should not have been sent off - a view most of us agree with.

Yesterday's challenge by Oh was very similar. Not a red card either but very interesting to compare and wonder why there is one outcome for a Celtic player and a different one for a Killie player?

Your last line is spot on. The outlier was the ridiculous VAR intervention (and Beaton backing it) to red card Vassell at Easter Rd.

[matty_f]

I think McInness looks a bit daft but he must be exasperated. His position was that the Killie player at Easter Road should not have been sent off - a view most of us agree with.

Yesterday's challenge by Oh was very similar. Not a red card either but very interesting to compare and wonder why there is one outcome for a Celtic player and a different one for a Killie player?

Your last line is spot on. The outlier was the ridiculous VAR intervention (and Beaton backing it) to red card Vassell at Easter Rd.

There were folk on here who thought it was absurd that people didn’t think Vassell’s was a red card, that it was obvious and inarguably a red card.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Killie not happy about this and the former ref guy thinks they’re wrong. Very inconsistent application of this law or are they consistent with the outlier being the red card the Killie guy got vs us?
https://twitter.com/scotlandsky/status/1647920842188128256?s=42&t=di1pnAcoIv_EkIb3XJMv_w

Should be a red all day imo and I’m not surprised he’s pissed off. It’s against the Old Firm though which probably explains why they never got it.

[Danderhall Hibs]

I think McInness looks a bit daft but he must be exasperated. His position was that the Killie player at Easter Road should not have been sent off - a view most of us agree with.

Yesterday's challenge by Oh was very similar. Not a red card either but very interesting to compare and wonder why there is one outcome for a Celtic player and a different one for a Killie player?

Your last line is spot on. The outlier was the ridiculous VAR intervention (and Beaton backing it) to red card Vassell at Easter Rd.

I don’t think he looks daft as he’s just asking for the rule to be applied the same way. They appealed the red and were kbd.

Would be interesting to see if Dermot G was asked to comment on the one vs us.

[Donegal Hibby]

Should be a red all day imo and I’m not surprised he’s pissed off. It’s against the Old Firm though which probably explains why they never got it.
Agree , thought the killie one against us was a red card , and the Celtic one too . Celtic and Sevco will generally get away with it imo . Morelos stamp on Porto's leg was a classic example .

[Tyler Durden]

I don’t think he looks daft as he’s just asking for the rule to be applied the same way. They appealed the red and were kbd.

Would be interesting to see if Dermot G was asked to comment on the one vs us.

You're right. I'd seen a shorter clip where McInnes said "I do believe it's a red card". But I see now he said basically that if Vassell's was a red then so is Oh's.

Two wrongs don't make a right of course :greengrin