Tackle on David Gray

[wookie70]

Just watched some of the first half yesterday on Hibs TV. At the game I thought the tackle on Gray was a straight red. Seeing it again it is far worse that I thought. A real nasty high tackle.

Untitled-1.jpg

[Canon Hannan]

Think the lad is Daniel. Recognise him from youth football and only 18. Aberdeen youth if I am right. Accidental probably.

[JimBHibees]

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

Just watched some of the first half yesterday on Hibs TV. At the game I thought the tackle on Gray was a straight red. Seeing it again it is far worse that I thought. A real nasty high tackle.

Untitled-1.jpg

Complete leg breaker summed up the ref when he didn't give what was deserved.

[wookie70]

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

Think the lad is Daniel. Recognise him from youth football and only 18. Aberdeen youth if I am right. Accidental probably.

I'm sure SDG would agree that it was accidental. Daniel Harvey the offender

[glenn6270]

Boy should have been sent off shocking tackle

[wookie70]

SDG got hit on the mid way point of his shin and he already had his foot 6 inches off the ground. The ball was around a yard away when Harvey made contact. One thing is sure it was a good deal worse than the two Bartley reds or the McGinn one

[emerald green]

Potential leg breaker. Referee should have done his job properly and sent the Dumbarton player straight off. I wish the referee was allowed to explain why he decided not to do so.

[fishybeaver]

Shocking tackle!!! Last thing we need is more injuries with McGinn, Harris, Kettings etc already side lined, that's a fair chunk off a squad there, ref's need to step up and protect the players.

[CentreLine]

Phew!!!

I thought I was going to have to report this thread when I saw the title

[Leithenhibby]

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

Potential leg breaker. Referee should have done his job properly and sent the Dumbarton player straight off. I wish the referee was allowed to explain why he decided not to do so.

I'd love to hear the Refs explain some of their decisions....

[emerald green]

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

I'd love to hear the Refs explain some of their decisions....

Can anyone explain why referees are not allowed to do this after a match? Even after two or three days perhaps, to allow time for review and reflection.

What's the thinking and / or logic behind not allowing referees to speak after matches? Is there any?

[easty]

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

Can anyone explain why referees are not allowed to do this after a match? Even after two or three days perhaps, to allow time for review and reflection.

What's the thinking and / or logic behind not allowing referees to speak after matches? Is there any?

What would be the point?

[Danderhall Hibs]

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

What would be the point?

To tell us all why we're wrong and they were right? Stick it under education.

[emerald green]

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

What would be the point?

It's not going to change the result of the match, that's for sure. But I would ask the same question in reverse. What's the point in not allowing referees to explain why they made certain decisions? If there's nothing to hide, what's the problem?

It might settle arguments, give clarity, and lessons may be learned to avoid mistakes being made in future.

[easty]

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

It's not going to change the result of the match, that's for sure. But I would ask the same question in reverse. What's the point in not allowing referees to explain why they made certain decisions? If there's nothing to hide, what's the problem?

It might settle arguments, give clarity, and lessons may be learned to avoid mistakes being made in future.

It wouldn't benefit anyone. When a referee makes a mistake, or cheats, whatever you want to call it, then if they're asked to explain themselves later what do you think they'd say?

They get a penalty decision wrong, they say - "in real time, from my angle, it looked a foul, having watched it back, I was wrong, I apologise"

They get a hand ball wrong - "in real time, from my angle, it looked like it didn't touch his hand, having watched it back, I was wrong, I apologise"

They give a yellow for a shocker of a tackle - "in real time, from my angle, it looked like a yellow card offence, having watched it back, I was wrong, I apologise"

It wouldn't settle any arguments, it wouldn't mean they would be a better ref in the future either.

[hibsforeurope]

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

Just watched some of the first half yesterday on Hibs TV. At the game I thought the tackle on Gray was a straight red. Seeing it again it is far worse that I thought. A real nasty high tackle.

Untitled-1.jpg

I'm sure it was the same player who had the earlier late tackle on SDG in the Hibs half, at the very least the tackle mentioned should have been a second yellow. How Harvey stayed on the pitch was beyond me, he had fouls before and after this that went unpunished. If this was a Hibs player it's lmost certain he would have been off.

[where'stheslope]

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

Can anyone explain why referees are not allowed to do this after a match? Even after two or three days perhaps, to allow time for review and reflection.

What's the thinking and / or logic behind not allowing referees to speak after matches? Is there any?

The last referee to come out after a game and talk to the media was Bill Crombie who is from Edinburgh.

The end of the same season the referees put it to a vote at the Old Course Hotel in St. Andrews to speak out after games, it was unanimously rejected by them!

And ever since the veil of silence is only broken by phone calls to apologise to the Uglies for wrong calls!!!!

[emerald green]

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

It wouldn't benefit anyone. When a referee makes a mistake, or cheats, whatever you want to call it, then if they're asked to explain themselves later what do you think they'd say?

They get a penalty decision wrong, they say - "in real time, from my angle, it looked a foul, having watched it back, I was wrong, I apologise"

They get a hand ball wrong - "in real time, from my angle, it looked like it didn't touch his hand, having watched it back, I was wrong, I apologise"

They give a yellow for a shocker of a tackle - "in real time, from my angle, it looked like a yellow card offence, having watched it back, I was wrong, I apologise"

It wouldn't settle any arguments, it wouldn't mean they would be a better ref in the future either.

All of the above assumptions according to you, and your crystal ball?

I just don't see what's wrong with hearing what the referee has to say, even if it is only to admit he got a decision wrong. Or actually got it right, as the case may be. What's wrong with transparency?

If evidence could also be produced to clearly show if a decision was correct or incorrect, so much the better. I can't see how this wouldn't help to settle any arguments.

We clearly disagree. No big deal.

[emerald green]

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

The last referee to come out after a game and talk to the media was Bill Crombie who is from Edinburgh.

The end of the same season the referees put it to a vote at the Old Course Hotel in St. Andrews to speak out after games, it was unanimously rejected by them!

And ever since the veil of silence is only broken by phone calls to apologise to the Uglies for wrong calls!!!!

That's ringing vague bells. Do you know what their reason(s) was?

[where'stheslope]

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

That's ringing vague bells. Do you know what their reason(s) was?

It was intimated that in some instances they would not feel safe leaving some grounds after speaking out.

[Green Badger]

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

I'm sure it was the same player who had the earlier late tackle on SDG in the Hibs half, at the very least the tackle mentioned should have been a second yellow. How Harvey stayed on the pitch was beyond me, he had fouls before and after this that went unpunished. If this was a Hibs player it's lmost certain he would have been off.

Agree. I reckon the only reason he wasn't booked for the 1st half tackle was because it was quite early in the game. Not sure why certain refs think that way, if the tackle deserves a yellow or red it should be given at whatever point in the game the offence takes place.

[West lower]

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

It wouldn't benefit anyone. When a referee makes a mistake, or cheats, whatever you want to call it, then if they're asked to explain themselves later what do you think they'd say?

They get a penalty decision wrong, they say - "in real time, from my angle, it looked a foul, having watched it back, I was wrong, I apologise"

They get a hand ball wrong - "in real time, from my angle, it looked like it didn't touch his hand, having watched it back, I was wrong, I apologise"

They give a yellow for a shocker of a tackle - "in real time, from my angle, it looked like a yellow card offence, having watched it back, I was wrong, I apologise"

It wouldn't settle any arguments, it wouldn't mean they would be a better ref in the future either.

Yes, but if he had to say that every Saturday after a game, and continually be shown to be a bias erse, even the most bias referee would start to get a red neck.

[JimBHibees]

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

It was intimated that in some instances they would not feel safe leaving some grounds after speaking out.

The SFA used to have a section on their website called whistleblower where refs would explain on the Monday after a game their reasoning for big decisions. Was a great idea and no idea why it wasnt continued. Their lack of accountability and responsibility really is a joke and IMO lends to the arrogant self important attitude some of them seem to take into games. It seems refs can commit atrocious decisions over and over without any real monitoring or accountability. They really dont help themselves.

[where'stheslope]

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

The SFA used to have a section on their website called whistleblower where refs would explain on the Monday after a game their reasoning for big decisions. Was a great idea and no idea why it wasnt continued. Their lack of accountability and responsibility really is a joke and IMO lends to the arrogant self important attitude some of them seem to take into games. It seems refs can commit atrocious decisions over and over without any real monitoring or accountability. They really dont help themselves.

Totally agree!

What makes it all the more galling is the amount of money paid for part-time work?

£800+ expenses and do not seem to be accountable to anyone!

If a player makes a mistake its yellow or red cards, if referee makes a mistake "he's only human"???

Why don't the SFA or SPFL publish the reports on games made by Supervisors in the stand at every game?????

[emerald green]

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

The SFA used to have a section on their website called whistleblower where refs would explain on the Monday after a game their reasoning for big decisions. Was a great idea and no idea why it wasnt continued. Their lack of accountability and responsibility really is a joke and IMO lends to the arrogant self important attitude some of them seem to take into games. It seems refs can commit atrocious decisions over and over without any real monitoring or accountability. They really dont help themselves.

Surely giving referees the facility to explain decisions is in the public interest, not least because it could promote a better understanding of the game and make people better informed on the laws of the game?

I'm not suggesting they give explanations for contentious decisions immediately after games. Maybe 48 hours after the game to allow time for review?

As you say, they and /or whoever is responsible for such matters don't help themselves.