Hamilton Appeal

**Highwayman** · 23-02-2021 02:10 PM

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I’m getting a feeling that this red card could be rescinded.

**MWHIBBIES** · 23-02-2021 02:11 PM

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

**SaulGoodman** · 23-02-2021 02:15 PM

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

Get it up them

**Highwayman** · 23-02-2021 02:27 PM

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

**1van Sprou7e** · 23-02-2021 02:43 PM

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

***Alfred E Newman*** · 23-02-2021 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by 1van Sprou7e

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

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

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

***green day*** · 23-02-2021 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by 1van Sprou7e

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

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

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

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

**maturehibby** · 23-02-2021 03:05 PM

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

**MWHIBBIES** · 23-02-2021 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by maturehibby

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

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

When did Ryan last do something like that?

***Keyser Sauzee*** · 23-02-2021 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by MWHIBBIES

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

When did Ryan last do something like that?

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

***Jack*** · 23-02-2021 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by 1van Sprou7e

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

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

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

***Aldo*** · 23-02-2021 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by 1van Sprou7e

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**CMurdoch** · 23-02-2021 04:57 PM

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

**ancient hibee** · 23-02-2021 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Aldo

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

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

***Aldo*** · 23-02-2021 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

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

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**DH1875** · 23-02-2021 06:50 PM

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

***Jim44*** · 23-02-2021 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by DH1875

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

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

Probably.

***tamig*** · 23-02-2021 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Aldo

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

**MrRobot** · 23-02-2021 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by DH1875

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

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

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

**1van Sprou7e** · 23-02-2021 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by MrRobot

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

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

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

***Kojock*** · 23-02-2021 07:50 PM

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

***bigwheel*** · 23-02-2021 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Kojock

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

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

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

***green day*** · 23-02-2021 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by MrRobot

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

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

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

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

**ballengeich** · 23-02-2021 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by 1van Sprou7e

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

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

I don't understand how a still can prove there was no contact.

***Aldo*** · 23-02-2021 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Kojock

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***Aldo*** · 23-02-2021 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by tamig

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

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

That’s what I was thinking!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***Heisenberg*** · 24-02-2021 09:45 AM

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

**ancient hibee** · 24-02-2021 09:48 AM

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

***weecounty hibby*** · 24-02-2021 09:51 AM

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

**we are hibs** · 24-02-2021 09:52 AM

It really wasnt that bad a challenge.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Thread: Hamilton Appeal

Thread Tools

Display

Hamilton Appeal

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions