Hamilton Appeal

[Rumble de Thump]

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

[Stonewall]

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

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

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

[hibbysam]

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

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

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

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

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

[B.H.F.C]

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

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

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

[Alfred E Newman]

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

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

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

[B.H.F.C]

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

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

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

[we are hibs]

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

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[mcohibs]

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

[B.H.F.C]

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

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

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

[1van Sprou7e]

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

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

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Emm yes you can

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

[hibbysam]

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

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

‘ SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.’

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

[Eyrie]

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

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

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

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

[B.H.F.C]

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

‘ SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.’

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

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

[hibbysam]

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

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

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

[B.H.F.C]

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

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

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

[hibbysam]

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

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

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

[B.H.F.C]

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

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

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

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

[hibbysam]

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

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

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

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

[GreenCastle]

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

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

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

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

[B.H.F.C]

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

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

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

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

[hibbysam]

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

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

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

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

[Eyrie]

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

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

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

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

We'll need to agree to differ on that.

[B.H.F.C]

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

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

We'll need to agree to differ on that.

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

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

[ancient hibee]

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

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

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

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

[B.H.F.C]

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

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

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

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

[Jim44]

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

[CMurdoch]

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

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

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

[SChibs]

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

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

[hibbysam]

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

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

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

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

[Onion]

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

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

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

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

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

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