craig 5,199 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I still find it absolutely incredulous that Loovens tried to defend that ! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,613 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Hard helmet time...... If I were McDonald I would be disappointed to get a ban. Yes he came sliding in, but he got the ball. You can clearly see that his foot catches the turf and there is simply no saying that the momentum of the slide, plus the foot catching the turf, could cause his foot to jolt up off the ground causing the collision. If that's the case, it's still a dangerous and reckless challenge. Nobody can say for sure what virtually anyone's intentions are but you can see the result and the Dundee Utd player was very lucky. How anyone can say there is no case to answer is beyond me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I still find it absolutely incredulous that Loovens tried to defend that ! It's annoying, but there's no way he was going to tell the truth which would've been something like:- "I completely misjudged the challenge & when I realized he was beating me to the ball, I decided to try & hurt him badly. That's when I changed my direction mid challenge. You can see it in the replay. I would normally apologize for deliberately trying to hurt another player, but in this case it was a Rangers player & I will always try to hurt Rangers players if I think I have the opportunity". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 If that's the case, it's still a dangerous and reckless challenge. Nobody can say for sure what virtually anyone's intentions are but you can see the result and the Dundee Utd player was very lucky. How anyone can say there is no case to answer is beyond me. He won the ball. He actually got the ball before any challenge was made by either player. How is it reckless when he got the ball almost a yard before Wilkie got to the tackle ? If you cant say for sure what the intentions are then surely the benefit should be given to McDonald ? In Loovens case the intention was clear. I don't think it was in McDonald's case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Rangers could actually make some noise about these decisions. The challenge by Loovens definitely deserved at least the same punishment as Lafferty's simulation, given that Lafferty admitted the mistake & apologized while Loovens denied any malicious intent & was found guilty. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 It's annoying, but there's no way he was going to tell the truth which would've been something like:- "I completely misjudged the challenge & when I realized he was beating me to the ball, I decided to try & hurt him badly. That's when I changed my direction mid challenge. You can see it in the replay. I would normally apologize for deliberately trying to hurt another player, but in this case it was a Rangers player & I will always try to hurt Rangers players if I think I have the opportunity". But Loovens wasnt getting beat to the ball. He won the ball and AFTER he cleared it he had a go at Edu. I do know what you are saying though. But what he should have done was just keep his mouth shut. He was trying to con the disciplinary committee. Should be held in contempt ! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 But Loovens wasnt getting beat to the ball. He won the ball and AFTER he cleared it he had a go at Edu. My mistake. It's ages since I saw the replay. In that case then, it was essentially an off the ball incident & tantamount to assault. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,613 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 He won the ball. He actually got the ball before any challenge was made by either player. How is it reckless when he got the ball almost a yard before Wilkie got to the tackle ? If you cant say for sure what the intentions are then surely the benefit should be given to McDonald ? In Loovens case the intention was clear. I don't think it was in McDonald's case. Yes, he won the ball and then he followed through and aimed for the guy's knee. You seem to be suggesting that if you win the ball it gives you carte blanche to follow through in any way you want because it it's impossible to say for sure what his intentions were. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Yes, he won the ball and then he followed through and aimed for the guy's knee. You seem to be suggesting that if you win the ball it gives you carte blanche to follow through in any way you want because it it's impossible to say for sure what his intentions were. I made what I felt was a pretty valid explanation as to why his foot may have sprung off the turf the way it did. And the emphasis, for me at least, in your post is the word "want" - I don't believe that McDonald "wanted" his foot to spring off the turf and hit Wilkie knee-high. Given that you have agreed that we don't know what his intentions were how on earth can you determine he "aimed" for Wilkie's knee. "Aiming" requires for their to be intent. And that is what I am trying to get at. I don't think that he intended for his foot to make contact with Wilkie's knee. He had won the ball, he couldn't control his forward motion given he was sliding on what looked like a wet pitch - so why shouldn't he be given the benefit of the doubt ? I think this is one where you and I will ultimately agree to disagree. Funny though.... the disciplinary committee appear to agree with me 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,613 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 How do you know what Loovens' intentions were? You can't say for sure and you can always make up excuses...as Loovens has attempted to do. I've said what i believe happened. You have tried to come up with another explanation. I don't believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt because he put in a potentially very dangerous challenge in his follow-through. Surely you don't believe that the fact that an SFA committee agrees with you gives your argument more weight? As you say, we'll need to agree to disagree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.