McCoist Shocked By Aluko Ban

[Gazza_8 233]

It always looks like less contact on telly and players are castigated for lying in agony at what looked like a mild contact - however I've seen loads of guys be injured for weeks at 5-a-side for something innocuous looking at close quarters and it's happened to me too.

 

Rugby players get battered a lot more than a footballer but they pick themselves up and play on. It's emabarrasing watching footballers when the roll about the grass when there was little or no contact.

[calscot 0]

Rugby players get battered a lot more than a footballer but they pick themselves up and play on. It's emabarrasing watching footballers when the roll about the grass when there was little or no contact.

 

I take it you haven't played both sports?

 

Firstly, didn't Aluko pick himself up immediately?

 

Secondly, Rugby players are not allowed to kick each other, they tackle each other with arms - a massive difference. Would you rather be tackled or kicked? I've also seen loads of rugby players receive extensive treatment and taken off the park.

 

A player who rolls about with no pain is embarrassing but how often is that the case? Like I said, it doesn't take that much from a kick to cause two minutes of intense pain. Has that NEVER happened to you. Not only that, but as I said things can look much less from a distance or on a telephoto lens. I thought Broadfoot on Valencia was tame at first viewing, yet he had a nasty compound fracture...

 

Do you think Niasmith is faking a season ending injury - after all, he received no contact at all...

 

I don't disagree that some players make more of it than is necessary to either try and get a foul or some medical attention.

[Gazza_8 233]

I take it you haven't played both sports?

 

I played Rugby up until I was 12 and played football competitively up until I was 22. Also, I played hockey for a few years. Nothing worse than being hit on the ankle with a hockey stick. Yowzer!

 

Firstly, didn't Aluko pick himself up immediately?

 

Yeah, he did. After he went down like he'd been shot. Hutton was terrible for it as was Ricksen. Lafferty is another Rangers player who likes to fake injury.

 

Secondly, Rugby players are not allowed to kick each other, they tackle each other with arms - a massive difference. Would you rather be tackled or kicked? I've also seen loads of rugby players receive extensive treatment and taken off the park.

 

I'd rather be kicked by a footballer than tackled by a rugby player.

 

You've just backed up my point though. When a rugby player receives treatment it's because they're injured. When a footballer goes down rolling about the deck you never know what's going to happen. More often than not said player gets back up, limps for about 5 seconds then is fine again.

 

A player who rolls about with no pain is embarrassing but how often is that the case?

 

You get at least one a game, maybe two.

 

Do you think Niasmith is faking a season ending injury - after all, he received no contact at all...

 

I won't insult you're intelligence by answering that.

 

It's the footballers themselves who are ruining our game along with FIFA.

[craig 5,199]

I am genuinely torn with one question on this :

 

Is it really a dive when a player goes to ground but doesnt appeal for a foul or penalty ?

 

I didnt think that Aluko claimed for a foul so in my rather primitive mind I dont see that as simulation or diving. Surely in order for it to be simulation/diving the player needs to be ATTEMPTING to gain an advantage. If Aluko doesnt actually claim for the foul (which hit didnt look like he was doing... he accepted the advantage when given but NO player would refuse a penalty....) then I dont really see it as simulation.

 

Happy for someone to provide clarity for me.

[Zappa 0]

I've seen far more obvious dives and acts of simulation go completely unpunished so far this season Craig and that's the bottom line for me when it comes to talking about the incident and consistency (or lack of it as the case me be). If Aluko did dive then he's quite good at it because it's pretty difficult to say for sure either way. From some replay angles it looks like a dive, but from others it really doesn't. The ref saw the incident in real-time from a much closer range than the replays show us and the tribunal agreed there was contact, so as far as I'm concerned the decision by the SFA to retrospectively ban Aluko for simulation is completely and utterly farcical. It's fucking out of order and while I generally don't hold grudges, this will NOT be forgotten.

[GovanAllan 0]

If you watch the clip from the same angle as the ref in real time and you only have one look you would give the pen. The ref can see Hardies arm coming out to grab Alukos arm.

[Guest Dutchy]

It's definately all this going over TV pictures with a fine tooth comb that gets everyone so excited.

 

The fact the SFA are using TV pictures to 'retrospectatively' make decisions on whether it was or was not whatever is being disscussed seems to go against the FIFA's dictact that TV picture will not be used during a match, as it puts poorer countries, clubs and leagues at an unfair disadvantage, due to their lack of recording equipment.

 

Does 'retrospective' TV pictures not come under the same criteria???

 

SFA should just tell the crooks in FIFA to go feck themselves and just use live TV pictures to stop all this BS. Then we can find something else for the journo's to get us wound up about.

[Gazza_8 233]

If you watch the clip from the same angle as the ref in real time and you only have one look you would give the pen. The ref can see Hardies arm coming out to grab Alukos arm.

 

But did he actually grab it? The ref can't help it if his view is blocked but the all these other TV angles we're hearing about should've made it clear one way or another.

[der Berliner 4,165]

But did he actually grab it? The ref can't help it if his view is blocked but the all these other TV angles we're hearing about should've made it clear one way or another.

 

Haven't we (actually: you) not seen all angles by now? Do the panel also look at the inciednt the ref apparently missed when he was fouled beforehand?

 

Don't get me wrong here. It was one of those penalty decisions. Some are given, some are not. All over the planet. But here, they went into overdrive over a foul / non-foul like there is no tomorrow. Aluko was called officially a "diver" and sentenced long before he was in there with the panel. And you can bet your bottom dollar, euro or pound that you will see half a dozen such fouls tomorrow too and nothing will happen at all. For if they would judge them all, half the SPL would have no players at one stage or another. It is a farce.

[GovanAllan 0]

But did he actually grab it? The ref can't help it if his view is blocked but the all these other TV angles we're hearing about should've made it clear one way or another.

 

Probably brushed it but he's got a split second to call it. But then the Panel agree with the ref that contact was made but that Aluko dived.

 

I take it one of the panel must be an expert in the human body and physics, as they must know how much force it takes to make a man fall who is travelling at a certain speed on a wet surface.

 

Hears a thought I was sitting almost directly in line with the pen about 20 yards away I said pen straight away one mate agreed two didn't kind of sums the whole debate up.

Edited December 9, 2011 by GovanAllan