Compliance on Power

[ian1964 10,724]

 

[Briton 314]

On 13/02/2019 at 09:50, MacK1950 said:

If it had been Morelos the red card would have been out before the opposing fell after the tackle.

Looks like a couple on here are succumbing to the all Rangers do is bad scenario by trying to defend that tackle.

Some of us are able to look at things in isolation and in the cold  light of day, unaffected by  Timification.  I have little doubt Alfredo Morelos would have been sent off for the same challenge but that doesn't change my view on Power's offence.

[craig 5,199]

17 hours ago, pete said:

-You see that is where I differ from you, I don't think he knew jack was there, Don't forget he was sprinting forward trying to judge where the ball was coming and lifted his leg to try and control the ball. We see people controlling or trying to control balls like that regularly. Just as a matter of interest. Is head height judged by Tommy McLean's height or Joe Worrels.

It doesn't matter if he knew whether Jack was there or not.  He is raising his foot well above head height and he has to have an inkling that he won't be trying for the ball unchallenged.  It is reckless AND it is dangerous. He wasn't sprinting forward at all, that's nonsense.  That ball had bounced up and he came to it, knew he wouldn't get there with his head so used his foot.  Argue it all you want, and I will argue all day long that he was reckless and dangerous.

 

Your "Tommy McLean" quote shows just how blinkered you are here.  Power is no midget yet his foot is higher than even his own head.  Jack is no midget yet Power's foot is higher than his head too.  If his foot height was measured I would say it is higher than 6 ft off the ground - hardly "Tommy McLean" territory - and merely is making you a Power apologist.

[craig 5,199]

17 hours ago, pete said:

If that is the new rule and it isn't open to interpretation then the Ref and me are wrong. Simple!

It isn't a new rule.  It's been around for a while.  Yes, you and the ref are wrong.

[craig 5,199]

13 hours ago, pete said:

Just watched it again. As straight as a die and at knee height. If we want everyone to be honest we have to be honest ourselves. This was a red all the way.

You clearly aren't being objective here.  McGregor;s challenge was NOT at knee height - that is pure fabrication.  He hit Ferguson when his leg was at its highest point, and it was on the shin.  Last I checked the shin was below the knee.

 

You're having an absolute nightmare in this thread pete.

[craig 5,199]

4 hours ago, pete said:

Eyes are great but you are now arguing semantics. I suppose the SFA will have a memo out that it is okay to break someone's legs as long as they hit the shin guards.

Except it isn't semantics.  Only Rangers haters would argue that McGregor hit him "on the knee".  It isn't semantics just because you are so clearly wrong.

[craig 5,199]

4 hours ago, pete said:

To put it straight it was a potentially leg breaking challenge and worthy of red. Your interpretation may be otherwise but the fact is he has a two match ban.

Yet you are perfectly happy with a "potentially face breaking challenge" on one of our own players ?  Aye pete, as I said, you are having a nightmare here.

 

You are happy for McGregor to see red (fair enough) - and using "potentially leg breaking" as a reason for the red.... but likewise believe Power was correct to see yellow in a challenge that was very close to smashing Jack's face in.  

 

I'm not sure whether to consider your posts in this thread as parody posts or if you actually believe the guff you are coming away with.

[ian1964 10,724]

 

[pete 2,499]

11 hours ago, craig said:

It doesn't matter if he knew whether Jack was there or not.  He is raising his foot well above head height and he has to have an inkling that he won't be trying for the ball unchallenged.  It is reckless AND it is dangerous. He wasn't sprinting forward at all, that's nonsense.  That ball had bounced up and he came to it, knew he wouldn't get there with his head so used his foot.  Argue it all you want, and I will argue all day long that he was reckless and dangerous.

 

Your "Tommy McLean" quote shows just how blinkered you are here.  Power is no midget yet his foot is higher than even his own head.  Jack is no midget yet Power's foot is higher than his head too.  If his foot height was measured I would say it is higher than 6 ft off the ground - hardly "Tommy McLean" territory - and merely is making you a Power apologist.

I see my humour flew past you re Mclean and Worrel.? I said it was dangerous play from the beginning that is not my argument. Dangerous play is normally a yellow but it seems now in the rule book that a high kick is red. if that is true then it should have been a red. I personally don't think it deserves a red but i am old school. Get up and get on with it.

[craig 5,199]

14 hours ago, pete said:

I see my humour flew past you re Mclean and Worrel.? I said it was dangerous play from the beginning that is not my argument. Dangerous play is normally a yellow but it seems now in the rule book that a high kick is red. if that is true then it should have been a red. I personally don't think it deserves a red but i am old school. Get up and get on with it.

Must have been a "whoosh" moment for me pete

 

My real issue with you over this is that of consistency.  You think this is yellow but McGregor is red.  Should Ferguson not also have just "got up and got on with it" ?

 

I see little difference between the potential severity of the challenges - although Power's had the higher potential to cause severe injury - a broken leg wouldn't be as bad (or with as potentially severe consequences" as a fractured skull.