pete 2,499 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, craig said: If he can't head it then he needs to let Jack win it - it is not a defence to say "I couldn't get my head to it but I could launch my foot at it, above head height, and possibly win the ball". That would, for me, be excessive force (particularly given the ball is above head height - above head height and nobody realistically should be using their foot. Excessive force is a red card offence. The height of the ball should in itself dictate whether Power a) tries to header it (he cant as he knows Jack is closer and will get their first or b) let Jack win it (which is what he should have done) or c) do what he did, which was the worst of the 3 options and the one which could have caused serious injury. If that type of challenge is to be "rewarded" with just a yellow then we need to throw the rulebook out and start again. If McGregor is getting a two game ban for potentially injuring Ferguson (lets say, worse case scenario, he could have broken his leg - ignore that McGregor was defending himself) but Power gets a yellow for a challenge which could, easily, have fractured Jack's skull and ended his career, then the rules really are moronic. -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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 5 minutes 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. Makes no difference if he knew he was there. Makes no difference what height it was at. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 If that is the new rule and it isn't open to interpretation then the Ref and me are wrong. Simple! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Im not quoting the referees handbook for fun. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 12 minutes ago, the gunslinger said: Im not quoting the referees handbook for fun. Then the ref did get it wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, pete said: Then the ref did get it wrong. And so did you. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, pete said: Then the ref did get it wrong. He did. As did the one with mcgregor probably. But the inconsistency of the compliance officer remains...... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, barca72 said: And so did you. Yes but that doesn't make your argument right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 15 minutes ago, pete said: Yes but that doesn't make your argument right. Well let's just say it's more right than the wrong decision from the ref and you. However, the real point remains cloudy. Which is the SFA's attempt to keep their compliance procedure and the rules of the game clear for the paying public to accept unreservedly. Take the comparison between the Collum incident with Candeias and these last two incidents. In the Candeias incident they were trying to back their ref's decision as being correct, whereas in these last two they are saying that their refs were in effect derelict in the execution of their duties and therefore the CO had to impose bans. How can anybody agree on anything and consider the treatment handed out by the compliance procedure as being fair when there is this kind of confusion. These are only incidents with Rangers, include the other teams and the whole thing becomes a debacle. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 13 minutes ago, barca72 said: Well let's just say it's more right than the wrong decision from the ref and you. However, the real point remains cloudy. Which is the SFA's attempt to keep their compliance procedure and the rules of the game clear for the paying public to accept unreservedly. Take the comparison between the Collum incident with Candeias and these last two incidents. In the Candeias incident they were trying to back their ref's decision as being correct, whereas in these last two they are saying that their refs were in effect derelict in the execution of their duties and therefore the CO had to impose bans. How can anybody agree on anything and consider the treatment handed out by the compliance procedure as being fair when there is this kind of confusion. These are only incidents with Rangers, include the other teams and the whole thing becomes a debacle. I personally still don't think it should be a red card and will admit I don't read the rule book every day. The biggest problem is that the referee then doesn't know a basic rule. Lets face it if the refs know what they are doing then we don't need a CO. Role on VAR! 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.