barca72 440 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, pete said: 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! Oh God, no. All they will do with that is cause another debacle, except in slo-mo !! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 13 hours ago, pete said: So we can rule out all overhead kicks from the game then. The guy was following the ball and tried to bring it down out the air. I don't believe he even knew Jack was there. Funny how people think it is okay for McGregor to come in with a straight leg and studs showing under the name of protecting himself. Sorry to upset the apple cart but I think the referee and SFA have got this spot on. Giving a red card to Power for a dangerous challenge doesn't imply all high feet warrant a red card. Only when it is dangerous. Also, McGregor didn't come out with a straight leg. Power did though. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 hours ago, pete said: Craig look at the position\height of the ball and the way he is facing. It has come over his head from the back there is no way he could have headed that. If there is a new rule now about feet at head height is red then that is one thing but imo this was totally unintentional and dangerous play so a yellow card. I know that taking the player after the ball is now an offence but is almost always met with a yellow card. Look at Pete. So bereft of modesty that he claims to read the mind of a football player. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 22 minutes ago, pete said: 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![sic] The compliance officer has made Scottish Football worse and I think that VAR will also make it worse. One of the problems with the compliance officer is that the criteria for citation is unclear. I'm sure that in a previous rulebook it specifically mentioned that incidents that lead to criticism among the press and public will be cited. If that is the case then we don't need much imagination to see how the system can fail. If broadcasters, newspapers or social media contain a lot of criticism for certain incidents then those incidents will lead to citations. This puts a lot of power into the hands of the media. It also guarantees that big teams will be treated differently to small teams. When someone tries to implement VAR it will require cameras. The cameras will probably be provided by a broadcaster and the production team will have control over which footage is made available to the referee. In addition to that producers will be able to decide to follow particular players around with numerous cameras during the match. Again, this puts a lot of power into the hands of the media. The media are completely unaccountable at present. This is why they can do and say whatever they like. Why let them play such an important role in our game? The introduction of a compliance officer is a textbook example of why more bureaucracy rarely improves anything. We would be much better off if we all accepted that the referee will make mistakes and that his, or her, decision is final. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,429 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 There is only 1 reason Power got off with a yellow card, and that is simply that he would miss the replay. Had Killie been eliminated, or indeed had they got through, this would have been properly reclassified as a red. The bheasts in and around the mhedia have been gunning for McGregor since day 1, more so given he was keeping us in games in the early weeks of the season and was our most consistent player, so having already failed with one attempt to get AM done earlier in the season, there was massive pressure on the CO to convict this time round. The fact it was identical to Browns lunge at Morelos at Ibrox was irrelevant. You couldn’t give them a brass neck with a blow torch and with a fully compliant press, tv and radio all singing the soldiers song alongside, the kangaroo court was in full session. Operation “nothingmuststoptheten” is in full flow. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 2 hours ago, ranger_syntax said: Giving a red card to Power for a dangerous challenge doesn't imply all high feet warrant a red card. Only when it is dangerous. Also, McGregor didn't come out with a straight leg. Power did though. 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 6 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 must have problems with your eyesight. His leg is clearly bent and contact is made on the shin guard. That is to say the shin guard that he is wearing on his shin. Not the shin guard that he is wearing on his knee. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said: You must have problems with your eyesight. His leg is clearly bent and contact is made on the shin guard. That is to say the shin guard that he is wearing on his shin. Not the shin guard that he is wearing on his knee. 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 17 minutes 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. I'm not arguing about the meaning of anything. The empirically verifiable facts are not as you say. The S.F.A. will not publish such a memo but feel free to try and distract all you like. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 14 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said: I'm not arguing about the meaning of anything. The empirically verifiable facts are not as you say. The S.F.A. will not publish such a memo but feel free to try and distract all you like. 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. 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.