Turnberry18 3,204 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Big Al II said: That's so untrue. What is? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,230 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said: What is? That a red card is only for a deliberate foul. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, Big Al II said: That a red card is only for a deliberate foul. What else is it for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,230 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Turnberry18 said: What else is it for? Endangering a player, serious violent conduct, etc, etc, as very well defined in the SFA rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeIsBlue 66,549 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 I genuinely don't know if those who are saying it was a terrible challenge definite red etc are taking the piss Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goianegra 4,680 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 49 minutes ago, THE_MIGHTY_BEARS said: We don't know much about these appeals panels but it sounds to me like they just get a random group of guys in a room and ask them to make a decision. Depending on their allegiances you either get a favourable decision or you don't. It's fucking mental. I genuinely believe they don't even review some of the incidents, some of them are THAT bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, Big Al II said: Endangering a player, serious violent conduct, etc, etc, as very well defined in the SFA rules. Ah okay, so what I said wasn't "untrue" after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianferguson 2,619 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 45 minutes ago, DMax399 said: They should pass the details to the English FA and ask that an independent panel, selected by them reviews all disciplinary matters. The system up here is flawed, and cannot be trusted. Add to that, the routine incompetence of many of the so called top referees we have, and it is a farce of epic proportions. Dermott Gallacher has no dog in this fight and said RED. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo 32,526 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said: I genuinely don't know if those who are saying it was a terrible challenge definite red etc are taking the piss Genuinely genuine. 110 percent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo 32,526 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 That's probably not going to help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Inigo said: Genuinely genuine. 110 percent. The funny part was where you suggested, much earlier in the thread, that Jack should have attempted to make a pass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,230 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said: Ah okay, so what I said wasn't "untrue" after all. Not in the context you said it can't believe you said it isn't a sending off because it wasn't a deliberate foul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluegeneBop 157 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, ianferguson said: Dermott Gallacher has no dog in this fight and said RED. I'm sure he's a scum supporter. So maybe not a neutral opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromff 19 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, ianferguson said: Dermott Gallacher has no dog in this fight and said RED. He said no doubt whatsoever. The Rangers friendly bein sports panel winced at it and said it was 1000% red. I thought people were at it when this denial it was a red started he nearly took his foot off. You can't endanger an opponent like that. It's on Jack to avoid doing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR 1,480 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 I want it rescinded just for the inevitable timplosion and mutton-meltdown. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo 32,526 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said: The funny part was where you suggested, much earlier in the thread, that Jack should have attempted to make a pass. Should have. A sensible pass without any nonsense that would get him in trouble. Or something else without nonsense that gets him into trouble. Isn't intended as being funny but if it makes you happy that's a bonus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, Inigo said: Should have. A sensible pass without any nonsense that would get him in trouble. Or something else without nonsense that gets him into trouble. Isn't intended as being funny but if it makes you happy that's a bonus. I wouldn't say it made me happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo 32,526 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, Turnberry18 said: I wouldn't say it made me happy. Lol. Ah well, you can't win 'em all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianferguson 2,619 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, BluegeneBop said: I'm sure he's a scum supporter. So maybe not a neutral opinion. Paranoia ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverAndEver 71,302 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, bannedfromff said: He said no doubt whatsoever. The Rangers friendly bein sports panel winced at it and said it was 1000% red. I thought people were at it when this denial it was a red started he nearly took his foot off. You can't endanger an opponent like that. It's on Jack to avoid doing it. To avoid doing something he never meant? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giffnockger 4,840 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Ryan Jack is a fuckin protestant !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Sheep 55 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 45 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said: How come he gets the ball first then? In other words he knew his opponent would pull away? Tackles like that will only really ever happen in the middle of the park, and on a regular basis; it is hardly conclusive that Jack goes beyond the sole intention of getting the ball. This was not a deliberate tackle to hurt May. The last thing he would have wanted was to get sent off against Aberdeen of all teams. He would have loved to be on the pitch at the end to celebrate with the Rangers fans for sure. He is Defo not a dirty player , just likes a tackle and not afraid to get stuck in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, Blue Sheep said: This was not a deliberate tackle to hurt May. The last thing he would have wanted was to get sent off against Aberdeen of all teams. He would have loved to be on the pitch at the end to celebrate with the Rangers fans for sure. He is Defo not a dirty player , just likes a tackle and not afraid to get stuck in. Agreed, and the rest of your post is good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coopsleftboot 5,512 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Anyone that's played any football at any level knows that when you go in for a tackle at pace, using the side of your foot, then there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop the follow through in the millisecond it happens. And if he'd tried to do what May did (shite it), chances are he'd have got injured himself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromff 19 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 14 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said: To avoid doing something he never meant? Yes. It's on Jack to not break his leg, whether deliberately or carelessly. If May's leg is going to be there, Jack has to anticipate that and avoid putting his studs through it. It's a simple concept that's been understood and explained by every referee pundit that's looked at it. Jack must go into the collision differently. It's extremely unfortunate where May's leg has ended up and how it was planted. Quite simply, if May had done the same to Jack not a single person on here would be defending it and we all know it. It's extreme blinkers. Contrary to the repeated line that May shited it, he didn't, he was late to the collision and put his foot out for a 50/50. Jack went in full blooded for a 70/30. Jack injured may. Sending off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.