Jump to content

Why Garners Yellow was 101% right


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, RFCRobertson said:

You can see here as Imrie has the ball Garner is already starting to swing his leg

http://i.imgur.com/gs2zpiI.jpg

and again here you can see it further in motion, the ball still at Imries foot with Garner about to make contact with it

http://i.imgur.com/nPAMk4w.jpg

but as you see here, Imrie has nudged the ball away

http://i.imgur.com/d6uLtu8.jpg

Garners foot is in full swing and can't back out of it now and now there's only one way it's ending. You can actually see Imrie brace for the impact.

as a result, Imrie get's skelp in the arse by Garner

http://i.imgur.com/tk9bpG4.jpg

So honestly, it's a reckless challenge and in the rule book a reckless challenge is typically a yellow.

Going by the checklist for a red

Guilty of serious foul play. No I wouldn't say so, Garner clearly makes a play for the ball and imrie puts the ball away. There was intent to kick the ball out but not Imrie.

Violent Conduct. Now getting kicked in the arse is by most peoples standards violent, however it's the intent that is key here. If Garner deliberately does it, like jumps up in the air and elbows him after looking to see he was there, then that would be violent conduct. However a mistimed tackle doesn't constitute as that unless it's a very damaging injury that is a result (like a mistimed kick gouging someones eye out)

Spits on an opponent. Self explanatory.

Denies the opposing team a goal scoring opportunity. Again self explanatory and not applicable.

Uses offensive language. Imrie would've gotten red carded for this to be honest lol

receivers a second yellow. Self explanatory.

So taking all that into account, yellow for me is the correct decision given the circumstances of the kick. There wasn't any intent to harm imrie and Garner was aiming for the ball. Imrie knocking the ball out the way is ultimately what caused it.

So what I'm saying is is imrie should've been red cardes for foul language :whistle:

convinced me, you're the ref for Sunday

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Rangers striker Joe Garner belongs in a UFC cage for that challenge on me, says Dougie Imrie

Dougie Imrie last night claimed Joe Garner’s tackle on him at Ibrox belonged in a UFC cage fight, not a football game.

The Rangers striker hit a hat-trick in a 6-0 win over Hamilton yesterday that booked their Scottish Cup semi-final spot.

But the Accies playmaker insists Garner should have been sent off for a challenge he described as a “leg-breaker”.

Match ref John Beaton also came under heavy fire for missing a clear red card for Rangers keeper Wes Foderingham, for handling outside the box, and gifting Gers a soft penalty to score first.

Imrie fumed: “Should Garner be on the park for his hat-trick? In my opinion, no. I don’t know if we are in the UFC.

“Are we in the UFC? It’s disappointing.

“You either get it or you don’t. It was nearly a leg breaker as he caught me quite high. If that was me or Darian MacKinnon, then we’re off the park.

“The linesman is four yards away, the ref is five.

“These decisions change games. It’s disappointing they’re so close and don’t get it correct."

“Garner went on to score a hat-trick. If he was sent off then he doesn’t score three goals – and who’s to say we can’t get something out of the game if they’re down to 10 men?”

Imrie was also raging at Rangers’ penalty award that started the rout.

He said: “Jon Toral went to shoot and kicked the ground. He falls down and the ref gives a penalty.

“And Foderingham was outside the box (when he handled). We can’t put aside the 6-0 but decisions went against us and we are bitterly disappointed.”

Garner insists he didn’t deserve a red. He said: “I’ve watched it back and I didn’t make too much contact.

“If Imrie’s says it’s a UFC challenge, I’d say watch it back. I went in to tackle him and he's taken a decent touch around me.”

Stand-in Ibrox boss Graeme Murty admits he was worried: “When it happened I thought: ‘God, what’s he done?’

“It was more clumsy than malicious but I can see how it might have looked dangerous and could have put us in a bad situation.”

Dougie's fuming 

:mutley::garner:

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, EastEnclosureBear said:

Rangers striker Joe Garner belongs in a UFC cage for that challenge on me, says Dougie Imrie

Dougie Imrie last night claimed Joe Garner’s tackle on him at Ibrox belonged in a UFC cage fight, not a football game.

The Rangers striker hit a hat-trick in a 6-0 win over Hamilton yesterday that booked their Scottish Cup semi-final spot.

But the Accies playmaker insists Garner should have been sent off for a challenge he described as a “leg-breaker”.

Match ref John Beaton also came under heavy fire for missing a clear red card for Rangers keeper Wes Foderingham, for handling outside the box, and gifting Gers a soft penalty to score first.

Imrie fumed: “Should Garner be on the park for his hat-trick? In my opinion, no. I don’t know if we are in the UFC.

“Are we in the UFC? It’s disappointing.

“You either get it or you don’t. It was nearly a leg breaker as he caught me quite high. If that was me or Darian MacKinnon, then we’re off the park.

“The linesman is four yards away, the ref is five.

“These decisions change games. It’s disappointing they’re so close and don’t get it correct."

“Garner went on to score a hat-trick. If he was sent off then he doesn’t score three goals – and who’s to say we can’t get something out of the game if they’re down to 10 men?”

Imrie was also raging at Rangers’ penalty award that started the rout.

He said: “Jon Toral went to shoot and kicked the ground. He falls down and the ref gives a penalty.

“And Foderingham was outside the box (when he handled). We can’t put aside the 6-0 but decisions went against us and we are bitterly disappointed.”

Garner insists he didn’t deserve a red. He said: “I’ve watched it back and I didn’t make too much contact.

“If Imrie’s says it’s a UFC challenge, I’d say watch it back. I went in to tackle him and he's taken a decent touch around me.”

Stand-in Ibrox boss Graeme Murty admits he was worried: “When it happened I thought: ‘God, what’s he done?’

“It was more clumsy than malicious but I can see how it might have looked dangerous and could have put us in a bad situation.”

Dougie's fuming 

:mutley::garner:

:violin::violin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

He made a genuine attempt to boot the ball out the park and clatter Imrie, making it a good challenge and one that makes the fans happy.

He missed the ball completely and booted Imrie in the arse. How people are calling for it to be a red is beyond me. He wasn't malicious and certainly didn't try to injure the player. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dickhead Walker comments about the Toral penalty "very soft there's bodies in front of him" clearly you don't understand the concept of a foul in the box means it's a penalty, even if the other 21 players were between him and the goal. 

Cunt!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Craigyboy9 said:

Dickhead Walker comments about the Toral penalty "very soft there's bodies in front of him" clearly you don't understand the concept of a foul in the box means it's a penalty, even if the other 21 players were between him and the goal. 

Cunt!

 

that prick Michael Stewart was the most hilarious, "he stood on Toral's foot but there was no enough downward pressure to warrant a penalty".  Think he is mixing up his rules and his codes "downward pressure" only applies to the ball and a try in rugby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After the whole "well the lad still had to score it" pish we got when the sheep worriers scored that free-kick that shouldn't have been a free-kick I actually don't care what others have to say.

The same logic applies. Just coz we could have had a man (or two :p:) sent off doesn't mean we would've got beaten or that the "extra" man we had meant we were definitely going to win by 6; we still had to play well and score the goals. Granted it would've been a different game but if we were playing the micks or the sheep we wouldn't have beat them 6-0 with 11 men. Also if Fod had been sent off Garner wouldn't have been. The game wouldn't have continued on the same path as it did, so folk can't say we should've had two men sent off, they have to take their pick of one. Aye they were controversial moments but I can't remember there being the same furore when Gordon fly kicked the guy and should've been off.

At the end of the day let's see this for what it is: the Scottish media wanting to keep us down. The first time all season that we give a team a doin' and they claim it shouldn't have been a penalty ( I see that twat Michael Stewart going on about the pull on Toral's shirt not being strong enough!), that we should've had two men sent off and I've seen Rob McLean commenting that Garner's last was a "gift", what's the need to mention that? Does every goal have to be a world beater? Like Kenny's high looper (against Partick?) that they all downgraded to a fluke? 

Fuck them all. We won, get over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“Are we in the UFC? It’s disappointing.

“You either get it or you don’t. It was nearly a leg breaker as he caught me quite high. If that was me or Darian MacKinnon, then we’re off the park.

---------------------------]

Say it like it is mate, he kicked you in the cornhole

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...