Ryan Jack Red

[K.A.I 36,183]

Just now, Ryju84 said:

I read what he said... wont quote him because its another debate.

You say Jack leaves a foot in. And i can only speak from personal experience when I say that its not easy to pull out when you dont think you are doing anything wrong.

PLAYER 1 slides in knowing that he is going to be late... he catches PLAYER 2 and is red carded. Cool. Fair.

Or...

PLAYER 1 has the ball passed to him and goes to make a pass. He passes the ball since his team have 100% possession but PLAYER 2 slides in late. Instead of PLAYER 2 catching PLAYER 1 and being red carded... on this occasion PLAYER 1 catches PLAYER 2 (who was in the wrong) l...

 

That’s over analysing what is honestly a simple, clear cut red imo 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, Inigo said:

Aye, strength in itself isn't the issue. It's how you use it. Strong block or a swipe through the ball straight towards the opposition player so that there's a good chance you'll follow through with your studs on his leg.

It was a studded follow through which could and should have been avoided, as I'd hope wains are being taught, because they challenge like that these days they'll get a red. People are told these days that the onus is on them to be under control of their challenges (or passes) so these things don't happen.

You go for the ball and to make sure you don’t get hurt, if the other guy shits it then that’s his problem 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

2 minutes ago, Cobham said:

I can’t believe you think he didn’t leave a foot in. Technically he didn’t leave it in, he deliberately put it there when he didn’t need to. This wasn’t about being strong in a tackle it was about Jack seeing an opportunity because the ball was there and he made a cowards challenge right on to May’s leg. 

For the record I hope it gets rescinded but i’d Be astounded if it did!

A cowards challenge. ??

Absolute nonsense, a coward wouldn’t bother about the ball and just make sure he got the man. 

[SJGF5 38]

8 minutes ago, Cobham said:

He totally lunges after playing the ball. His stand foot comes off the ground which is therefore a lunge and reckless! 

Because players moving with the ball never have both feet off the ground?

[Ryju84 3,170]

Just now, K.A.I said:

That’s over analysing what is honestly a simple, clear cut red imo 

We are gonna have to agree to disagree here.

I dont know you. You dont know me. Its nothing personal.

 

(P.S I hope you enjoy the hospitality at Parkhead next year... )

[Cobham 1,569]

1 minute ago, SJGF5 said:

Because players moving with the ball never have both feet off the ground?

Totally different mate. Jack comes off the ground after the ball is gone to get stronger contact with May. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

5 minutes ago, Cobham said:

Why else would he come off his standing leg? 

Because both players eventually ran into each other. 

[plumbGER 24,518]

18 minutes ago, Inigo said:

 

Great pass if he meant to hit it off May so that it was slightly behind McCrorie.

Maybe he did mean to play it off him, more likely McCrorie wasn't the intended target but more the zone behind May for someone to pick up the ball.

Only person who really knew what his intentions were woukd be Jack himself.

It wasn't wreckless how he passed the ball, there's not a game goes by that the ball doesn't get passed like that, May endangered himself imo.

 

[Inigo 32,534]

3 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

You go for the ball and to make sure you don’t get hurt, if the other guy shits it then that’s his problem 

I think May went for the block challenge and that Jack should have as well. I think Jack chose to go in in a way that would quite likely leave something on the player, whereas May didn't, resulting in May being the one getting injured.

[K.A.I 36,183]

7 minutes ago, Ryju84 said:

We are gonna have to agree to disagree here.

I dont know you. You dont know me. Its nothing personal.

 

(P.S I hope you enjoy the hospitality at Parkhead next year... )

I’ll be in the Rangers end at Parkhead like I always have been every game there since the first day of January in 1994 thanks (with the exception of a forced hiatus last season)

but that will never stop me being honest as I can or calling it like I see it - much prefer it this way than deluding myself 

[Inigo 32,534]

1 minute ago, plumbGER said:

Maybe he did mean to play it off him, more likely McCrorie wasn't the intended target but more the zone behind May for someone to pick up the ball.

Only person who really knew what his intentions were woukd be Jack himself.

It wasn't wreckless how he passed the ball, there's not a game goes by that the ball doesn't get passed like that, May endangered himself imo.

 

So he was trying to pass it pretty much though May? That's also weird.

I don't think he particularly cared where the ball went. I think he wanted to get involved in a rough challenge with May and did it badly.

[Cobham 1,569]

10 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Because both players eventually ran into each other. 

Ok so we disagree, fair enough. But answer me this question honestly....

Brown makes the exact same tackle on McCrorie next old firm game.....you’re totally fine with that?

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

9 minutes ago, Inigo said:

I think May went for the block challenge and that Jack should have as well. I think Jack chose to go in in a way that would quite likely leave something on the player, whereas May didn't, resulting in May being the one getting injured.

If May had went for a block challenge whole heartedly then he would’ve got there the same time as Jack, but he shat it and sadly got what he deserved. 

In fact you could say that Jack went for a block challenge with the side of his foot expecting May to be there at the same time but when May shat it there was nothing he could do to stop the follow through. 

[Inigo 32,534]

3 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

If May had went for a block challenge whole heartedly then he would’ve got there the same time as Jack, but he shat it and sadly got what he deserved. 

Disagree. May went in as players do now, Jack went in excessively as you could 30 years ago. That's why May was injured.

[Ryju84 3,170]

5 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I’ll be in the Rangers end at Parkhead like I always have been every game there since the first day of January in 1994 thanks (with the exception of a forced hiatus last season)

but that will never stop me being honest as I can or calling it like I see it - much prefer it this way than deluding myself 

On this occasion I am not deluding myself. This is not about blue tinted specs or anything. I don't think it was a red.

If Jack received a yellow for a bad challenge in the 10th minute... then a second yellow for throwing the ball away in anger towards the ref then yeah, I would be annoyed, agree with the cards, and not deluded.

I made a joke about you being at Parkhead... partially curious as to why you missed last season.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

4 minutes ago, Cobham said:

Ok so we disagree, fair enough. But answer me this question honestly....

Brown makes the exact same tackle on McCrorie next old firm game.....you’re totally fine with that?

Won’t happen because McCrorie won’t shit it. 

And when all said and done if May hadn’t shat it we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, Inigo said:

Disagree. May went in as players do now, Jack went in excessively as you could 30 years ago. That's why May was injured.

Well will have to disagree on what May did or didn’t do. 

In my eyes he shat it and if he had went wholeheartedly for the ball both would’ve got there at the same time and no one gets hurt. 

[Cobham 1,569]

3 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Won’t happen because McCrorie won’t shit it. 

And when all said and done if May hadn’t shat it we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 

May didn’t go in as strongly as Jack but I don’t think he shat it. Everyone is saying how he shat out of a 50/50.....

the First 50/50 or the second one here? No where near a 50/50  

 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, Cobham said:

May didn’t go in as strongly as Jack but I don’t think he shat it. Everyone is saying how he shat out of a 50/50.....

the First 50/50 or the second one here? No where near a 50/50  

 

It’s not a 50/50 by then because May has already decided I’m not having any of this and try’s to save face by half heartedly putting a foot in and gets hurt. 

[plumbGER 24,518]

12 minutes ago, Inigo said:

So he was trying to pass it pretty much though May? That's also weird.

I don't think he particularly cared where the ball went. I think he wanted to get involved in a rough challenge with May and did it badly.

I actually think he tried to play it to the side of May as it bounced off his leg i think, i certainly don't think he intended to blast it off him.

That's the thing though mate, you can only "think" that but only Jack himself knows what his intention was, so if he pleads his case saying he was intending to play the pass and looked away after playing the ball thinking May had backed out (which he did) then i think that should be enough to get him off though i am not sure how these things work? Does the burden of proof lie with Jack or the disciplinary panel?

[Inigo 32,534]

Just now, plumbGER said:

I actually think he tried to play it to the side of May as it bounced off his leg i think, i certainly don't think he intended to blast it off him.

That's the thing though mate, you can only "think" that but only Jack himself knows what his intention was, so if he pleads his case saying he was intending to play the pass and looked away after playing the ball thinking May had backed out (which he did) then i think that should be enough to get him off though i am not sure how these things work? Does the burden of proof lie with Jack or the disciplinary panel?

Obviously, my man. Same for you.

He pleads his case and people will look at it and say 'you ended up studding someone, it didn't need to happen, you were dangerous, you have responsibility in that circumstance for where your leg goes', motivation isn't what's the important thing in the case'. The panel only really needs to decide if it's dangerous, reckless or whatever else. They don't need to know what Jack was thinking. If they decide that regardless of what he was thinking he should have been more careful and that it was a dangerous challenge in the way he executed it, then it'll stand, which is what I think they will.

There's not a chance it's getting rescinded IMO.  

[eejay the dj 31,964]

1 minute ago, Inigo said:

 

There's not a chance it's getting rescinded IMO.  

I think you will be wrong mate

However it won't be because they want to

[plumbGER 24,518]

27 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Obviously, my man. Same for you.

He pleads his case and people will look at it and say 'you ended up studding someone, it didn't need to happen, you were dangerous, you have responsibility in that circumstance for where your leg goes', motivation isn't what's the important thing in the case'. The panel only really needs to decide if it's dangerous, reckless or whatever else. They don't need to know what Jack was thinking. If they decide that regardless of what he was thinking he should have been more careful and that it was a dangerous challenge in the way he executed it, then it'll stand, which is what I think they will.

There's not a chance it's getting rescinded IMO.  

It will be interesting to hear the verdict, what Jack done happens regularly in the game without punishment, the lego boy is good for that sort of thing, wonder if we will see consistency? I have my doubts.

[dummiesoot 16,006]

41 minutes ago, Cobham said:

Why else would he come off his standing leg? 

Balance? As far as I am aware Ryan Jack is not a flamingo

[The Godfather 71,899]

Just now, eejay the dj said:

I think you will be wrong mate

However it won't be because they want to

I don't see how they can though mate.

They won' t look at the lead up to it they will just focus on what the referee put down in his report and that is a studs up challenge on a player - Dangerous play. The footage they will show will back that up.

There was no intent or maliciousness in it at all and when taking in how it played out I don't think it's as bad as they are making out. Not a chance a panel will over turn it.