That “challenge” on Jack

[MarzM 1,368]

Cunts on the sheep shaggers forum have a pic of Jack being taken away in an ambulance...Cunts. I hope it is just a precaution and he's alright.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 55,399]

35 minutes ago, Inigo said:

To take it to extremes...So if he pulls Windass at one end of the box and the ball is on the opposite end of the box, is that a red card?

Whether there is an actual opportunity is as fundamental to whether it's red as whether there was a genuine attempt to get the ball.

If the ref felt one or more red shirts would get to the ball first, before Windass would get to the ball to shoot, then it's not a clear chance so whether it's the fouling player had a genuine attempt to get the ball or not doesn't matter.

If it's a real goal scoring opportunity is the point.

The ball was close enough, it was headed close to Windass, and the defender made the decision he did for a reason.

The double jeopardy rule is clear so as not to double penalise where a genuine attempt is made to play the ball. No penalty and red card IF the attempt was genuine.

So was the attempt genuine? No.

Was it a goal scoring opportunity? Undoubtedly.

Red card is the ONLY card available to refs in such circumstances.. 

Fuck all to do with players at opposite ends of boxes, all to do with rules and regulations.

[Inigo 33,338]

1 minute ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

If it's a real goal scoring opportunity is the point.

The ball was close enough, it was headed close to Windass, and the defender made the decision he did for a reason.

The double jeopardy rule is clear so as not to double impede where a genuine attempt is made to play the ball. No penalty and red card IF the attempt was genuine.

So was the attempt genuine? No.

Was it a goal scoring opportunity? Undoubtedly.

Red card is the ONLY card available to refs in such circumstances.. 

Fuck all to do with players at opposite ends of boxes, all to do with rules and regulations.

It's only a real opportunity if the ref thinks Windass is getting to the ball first. If he thinks not, or doubts it, then he's entitled to think it isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity. Whether the player thought it was or not is irrelevant. 

It's everything to do with opposite ends of the box. Because it's about how you interpret rules and regulations.

Pen and yellow.

[pcbear 10,932]

That's Jack been assaulted twice on the field of play Kipres meditated lunge resulting in missing loads of games and pikey Mays oops elbow to the head, not a card between them, Morelos silly wee kick = get off right now.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 55,399]

13 minutes ago, Inigo said:

It's only a real opportunity if the ref thinks Windass is getting to the ball first. If he thinks not, or doubts it, then he's entitled to think it isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity. Whether the player thought it was or not is irrelevant. 

It's everything to do with opposite ends of the box. Because it's about how you interpret rules and regulations.

Pen and yellow.

Just like anything is only anything if the ref thinks it is.

It's undeniable Windass was in a position to reach the ball first. This is the crux of the matter, and one I'd say is typical of dubious ones not in our favour.

Do YOU think Windass was in an opportunity, not even favourite, to reach the ball 1st? If so, it's a red.

When you start arguing about opposite ends of the box it appears you're trying too hard to find reasons/ excuses. Of which there are none.

It's a penalty for yanking back a player yards from a ball he was going to and likely to reach. Straight red, penalty.

[kaiser1041 9,107]

Jack dominated that game 

[cb72 105]

That had better just be precautionary, he is an integral part of our midfield and showed that today. Crazy to think this might be his second serious injury  as a result of the hammer throwers which attempt to call themselves footballers in this league. Surely referees need to punish these thugs to deter them from doing this.

[Iggy666 2,967]

2 hours ago, scottyc06 said:

Again though, it wasn’t given! 

Arfield stood still while getting his shirt pulled & squared up to - yellow card! 

Goldson, an ariel challenge, with no intent to hit the player - yellow card! 

That team of officials were fucking stinking today!! 

Well tarriers are known for their lack of hygiene. 

[kaiser1041 9,107]

On another note if it’s concussion he’s out of Thursday 

[Blue Avenger 22,569]

42 minutes ago, piperpete said:

Feck that what sort of ban would our player get for stabbing him ?

Who said I wanted our player to stab him?

A few of our players should have went for him Souness style. That cunt needs targetted on his visit to Ibrox.

The cowardly bastard still needs stabbed. That was a bad one.

[SJGF5 38]

25 minutes ago, Inigo said:

It's not Ball that's the likely contender for getting there first. It's the other two sheep. 

Me? I think Windass would have been there first, just. Is there enough doubt though? Probably. Especially at real time without replays.

The other two sheep who got there after Ball?

It actually looks closer than it is when slowed down/replayed, in real time it's even clearer Windass would have had a tap-in.

[BigDak 851]

3 hours ago, scottyc06 said:

Again though, it wasn’t given! 

Arfield stood still while getting his shirt pulled & squared up to - yellow card! 

Goldson, an ariel challenge, with no intent to hit the player - yellow card! 

That team of officials were fucking stinking today!! 

This is my complaint about the ref. How can you give Arfield a yellow for getting grabbed by his shirt and Goldson a yellow for shouting something at somebody? This is the problem with Scottish refs they’re so incompetent that it actually starts to verge on bias.

I’d have no problem with Morelos getting sent off if he’d also sent of that prick Devlin for grabbing Arfield. Instead he gives him a yellow and throws in the mandatory yellow for the other player involved in the handbags even when it was in no way warranted.

To be fair, I thought the refs general decision making was alright but these particular points are so inconsistent it looks like there’s a bias.

[Inigo 33,338]

7 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Just like anything is only anything if the ref thinks it is.

It's undeniable Windass was in a position to reach the ball first. This is the crux of the matter, and one I'd say is typical of dubious ones not in our favour.

Do YOU think Windass was in an opportunity, not even favourite, to reach the ball 1st? If so, it's a red.

When you start arguing about opposite ends of the box it appears you're trying too hard to find reasons/ excuses. Of which there are none.

It's a penalty for yanking back a player yards from a ball he was going to and likely to reach. Straight red, penalty.

Is it? I don't think it's undeniable at all. I don't know if he had the opportunity to get there first. Depends on how fast he is and how fast they are and who was closer. It's not clear at real time. Therefore neither is it clear that he had a goalscoring opportunity. Same way as if it was outside the box, he was yanked down but there was a covering player that could have been getting to the ball first. It's enough to allow the ref to say it wasn't a clear goalscoring chance.

Look at it this way. If play had gone on without a foul what could have happened? Windass could have made it first and shot. Goalscoring opportunity because Windass was shown to have been in a position to get an effort in. Aberdeen player got there first and cleared it. Wasn't a goalscoring opportunity, because turns out Windass was not in a position to be getting an effort in. So if the ref thinks he's unsure about which of the above is going to happen, he can't say whether it's a clear chance or not.

The opposite ends of the box thing is nothing to do with trying too hard, it's demonstrating the point in the most obvious terms, which I felt I had to as people kept replying to me discussing the 'having an opportunity' point with the 'genuine attempt to get the ball' legislation, which wasn't relevant to my argument as to why it wasn't a red.

[Inigo 33,338]

23 minutes ago, SJGF5 said:

The other two sheep who got there after Ball?

It actually looks closer than it is when slowed down/replayed, in real time it's even clearer Windass would have had a tap-in.

Did they? Don't remember that tbh. I'll have a look at it again with the pause button in hand tonight.

[SJGF5 38]

5 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Did they? Don't remember that tbh. I'll have a look at it again with the pause button in hand tonight.

I'll save you some time. That's the moment Windass (who would have been in front of Ball) would have been tapping it into the net... 

[Inigo 33,338]

3 minutes ago, SJGF5 said:

I'll save you some time. That's the moment Windass (who would have been in front of Ball) would have been tapping it into the net... 

Screenshots aren't the best thing for judging a decision. Usually need context. 

I can't see the ball in this one anyway, so it's academic.

[geneva_ger 9,682]

3 hours ago, Inigo said:

Thought Morelos was red and May was yellow, so no.

Got to disagree with you there. Morelos Red ?

[Inigo 33,338]

Just now, geneva_ger said:

Got to disagree with you there. Morelos Red ?

Yes, I think it was.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 55,399]

31 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Is it? I don't think it's undeniable at all. I don't know if he had the opportunity to get there first. Depends on how fast he is and how fast they are and who was closer. It's not clear at real time. Therefore neither is it clear that he had a goalscoring opportunity. Same way as if it was outside the box, he was yanked down but there was a covering player that could have been getting to the ball first. It's enough to allow the ref to say it wasn't a clear goalscoring chance.

Look at it this way. If play had gone on without a foul what could have happened? Windass could have made it first and shot. Goalscoring opportunity because Windass was shown to have been in a position to get an effort in. Aberdeen player got there first and cleared it. Wasn't a goalscoring opportunity, because turns out Windass was not in a position to be getting an effort in. So if the ref thinks he's unsure about which of the above is going to happen, he can't say whether it's a clear chance or not.

The opposite ends of the box thing is nothing to do with trying too hard, it's demonstrating the point in the most obvious terms, which I felt I had to as people kept replying to me discussing the 'having an opportunity' point with the 'genuine attempt to get the ball' legislation, which wasn't relevant to my argument as to why it wasn't a red.

Look forward to seeing the first clips of how close Windass  was. Not that I'm in doubt, should just help those who missed the key point in the game..

Good luck too at your new Head of Refereeing position, you should do well mate.

[SJGF5 38]

4 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Screenshots aren't the best thing for judging a decision. Usually need context. 

I can't see the ball in this one anyway, so it's academic.

It's fairly obvious it's about 6inches away from Coulibaly's foot, just in front of Ball. As I say though, this is the moment (at the latest) Windass would have been taking his strike. So regardless of whether you can see the ball or not there is no way any Aberdeen player was getting close to challenging/stopping him. 

[geneva_ger 9,682]

4 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Yes, I think it was.

I respect your comments normally but ffs he was drawn in to that but the previous wasn't spotted. Fucking jesus fuck. Cause and effect?

[BlueThunder 8,639]

1 hour ago, pcbear said:

That's Jack been assaulted twice on the field of play Kipres meditated lunge resulting in missing loads of games and pikey Mays oops elbow to the head, not a card between them, Morelos silly wee kick = get off right now.

Stevie May will be praying he isn't a pick for future fixtures. Someone will be out to get him.

[Inigo 33,338]

4 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Look forward to seeing the first clips of how close Windass  was. Not that I'm in doubt, should just help those who missed the key point in the game..

Good luck too at your new Head of Refereeing position, you should do well mate.

The principles we were discussing stand either way. Pretty sure you're no in much of a position to judge if I'd be any good or not.

[Inigo 33,338]

4 minutes ago, geneva_ger said:

I respect your comments normally but ffs he was drawn in to that but the previous wasn't spotted. Fucking jesus fuck. Cause and effect?

You say that as if you're allowed to kick someone in retaliation to a barge.

[gmcf 35,425]

3 hours ago, Inigo said:

I think tgere was enough red strips en-route to the ball to put an element of doubt as to a 'clear goalscoring chance'. Can see why it wasn't red, but should be at least yellow.

I might have to see it again but to me Windass is getting the ball , I do however think there may have been enough defenders to have blocked the shot for it to be a clear goal scoring opportunity .